Academic research is publicly funded -- why isn't it publicly available? | Erica Stone

In the US, your taxes fund academic research at public universities. Why then do you need to pay expensive, for-profit journals for the results of that research? Erica Stone advocates for a new, open-access relationship between the public and scholars, making the case that academics should publish in more accessible media. "A functioning democracy requires that the public be well-educated and well-informed," Stone says. "Instead of research happening behind paywalls and bureaucracy, wouldn't it be better if it was unfolding right in front of us?"
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted

[@JimGriffOne]

I've always wondered why some studies cost upwards of $250 to download. Publicly funded research SHOULD be publicly available. Even if they just cover the costs of CDN bandwidth, I'd be willing to pay a small amount to access publicly funded scientific studies. Information shouldn't be such a high cost, especially if it's already been paid for by public funds!

[@lemonsavery]

It sucks that the set of things that *should* be possible--is not totally encompassed by the set of things that are actually possible.

[@Johanneslol11]

She is so right, i found it strange myself to that these researches are all blocked from being public!

[@star666moon]

There are some good points here but engaging the media and the public are two different things. The media tends to sensationalise scientific research in order to grab the public’s attention and some research published are specific and in depth in a particular field and not all exciting to the media.

[@Beatness121]

Yeah I agree with that.

[@ireallyamjomarch]

Amen to that! I'm a student so I have access to all kinds of studies. But as soon as I graduate I'm screwed. It's so messed up that even other scientists don't have access to these studies.

[@TheRealE.B.]

*Engineering has a similar problem. So much valuable knowledge and so many valuable tools are hidden behind paywalls that everyone wastes time reinventing the wheel. We'd get so much more done if we all just worked together and shared. Granted, a lot of the intellectual property was paid for privately, but still.*

[@RamdomView]

How do you get bold font?

[@Elias-pc6lu]

I have often tried to find the source of some piece of information only to be meet by a paywall infront of publicly funded data, it seems odd to me that the public does all the labor and the private harvests the fruit.

[@slikrx]

Abstracts and results are free. If you want the full PEER REVIEWED article, you get to pay the journal for THEIR cost to publish. As mentioned above, the science may be paid for by the public, the process of peer review and the publication is NOT paid for by the public.

[@Elias-pc6lu]

True but the cost of publishing and peer rewiev must be a sliver of the cost of the actual research, particularly in online publishing.

[@Sam-ep3jo]

use sci-hub ;) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub

[@stephenray95]

slikrx We're not in a world where it's all printed in magazines and sent out. It's all electronic and often hosted on university servers. Peer review is due to those in the field who wish to learn and verify information. In other words those who peer review are profiting by learning new information from others working in their field. They also tend to use that information to do their own research and to cite in articles they publish. The vast majority of people who peer review are professors, meaning they conduct research and review other's research as part of their job duties. That's not to mention the overwhelming amount of students who contribute to that research as part of their curriculum and who do not receive money. Publishing cost is practically nonexistent. Even if we said there was a fee, you could charge like $0.25 for each view/download and still profit significantly. Instead they usually charge $15-300 to access each research paper. That's ridiculous.

[@Wanderor2003]

It is sometimes downright problematic, when populist media claim that research A means conclusion Z, but you cannot access the research to verify what was really written and what they really measured! Some media say really crazy things and it has a real impact on our collective choices (for what little democracy we have).

[@tylerpoppy8095]

If you really want to read a specific study you can always contact the author. Most scientists would be ecstatic to find someone who cares about their work and would probably send you their paper.

[@mikaylahuisheere486]

it also involves convenience. Why should you have to convince the author when tax dollars you contribute too funded the work and the paper?

[@brendarua01]

This is an enlightening goal. I agree that access should be free, and with some training, members of the public could do real, useful work in many areas. They already do in disciplines that require field work. I'm not so sure about the translation side of things. I guess most areas of research can be translated for the public. But that is a skill in its own right. Very few of us are Sagans or Tysons. We would need to train people to do so. That's not a bad thing in a democracy.

[@JTMcAwesomeFace]

I first discovered this when I was in high school trying to write a legit research paper and every paper I wanted to look at demanded I pay them money to download the paper. While we are at it, we should open source education entirely too! Like Kahn Academy is what got me my degree, not my University.... (laughing about it but also dead serious)

[@BharathKumarIyer]

This is one of the things that Aaron Swartz fought for. And in the end, the legal system upheld the interests of the publishing houses. I quit my Ph.D. because of such inherent flaws in the system. I hope this broken academic system gets fixed and doesn't alienate more of the public. And especially so in our current global political climate. Thank you, Erica for such a pertinent talk! 🙏🏽

[@piranha031091]

Things have already changed a lot in the past few years though. Open access is already a major thing. I mean, I'm about to get a paper published through a Royal Society of Chemistry journal, and open access is now the standard with them. They still have to make a profit and pay the reviewers though, so they give the choice between the paper being immediately open access in exchange for a publishing fee, or open access a year after publication otherwise.

[@famistu]

Think is. How I can trust media who buy sure only for profit. Do they mind change facts for profits? Hmmm

[@gem2148]

Dawid Kryspin Dude media changed facts for profits long ago when they accepted transgenders as a third gender!! LOL

[@stephenray95]

piranha031091 I think you missed the point here. You get funding from grants and other sources to do the research. Why, then, must people pay additional fees afterwards to see what you used the money to research? The only way I could agree with your comment is if you used your own money and time to do everything. If so, it's independent research and could do as you please. If using money and resources provided by government, it's not reasonable to say you own it and should profit.

