[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.