Reactions

Opening up the debate

The discussion between Richard J. Roberts and Peter Banks on open access illustrates perfectly the problem with contentious debates (C&EN, March 7, page 37). Both make numerous errors of logic; Banks especially seems to make many unwarranted assumptions unjustified by any evidence. However, much worse than any errors of commission seems to be a glaring error of omission, again, perhaps based on assumptions made by both discussants. A major problem as I see it is that both Roberts and Banks assume that all research is done in academia and paid for by the federal government. They both completely ignore the role of researchers in other environments or the effect of their proposals on those scientists.

Probably the largest group of such scientists consists of those who are toiling away in industry. Some of them are fortunate to be working for large companies such as IBM, which have facilities comparable to those of major universities and whose management is relatively enlightened so that these researchers may publish their work freely. Others, however--probably the majority--work for companies that may be unwilling to pay for any journal subscriptions, and even worse, fear that by publishing their research, their scientists will be giving away all the company secrets. Scientists in such situations have enough trouble getting their work published as it is; imagine the difficulty they would face if the company had to pay $1,500 (or whatever amount was needed) on top of that.

There's another group of scientists that both discussants seem to ignore, and that is the group consisting of independent consultants and self-employed scientists. I don't know how large that group is, but I know it's not zero, since it includes me. I don't get to publish very much research because a good deal of it is done for my clients; time and resource constraints limit what I can write and publish of the little research I do independently. But if I had to pay $1,500 every time I wanted to publish an article, I know it would be a major consideration for whether I would want to publish it or not, since the money would have to come out of my own pocket.

So it is time for both gentlemen to come down from their ivory towers and take a wider view of what the scientific community consists of and whom their arguments are going to impact. The real key to solving the problem lies in the word "contentious." As long as there is contention, the discussion will be argumentative and tend to create more heat than light. We need to replace "contention" with "cooperation," so that both sides get together and find a solution that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the impact to all parties concerned--not just academicians.

Howard L. Mark
Suffern, N.Y.

The opponent to open access, Banks, misses a crucial point. Several of Banks's responses suggest that public access to the literature is something new. For example, he compares open access to universal health care. The public, however, has traditionally had walk-in access to the literature at university libraries. Publishers took that access away in June 2003 by banning libraries from offering the public walk-in access to online journals. Thus, his comparing open access to universal health care is inappropriate because Americans never had universal health care and then had it taken away from them.

Both Roberts and Banks also miss another point regarding how the general public benefits from open access. The segment of the general public that benefits most from access to the literature is nonacademic professionals. Access to the literature benefits unemployed professionals who are trying to keep up with their disciplines and employed professionals trying to transition into jobs in a different area. Anyone who wants to apply for academic positions needs access to the literature to develop a research proposal. By banning public access, publishers have put tenure-track jobs out of reach of those who do not have access to the literature.

I further believe that limiting access to the literature will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. Small businesses and start-ups don't have the financial resources to access the literature, and neither do individual inventors and entrepreneurs.

Roberts and Banks both inappropriately focus the open-access debate on the health sciences. I am a chemist and materials scientist in the semiconductor industry, and the prohibition to public access imposed by publishers has handicapped my career prospects. Many research jobs are moving to Europe and Asia. If my job is sent offshore, it will be difficult to learn of new areas in which I may be able to market my skills without access to the literature.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Unfortunately, I see no imposition on the scientific and publishing communities that would force them to find a creative way to offer cost-effective public access. Until these communities find a solution, perhaps publishers will consider the detrimental effects of their policies on nonacademic professionals and the public in general. I implore them to at least allow university libraries to offer walk-in access to the public until a broader solution is found. This move would simply restore the access that the public traditionally has had.

E. Todd Ryan
Wappingers Falls, N.Y.