8 ms·

To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the

by afpx 9y ago

To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions. That may be a ‘sacrilege’ view here, given the audience of HN. And, in a way, I do feel somewhat nervous of people making decisions based on papers they read without understanding of the philosophy and practice of science. Yet, it’s unavoidable and already being done through popular journalism. With sci-hub (and with some reference books obtained via libgen), science becomes accessible to everyone with basic scientific literacy - a surprising large number of people. I see these two tools together as enablers of a new generation of scientists. For instance, recently I have seen many of my collegues and friends sending me direct links to research papers. That’s crazy and would have never happened just a few years ago. These tools will drive the democratization of science. Just as I now see the religious kids at the coffee shop discussing their scripture, I hope to soon see science kids there discussing classic science papers - doing it not for economic or career reasons, but simply to understand and discover. To me, that’s not an economic issue but one of morality.

frostburg 9y ago
"Basic scientific literacy" is not enough to read most papers (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood). Almost everyone that I know that uses sci-hub does so because it's faster than finding the correct institutional proxy, repository, login credentials, etc. that they would need otherwise (the sci-hub UX is vastly superior).
- jly 9y ago
  The ability of a non-scientist to understand a paper at a useful level varies greatly based on the area of study and the reader's knowledge of the topic. 'Basic scientific literacy' may not be enough, but there are many more individuals with an amateur level of advanced understanding or interest in a given area who benefit greatly. I personally have no institutional access but I read a lot of papers that I can understand with an undergrad level of science background and a keen interest in a specific subject. I'm sure there are many others like this.
  - zipwitch 9y ago
    And let us not forget those who ended up working in wildly different fields from their degree or degrees. Such "cross-pollination" between different fields can be very productive.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
  "Basic scientific Literacy" here probably should include basic understanding of statistics, and knowledge on how to read a journal paper in a foreign scientific domain. You don't have to know the lay of the land in a particular domain to understand the specific claim or methodology outlined, knowing how much it may mean in a domain. . . well that is context determined.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  > (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood) Considering science is a community/social enterprise, it's surprising that such papers are published at all.
Angostura 9y ago
> To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions. I don't think the analogy works. Luthor took a single text and translated it, making it accessible. The fact that it was accessible didn't affect the creation of the text. By contrast "the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions." is an intrinsic part of the creation of the document. It's part of the peer-review essential to the creation of good science. Experts disagreeing on the fundamental nature of the holy trinity is not the same as experts disagreeing on the experimental design behind testing a new category of drugs.
- amenod 9y ago
  Still - I think the analogy is suiting. Martin Luther started a movement which granted common people access to religious texts (by translating them from Latin). Sci-Hub removes other obstacles to access knowledge, but the goal is somewhat similar. This is not to say that peer review and expert validation doesn't have it's place in the process - but it could (should) be done in open, with as many eyes watching as possible. So IMHO anything that denies general public access to scientific work should be removed.
andrepd 9y ago
