[shoggouth]

In my opinion Elsevier and others charging for access to academic publications has held back the advancement of humanity to a lower exponential acceleration into the future at a considerable factor. Think of how cancer could have been cured a decade ago if information was allowed to flow freely from the 50's forward - if anyone could have read scientific publications for free. I have no respect for people that want to protect the moat around information that could be used to advance humanity.

[robwwilliams]

Have to disagree. Almost all researchers have essentially unfettered access to all of biomedical literature. Access to papers is therefore a tertiary annoyance wrt progress in science and the cures for cancers.

What IS a huge problem is the almost complete lack of systematically acquired quantitative data on human health (and diseases) for a very large number (1 million subjects) of diverse humans WITH multiple deep-tissue biopsies (yes, essentially impossible) that srr suitable for multiomics at many ages/stages and across many environments. (Note, we can do this using mice.)

Some specific examples/questions to drive this point home: What is the largest study of mRNA expression in humans? ANSWER: The small but very expensive NUH GTEx study (n max of about 1000 Americans). This study acquired postmortem biopsies for just over 50 tissues. And what is the largest study of protein expression in humans across tissues? Oh sorry, this has never been done although we know proteins are the work-horses of life. What about lipids, metabolites, metagenomics, epigenomics? Sorry again, there is no systematically acquired data at all.

What we have instead is a very large cottage-industry of lab-level studies that are structurally incoherent.

Some brag about the massive biomedical data we have, but it is truly a ghost and most real data evaporates with a few years.

Here is my rant on fundamental data design flaws and fundamental data integration flaws in biomedical research:

Herding Cats: The Sociology of Data Integration https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751652/

[mchinen]

I also think the bottleneck isn't access to the papers today and data access and silos are more important.

But I also think the GP's claim and yours are not incompatible. I wonder how much survivorship bias this has since it only considers those that are able to do research, and not those that would have but ended up doing continuing with another STEM job. We could be asking the counterfactual that I think the GP is implying: would more people have been interested in becoming cancer researchers if publications were open?

We can sort of see the effect because we have scihub now, which basically unlocks journal access for those that are comfortable with it, and I consider it plausibly having a significant effect for the population that have a research background without an academic affiliation. I've met a few biotech startup founders that switched from tech to bio and did self study+scihub outside of the university. The impetus for change I've heard a few times is a loved one got X disease, and I studied it, quit my less impactful tech job to work on bio stuff.

[OJFord]

As much as I'd love open access to academic publications and don't think the current model is great:

> Think of how cancer could have been cured a decade ago if information was allowed to flow freely from the 50's forward

might be a bit fanciful? Unless you're referring to something particular I'm unaware of.

The people best equipped and trained to deliver a cure for cancer (and then some, since it tends not to be particularly field-restricred) do have access.

I think the loss is more likely in engineering (to the publication's science), cheaper methods, more reliably manufacturable versions of lab prototypes, etc.

I doubt there are many people capable of cancer research breakthroughs who don't have access to cancer research, personally.

(And to be clear: I'm not capable of it.)

[enjoylife]

I’ll add that even if the papers we all wanted were more freely accesible, the replication and completeness of their described methods would be another source of slowdown.

[robwwilliams]

Main problem is still just getting good quantitative data and metadata. Most biomedical researchers are motivated to “tell stories”. Few of us care about generating huge mineable data sets.

[instagib]

All of the engineering companies I’ve worked for have not paid for IEEE or any journals. I have to go to the library and maintain membership for IEEE myself then request reimbursement.

The schools I’ve worked with have access to everything I’ve needed. They didn’t advertise it but it’s also free for students.

[azinman2]

Not to mention there is not singular “cancer” - there are many types and they’re all sufficiently different to make the problem much more challenging.

[xhkkffbf]

1) First, most researchers at universities or other institutions have always had unfettered access thanks to a site license. It would be pretty hard to find a real example of a university researcher who couldn't see something.

2) There may be a few researchers who don't have unfettered access. Perhaps they paid $40 for a copy of a paper. Given the high cost of other parts of research labs, I find it hard to believe that any real possibility of curing cancer was halted because someone had to pay $40.

3) It's possible to imagine the opposite being the case. Perhaps someone had a key insight in a clever paper and decided to distribute it for free out of some info-anarchistic impulses. There it would sit in some FTP directory uncrated, unindexed and uncared for. Perhaps the right eyes would find it. Perhaps they wouldn't. Perhaps the cancer researcher would be able to handle all of the LaTeX and FTP chores without slowing down research. Perhaps they would be distracted by sys admin headaches and never make a crucial follow up discovery.

The copyrighted journal system provides curation and organization. Is it wonderful? Nah. Is it better than some ad hoc collection of FTP directories? Yes!

Your opinion may be that this scenario would never happen. In my opinion, this is more likely than your vision.

[jimjimjim]

99%+ of the people doing scientific work in curing cancer have access to all the relevant medical and scientific journals.

[robertlagrant]

You have to not latch on to causes such as "advance humanity" and then justify making people do work for free. We decided a while ago[0] that making people work for free was a bad thing. There is high demand for curing cancer. Every company that tries it will hire scientists and lab techs and large laboratories, and have subscriptions to journals. Do you think all of those people should work for free, in the cause of advancing humanity?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

[lkrubner]

But anyone who needs to see these publications can reach them through libraries. One of the reasons why Elsevier can charge so much is that their customers have been institutions.

[aleph_minus_one]

This depends a lot on the country and the library.

[eru]

Eh, most published research papers are wrong anyway.