RE: The Value of OA

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Peter

The amount of time, money, and energy that has gone into the open 
access debate is peanuts compared to the amount of time, money, 
and energy that has gone into actual cancer research.  The idea 
that promoting open access is somehow retarding progress in 
cancer research is a non-starter.

(Incidentally, the amount of money spent on open access is 
probably no larger than the amount of money spent by funders on 
journal page charges. However, you rarely see anybody question 
how much further we would be if all the money that has gone into 
page charges had instead been applied to actual cancer research!)

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org


-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Banks
Sent: 05 April 2007 01:15
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The Value of OA

John,

I am not sure of the significance of the Rowlands/Nicholas CIBER 
study. Yes, a large number of respondents agreed with the 
statement: "High journal prices make it difficult to access the 
literature," just as a large number of Americans would probably 
agree that "High gas prices make it difficult to travel." But 
agreement with a statement, with no trade-off listed, doesn't 
mean very much alone. Oddly, for researchers there was little 
correlation (indeed, almost an inverse correlation) with the 
statement "I publish in affordable journals," just as there 
likely would not be for Americans with the statement "I take 
public transportation."

In any case, though, the question I am asking is not whether 
problems with access ever exist. Certainly they do. The question 
is, were those barriers to be removed, would we see a sudden 
surge of research, an improvement in clinical practice, or a 
rising tide of patient and public understanding? If not, are 
there other ways the Internet could be used to deliver 
information that would produce more powerful outcomes?

My sense is that the benefits of OA (often described as "vast" or 
"overwhelming") have been wildly exaggerated and the costs 
trivialized. You seem to agree that is time for a far more 
rigorous analysis, and I thank you for tackling it.

In part, I look at this from a personal viewpoint as a person 
with a serious disease. In the US, much of the movement for open 
access on Capitol Hill (see the background on FRPAA, for example) 
has been couched in terms of benefits to patients--that is, 
patients with cancer or diabetes will suddenly be able to access 
and understand new treatments. This is largely nonsense--and has 
enabled legislators like Sen. Cornyn to pretend that they are 
doing something meaningful for patients when the truly meaningful 
thing to do would be to take money from war and apply it to 
health, rather than grossly underfunding medical research.

Extensive information on evidence-based treatments already exists 
through NIH, American Cancer Society, and other reputable 
sources. There are already databases of clinical trials for those 
who wish to opt for experimental treatments. Though there are 
certainly instances of individual patients reading clinical 
trials and making wiser treatment decisions, anecdotes or the 
slim hope that one will find the next Lorenzo's Oil should not be 
the basis of public policy. I wonder how much further we would be 
if all the energy and money that has gone into the open access 
debate had instead been applied to actual cancer research.

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
Fairfax, VA 22030
pbanks@bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com