>she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions >science becomes accessible to everyone with basic scientific literacy The thing is most research papers are simply not accessible to neophytes; you often need to dedicate a significant portion of your life to the study of a given field in order to understand and critically evaluate the latest research in that field. It's not that academics are sitting in a high throne, dictating what is truth and what is not, its that you need to be an academic with many years of formation in order to understand, let alone improve, the research that is being undertaken. A "basic science literacy" isn't enough. Still, it's very positive that, in principle, anyone can grab a book or three of libgen, study hard, become knowledgeable in the field, then grab as many papers as they want off libgen and read and interpret them. That's undoubtedly very positive.
- vsc 9y ago
  >> The thing is most research papers are simply not accessible to neophytes To most neophytes that is. We only need a few of those with recently gained access to turn out to be a dormant Newton or Einstein. Society as a whole gets a better bargain.
  - coolaliasbro 9y ago
    Indeed! And the more neophytes that take the plunge and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the more neophytes there will be to encourage and enable other neophytes to do the same (network effects and whatnot).
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      I agree with your sentiment 100%, but "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" is a phrase that came into existence to MOCK the idea that you can do it all on your own. It's obviously absurd, until it got so common that we use it without thinking. If you need a fresh quip to get the point try: "that poor mother can get by drinking her own milk!"
- 9y ago
coolaliasbro 9y ago
Completely agree. Science is not a published paper about an experiment. It is a community activity, the results of which only improve with increased participation and experimental replication. Anything enabling a greater number of people to participate makes science more science-y.
xamuel 9y ago
It's not just about laymen. There are quite a few PhD-holders working outside academia. Many of them cannot even access their own papers without paying ridiculous fees.
- jhbadger 9y ago
  And even within academia. Big universities can afford to subscribe to thousands of journals; small universities and research institutes can't. When I worked at a research institute I would routinely encounter paywalls trying to access papers.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
  Even within; between funding sources or position switches, you might lose access to your institution's library, or your institution might be small with significant gaps in their subscriptions. Ultimately, Sci-hub is often an easier and more pleasant way to get papers you have legitimate access to. At this point, I don't think there's anyone in my department that doesn't use Sci-hub from time to time. It's basically expected that anyone on filing fees for dissertation writing will use sci-hub rather than go through the hassle of requesting a special library access code (since they're no longer 'paying/earning' tuition). There's no going back.
trs80 9y ago
Why not create an alternative platform where papers can be published for free, by the authors, instead of stealing them and publishing them like warez?
- aeling 9y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341265 - basically, many top-tier journals won't accept papers that are also published in open access journals.
iron0012 9y ago
We scientists WANT (desperately want!) anyone and everyone, experts and neophytes alike, to read and pay attention to our work! The unavailability of scientific research papers is in no way due to snooty scientists restricting the availability of papers to others in the ivory tower. This is on the publishers, who charge massive rent-seeking mark-ups for actually doing very little work and providing very little value in this digital age. It is also on the system of sticks and carrots that prevents many scientists (notably those who do not yet have tenure) from publishing in free and open journals by tying our livelihood to publication in more traditional (non-free, non-open) journals that have high Impact Factors.
sabertoothed 9y ago
> Martin Luther of science Martin Luther was an anti-semite and called for synagogues to be set on fire. Not a good comparison.
DaggerDagger 9y ago
I agree. This is clearly how science should be done for the benefit of humanity. Closed access journals are the "property is theft" of scholarship. Being able to read papers and engage directly with the material is how innovation will happen. If not SciHub then someone else. It was and is just too important of a service not to be the new status quou.

