3 ms·

But public funded research isn’t “free to use.” In many cases, you can’t even read it without paying a scientific journal for a subscription. See the Bayh-Dole

• layer8 1y ago
  There’s no reason that couldn’t be changed, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43858568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43858568.
• sanderjd 1y ago
  These aren't contradictory ideas. Governments should fund more research and should also make it free.
• jpeloquin 1y ago
  Publications with public funding have already escaped the paywall, partially as of 2013 and completely as of this year: https://par.nsf.gov/ https://par.nsf.gov/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://ospo.gwu.edu/overview-us-policy-open-access-and-open-data https://ospo.gwu.edu/overview-us-policy-open-access-and-open... https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/accelerating-access-research-results-new-implementation-date-2024-nih-public-access-policy https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statem... https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/ https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/ The intent of the Bayh-Dole Act was to deal with a perceived problem of government-owned patents being investor-unfriendly. At the time the government would only grant non-exclusive licenses, and investors generally want exclusivity. That may have been the actual problem, moreso than who owned the patent. On the other hand, giving the actual inventors an incentive to commercialize their work should increase their productivity and the chance that the inventions actually get used.