Scientific Research and the General Population

My father, mother, and I were discussing the Aaron Swartz case, and we reached some interesting conclusions. I know he comes up a lot, but what he was doing was very important to me. I have been in the academic science field for around 8 years now. I had to take two research methods classes as an undergrad, and I'm set to take one at the graduate level in the coming year. An important part of science is the ability to analyze original research. You are presented with a document that ideally tells you how to recreate the experiment on your own. The authors draw their own conclusions about what the data indicates, but they must present the data uninterpreted in their journal articles.

My parents both hold masters degrees, one in chemistry, and the other in education. My dad attended college in the late 60s and early 70s, my mother attended in the 70s. Obviously, the ability to access scholarly sources has changed quite a bit in the past decades. My parents went to college during a time when any schmuck could walk in to a university library and pull a journal off of the stacks. My dad and his peers used xerox machines to copy the articles that they needed. I believe this violates copyright laws, or at least the signs posted on all university copiers lead me to believe this. My dad stated, "I don't know how the students in the 50s survived without the ability to xerox these papers." Indeed, I must frequently reread and annotate technical writing in order to fully understand the content. Not sure if everyone is like this, though I score high on reading comprehension tests.

My mother said that she continued to access the latest research, via academic journals, throughout her career. She used her own interpretation of original data to offer parents advice on how to deal with atypical learners. But, this was the 80s and 90s, just prior to widespread electronic databases. We tell doctors and dietitians to review original research when consulting patients. Entire units are focused on giving med and dietetics students the skills to effectively analyze research.

We use original research to generate laws that affect the public, yet the public does not have reasonable access to original research. If you are not affiliated with academia, it's very expensive to access these journals. Something like $30 per article. It could be argued that it is expensive to access these journals if you are affiliated with academia, because the cost is reflected in tuition, and the ability to pay university employees.

In the US, and other places I'm sure, tax dollars are used to fund scientific studies. So, we are all paying to fund these studies. Why doesn't every single citizen have reasonable access to this research?

Aaron understood this. He took action, and in the end he raised awareness for the open science movement. I whole heartedly wish things had gone differently. I would trade the gains that he afforded the movement for him to still be alive. But, since that isn't going to happen, let's use his work to further the movement.

My father loves to play devil's advocate, and in doing so we reached a nice compromise. Publishers don't have to offer everything at a loss. But, they could accept a decrease in profit margins, by lowering the cost of access. What if access to an article cost $1.50? Would that be reasonable? With the advent of electronic databases and PDF, publishers don't have to foot the costs of ink, paper, and press production. The user has the right to print the article, but they pay for ink, paper, and printer access. In my experience, this tacks on around $0.75 to the cost. It wouldn't hurt to limit the amount of unneeded paper use to print physical journals. Trees probaby aren't an unlimited resource.

If you are a researcher, consider making your articles open access. Use a platform that allows for this. Figshare is great! http://figshare.com/. You worked hard on your research, you spent hours in LaTeX writing, so share it with the world.

As scientists, we are asked to reference original data. Yet, in the current system, we ask the public to rely on journalist's intereptation of the origninal research. I'm sure, during your undergrad career, you were asked to do an assignment comparing a scientific popular culture article to the original research. I'm sure you know that this system can be misleading. Let's fix this.

I would be quite pleased to see intelligent, civilized discourse on the matter. Please comment with your views. You may alter the views of your peers. If you have a good argument in defense of the current system, this blog would love to hear it.

Disclaimer: The views presented in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of the individuals or organizations mentioned in this blog. If any individual, deceased individual's family or friends, or organization would like their reference removed from this post, please contact me.