by afpx 9y ago

frostburg 9y ago

"Basic scientific literacy" is not enough to read most papers (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood). Almost everyone that I know that uses sci-hub does so because it's faster than finding the correct institutional proxy, repository, login credentials, etc. that they would need otherwise (the sci-hub UX is vastly superior).

jly 9y ago
The ability of a non-scientist to understand a paper at a useful level varies greatly based on the area of study and the reader's knowledge of the topic. 'Basic scientific literacy' may not be enough, but there are many more individuals with an amateur level of advanced understanding or interest in a given area who benefit greatly. I personally have no institutional access but I read a lot of papers that I can understand with an undergrad level of science background and a keen interest in a specific subject. I'm sure there are many others like this.
- zipwitch 9y ago
  And let us not forget those who ended up working in wildly different fields from their degree or degrees. Such "cross-pollination" between different fields can be very productive.
GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
"Basic scientific Literacy" here probably should include basic understanding of statistics, and knowledge on how to read a journal paper in a foreign scientific domain. You don't have to know the lay of the land in a particular domain to understand the specific claim or methodology outlined, knowing how much it may mean in a domain. . . well that is context determined.
coolaliasbro 9y ago
> (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood) Considering science is a community/social enterprise, it's surprising that such papers are published at all.

Angostura 9y ago

> To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions. I don't think the analogy works. Luthor took a single text and translated it, making it accessible. The fact that it was accessible didn't affect the creation of the text. By contrast "the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions." is an intrinsic part of the creation of the document. It's part of the peer-review essential to the creation of good science. Experts disagreeing on the fundamental nature of the holy trinity is not the same as experts disagreeing on the experimental design behind testing a new category of drugs.

amenod 9y ago
Still - I think the analogy is suiting. Martin Luther started a movement which granted common people access to religious texts (by translating them from Latin). Sci-Hub removes other obstacles to access knowledge, but the goal is somewhat similar. This is not to say that peer review and expert validation doesn't have it's place in the process - but it could (should) be done in open, with as many eyes watching as possible. So IMHO anything that denies general public access to scientific work should be removed.

andrepd 9y ago

>she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions >science becomes accessible to everyone with basic scientific literacy The thing is most research papers are simply not accessible to neophytes; you often need to dedicate a significant portion of your life to the study of a given field in order to understand and critically evaluate the latest research in that field. It's not that academics are sitting in a high throne, dictating what is truth and what is not, its that you need to be an academic with many years of formation in order to understand, let alone improve, the research that is being undertaken. A "basic science literacy" isn't enough. Still, it's very positive that, in principle, anyone can grab a book or three of libgen, study hard, become knowledgeable in the field, then grab as many papers as they want off libgen and read and interpret them. That's undoubtedly very positive.

vsc 9y ago
>> The thing is most research papers are simply not accessible to neophytes To most neophytes that is. We only need a few of those with recently gained access to turn out to be a dormant Newton or Einstein. Society as a whole gets a better bargain.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  Indeed! And the more neophytes that take the plunge and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the more neophytes there will be to encourage and enable other neophytes to do the same (network effects and whatnot).
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    I agree with your sentiment 100%, but "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" is a phrase that came into existence to MOCK the idea that you can do it all on your own. It's obviously absurd, until it got so common that we use it without thinking. If you need a fresh quip to get the point try: "that poor mother can get by drinking her own milk!"
9y ago

coolaliasbro 9y ago

Completely agree. Science is not a published paper about an experiment. It is a community activity, the results of which only improve with increased participation and experimental replication. Anything enabling a greater number of people to participate makes science more science-y.

xamuel 9y ago

It's not just about laymen. There are quite a few PhD-holders working outside academia. Many of them cannot even access their own papers without paying ridiculous fees.

jhbadger 9y ago
And even within academia. Big universities can afford to subscribe to thousands of journals; small universities and research institutes can't. When I worked at a research institute I would routinely encounter paywalls trying to access papers.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
Even within; between funding sources or position switches, you might lose access to your institution's library, or your institution might be small with significant gaps in their subscriptions. Ultimately, Sci-hub is often an easier and more pleasant way to get papers you have legitimate access to. At this point, I don't think there's anyone in my department that doesn't use Sci-hub from time to time. It's basically expected that anyone on filing fees for dissertation writing will use sci-hub rather than go through the hassle of requesting a special library access code (since they're no longer 'paying/earning' tuition). There's no going back.

trs80 9y ago

Why not create an alternative platform where papers can be published for free, by the authors, instead of stealing them and publishing them like warez?

aeling 9y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341265 - basically, many top-tier journals won't accept papers that are also published in open access journals.

iron0012 9y ago

We scientists WANT (desperately want!) anyone and everyone, experts and neophytes alike, to read and pay attention to our work! The unavailability of scientific research papers is in no way due to snooty scientists restricting the availability of papers to others in the ivory tower. This is on the publishers, who charge massive rent-seeking mark-ups for actually doing very little work and providing very little value in this digital age. It is also on the system of sticks and carrots that prevents many scientists (notably those who do not yet have tenure) from publishing in free and open journals by tying our livelihood to publication in more traditional (non-free, non-open) journals that have high Impact Factors.

sabertoothed 9y ago

> Martin Luther of science Martin Luther was an anti-semite and called for synagogues to be set on fire. Not a good comparison.

DaggerDagger 9y ago

I agree. This is clearly how science should be done for the benefit of humanity. Closed access journals are the "property is theft" of scholarship. Being able to read papers and engage directly with the material is how innovation will happen. If not SciHub then someone else. It was and is just too important of a service not to be the new status quou.