Hacker News Reader

Comment by anjc | Hacker News Reader

If your issue is that tax payer money is being stolen then presumably open access should only be granted to citizens of a country, for research arising from academic institutions in that country? Otherwise countries will similarly be stealing tax payer money from one another. Actually, do public libraries get access to Elsevier etc?

View on HN

The presumption you're making is that a country would never spend money for the public good, where that is defined to include the entire human race, rather than just nationals.

Weird assumption! Generally speaking, academic research is considered to be an international, or super-national, cooperative effort in most fields.

> The presumption you're making is that a country would never spend money for the public good

I have just realized that I assume this to be the case. If a government ever does that is simply a collateral effect of their main purpose which is enrichment of the politicans involved in the process.

I don't make this assumption. I simply think OPs argument that research should be open because tax payers have funded it is weak, for the reason I stated, i.e. it implies that non-tax payers should not have access, or conversely, implies that taxpayers in each country should get to decide how this research is distributed, possibly restricting access to non-nationals.

> The presumption you're making is that a country would never spend money for the public good, where that is defined to include the entire human race, rather than just nationals.

I think in general this is the case? Obviously governments budget for foreign aid, and also contribute to collective efforts e.g. climate change or (relevant to this discussion) EU funds such as Horizon 2020. But I don't think any governments do/should consider "the public" as meaning "the entire human race".

1. A->B does not imply !A->!B 2. Government foreign aid is a counterexample

I don't know what's meant to be A and B here. I already listed foreign aid as a counterexample in the post you're replying to.

I think in the grand tradition of western government going all the way back to the greeks there is ample consideration given to the good as it pertains to the entire human race, not just nationals.

Read Nussbaum's book about cosmopolitanism - the introductory chapters provide plenty of evidence that historically speaking, elites have conceived of governments has having at least some obligation to all human beings, regardless of state.

The fact much research is tax-subsidised is one but not the only argument for open public access to scientific research papers. Other arguments argue for broader access.

And tax-based support alone does not argue for closed access to a single country. There are tax-supported activities which aren't limited to benefiting, strictly, any or all of: taxpayers, citizens, or even residents of countries, among the latter foreign aid and cultural support.

The last of which scientific knowledge is an element.

> open access should only be granted to citizens of a country, for research arising from academic institutions in that country?

Fine with me, then countries can sort it out between themselves. Easy, considering way harder things have been done in international academic efforts.

> Actually, do public libraries get access to Elsevier etc?

No, they don't.

i'm not sure i follow... the GP is basically saying: "its paid for by public money, it shouldn't be restricted"

how do you get from that to "i cant let anyone but people from my country look at this"?

there no logic in that whatsoever

The argument seems to be that access to research should be unrestricted because "scientific publishers represent institutionalised theft of tax payer money", i.e. that theft of tax payer money is bad. In that case, why should people who live in tax havens, low-tax countries, or countries that don't adequately fund academia, have their access to research subsidised by people who live in high tax countries and who fund the research via tax? This seems like the same issue except at a higher level, i.e. sovereign theft instead of institutional?

I have no problem with open access by the way, I'm not advocating for restrictive publishing practices here.

still doesn't make sense because the foreign nations aren't depriving the people paying for the research of the information they paid for via taxes.

theft means that something was taken away from somebody else. this clearly isnt the case in your scenario, as the foreign nations just copied it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com