3 ms·

I am for open science in general, but I cannot help but worry about how this disincentivizes research funding. Why? If the U.S. did adopt such a policy, then al

I am for open science in general, but I cannot help but worry about how this disincentivizes research funding. Why? If the U.S. did adopt such a policy, then all funded research does not just benefit the United States, but every nation. Nothing wrong with that, but then those other countries may feel that there is less need to fund their own science programs because they can leech off the United State's investment. Other countries might even close access to their science, and they'd receive benefit from our investment, but we would not benefit from theirs. Alternatively, we can take the view that it is not zero sum, that interactions in open science always makes it the rational decision to keep science open and to fund it.

SeanLuke 6y ago
This is a bizarre argument. Are you seriously saying that by not forcing universities to pay a for-profit European publishing conglomerate, the US is disincentivizing research? Countries don't fund research because of what shows up (or not) in scientific journals from other countries that they can somehow glean. They fund researchers to do research in their countries because the trickle-down effect of PhD students, graduate students, prestige, and ultimately spin-off companies and economic benefit that comes from doing so.
PeterisP 6y ago
This has nothing to do with research funding. Money paid for access to papers goes to publishers. It's not like in music where the publishers get the lions' share and the artists get a fraction of that - in academic pubishing, it's 100% to publishers and not a single cent ever of the proceeds goes to authors or reviewers or to funding science programs. And "closed access science" produced by USA is still available to researchers in every country despite the paywalls, all the serious universities have arranged subscriptions, it's just that currently they are paying a large fee to unnecessary middlemen (e.g. Netherlands' Elsevier) for that privilege.
jsilence 6y ago
Very unlikely. There are a lot of other benficial effects from research and applied research, beyond its publications. A well running academic body is also a job motor and entrepreneurship driver. Usually the methods and materials section of papers is so thin that they are hard to replicate anyway. As a nation you'd rather have the scientists than the papers of foreign scientists.
omginternets 6y ago
By that logic we should either stop training scientists or prevent people with Ph.Ds from working for non-US institutions.
hntrader 6y ago
> then all funded research does not just benefit the United States, but every nation This is already the case, since every nation can easily buy access to Elsevier etc.

SeanLuke 6y ago

This is a bizarre argument. Are you seriously saying that by not forcing universities to pay a for-profit European publishing conglomerate, the US is disincentivizing research? Countries don't fund research because of what shows up (or not) in scientific journals from other countries that they can somehow glean. They fund researchers to do research in their countries because the trickle-down effect of PhD students, graduate students, prestige, and ultimately spin-off companies and economic benefit that comes from doing so.

PeterisP 6y ago

This has nothing to do with research funding. Money paid for access to papers goes to publishers. It's not like in music where the publishers get the lions' share and the artists get a fraction of that - in academic pubishing, it's 100% to publishers and not a single cent ever of the proceeds goes to authors or reviewers or to funding science programs. And "closed access science" produced by USA is still available to researchers in every country despite the paywalls, all the serious universities have arranged subscriptions, it's just that currently they are paying a large fee to unnecessary middlemen (e.g. Netherlands' Elsevier) for that privilege.

jsilence 6y ago

Very unlikely. There are a lot of other benficial effects from research and applied research, beyond its publications. A well running academic body is also a job motor and entrepreneurship driver. Usually the methods and materials section of papers is so thin that they are hard to replicate anyway. As a nation you'd rather have the scientists than the papers of foreign scientists.

omginternets 6y ago

By that logic we should either stop training scientists or prevent people with Ph.Ds from working for non-US institutions.

hntrader 6y ago

> then all funded research does not just benefit the United States, but every nation This is already the case, since every nation can easily buy access to Elsevier etc.