Btw. You'd be surprised how many academics favor the good old publisher system over open access. The exorbitant library fees were always from the general budget. The open access publishing fees get charged to the labs publishing. And yes, often 1 layer down it is all the same government subsidies payed by your tax dollar. But the last layer just sees my dollar vs not my dollar.
Research <> expensive human trials to obtain FDA approval. Voters and legislators are the only ones stopping government employees from doing the necessary human trials.
How would this study’s methodology account for the public benefit from a new vaccine?
Edit: according to ChatGPT, it doesn’t:
> the analysis considers resources such as research funding, scientists' labor, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation. It does not assign an economic value to lives saved, illness prevented, or economic activity preserved by a vaccine
To my understanding the article clearly does not question the academic research itself but the way the results are published and who benefits from (the money returned by) such publications. Or am I misreading it?
Btw. You'd be surprised how many academics favor the good old publisher system over open access. The exorbitant library fees were always from the general budget. The open access publishing fees get charged to the labs publishing. And yes, often 1 layer down it is all the same government subsidies payed by your tax dollar. But the last layer just sees my dollar vs not my dollar.
Governments (the investing public) should be paid royalties.
Shareholders = Public
Research <> expensive human trials to obtain FDA approval. Voters and legislators are the only ones stopping government employees from doing the necessary human trials.
How would this study’s methodology account for the public benefit from a new vaccine?
Edit: according to ChatGPT, it doesn’t:
> the analysis considers resources such as research funding, scientists' labor, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation. It does not assign an economic value to lives saved, illness prevented, or economic activity preserved by a vaccine
To my understanding the article clearly does not question the academic research itself but the way the results are published and who benefits from (the money returned by) such publications. Or am I misreading it?
The headline, at least, is making an comparison between shareholder benefits and public costs.
Why that particular combination? You could just as easily compare private spending and public benefits, and it would make about as much sense.
Maybe better to include both public and private costs and benefits?
not just shareholders, rival nations too