[@piranha031091]

Fernicar : as a wikipedian myself, I can assure you scientific peer review has some key differences. Unlike Wikipedia, scientific journals must *guarantee* that what they publish has been peer-reviewed beforehand. They must also guarantee that has been done by the most experienced researchers (aka university professors), and they must guarantee that it is done quickly. Wikipedia does not have those constraints. (Hence why you still occasionally see vandalism and inaccuracies in that encyclopedia). Fulfilling those requirements means hiring university professors (some of the busiest people) to work part-time on it. (properly reviewing a paper takes hours, and you need several reviewers to do it.) And that costs money. Stephen Ray : As i said to Fernicar, publishing costs the editor money, so they have to cover that. Those costs should be taken into account in the grant, just as salary and equipment. Dawid Kryspin : no, a publisher cannot change a publication's content. Only the authors can.

[@famistu]

piranha031091 true is not relavent In that case. I'm not suprice why Wikipedia is so curious about bulshit. As much as that is possible ofcourse... Respect 😋 Still free of profits organisation. No? Scary think is that Thirt party "Mony Makers" could write History, Present ore past by using data from beauty of Knowledge. Sometimes one word can change the final result for lots of people. 😕 That's my point... Ore meaby I think I have good solution for the salvation of true ore meaby I'm just stupid/different.

[@crystalelk]

BRAVO! I'm so happy to see & hear this TED TALK! Erika Stone. We need more Scholars like you in this world! I agree with you completely! PEACE LOVE & DREAM'S!🇨🇦 💖💫🌐🎥🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟💜🌏💚🌎💙🌍😊🕊💞💭❣🎬

[@Lunareon]

This is such an important topic! Students and researchers from other universities also run into these paywalls while gathering sources for their research and theses. Furthermore, when the government cuts universities' funding, it may result in cancelling subscriptions to scientific journals and hence limiting research.

[@kimnguyen1227]

YES! I have always wondered this and further, wonder why we can't have a web software to help researchers do open-source research. Is this not the sub-optimal way to improve our understanding of the world?

[@slikrx]

I understand the basic, underlying conept of making the science more accessible, but I don't think the direction being proposed is a good one. Cutting edge science is NOT about "making it easily understood". The whole point is to build the foundation of science and understanding that can be used to further build understanding. This process is done by highly skilled, educated and experienced people. Spending time, resources (and money) to attempt to "translate" a journal article about the protein folding process of a reverse transcriptase study is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. While not all publicly funded science is that "dense", a huge portion of it is, and attempting to make everything "accessible" is, simply put, a very bad idea. Much of the science being done is not intended for public consumption. Not because it's "secret", but because the only people who can really make any use of it are folks deeply embedded in the field. Part of the ongoing problem of "salt is good for you/bad for you/good for you" (or eggs, or chocolate, etc) type of conundrum is that mainstream media types get ahold of some very particular study, paraphrase it without understanding it, or the relevant narrowly defined implications, and then publish yet another contradictory or misguided news story about how XYZ is a good, bad, dangerous, will make you live forever. What seems to me a MUCH better idea, is that effective science communicators (you know, like 5% of TED talkers) get some public funding to sift through various areas of research, and put together summaries that ARE intended for public consumption. That DO understand the narrow and broad implications of various studies (or are well enough connected to get that info). There are plenty of science communicators making names for themselves here on youtube; Veritasium, Smarter Every Day, PBS Space Time and a host of others. Expecting the researchers and authors themselves to do this level of work, is simply moronic. Many people go into the hard sciences because they can't or don't want, to deal with the general population. (there is a reason the stereotypical nerdy scientist is portrayed as being socially awkward; many are) Or, (as this speaker seems to imply, but never say) having researchers work on science that is of direct interest to the public, is a waste.

[@noahwilliams8996]

slikrx True, but what's easier? Getting the news to stop being the news or writing a blog post clarifying what your study on caffeine was actually about?

[@jasonsmith4969]

Eh? Maybe, idk

[@vinylmodsmanitoba]

You cant make anything idiot proof, the universe will just make a better idiot. Making all reasearch findings public might seem bad, but is it really worse then what social media can spawn? People are going to make something out of nothing no matter what we do. Might as well save yourself the effort and rather then simplify it just leave it as is. If they understand then they do and if not they dont. Dont hold back those who could just because those who cant might inevitably do something stupid with it.

[@jasonsmith4969]

Logicly, over time, established standards become the norm. If all fields of current scientific research was availble to every living person?!

[@berkannnn5140]

slikrx nonsense.

[@tomhasling]

PubMed.gov Any NIH fund work is publicly available here at no cost.

[@SocialLocust]

That site has helped me a lot.

[@joesmith-wy2ux]

That is not true for articles published in private journals. NIH does not require research studies be published to open access journals

[@twylabobette2012]

I'm 18, and I recently wrote a 10000 word paper about Axolotl conservation. It was an absolute nightmare trying to find accessible papers, and I only got through it by making several accounts and doing several free trials on sites like DeepDyve. I understood the majority of what I was reading, and taught myself a lot so I could read and understand the research. It would have been much easier were I able to just find and read all the information that was out there. Many other (high school) students have this issue, and it really shouldn't be so hard to get to information. We're just trying to learn! I hope to do conservation research in the future, and I hope that I can make my work publicly available. I do understand that in some cases the money from people reading the work is needed for funding, but it really is very expensive

[@yanusanders7686]

It would be amazing if all public funded research would be accessible by the public and there was a funding reward for publishing easily understood summaries for the general public

[@jeffbriggs1987]

who named you ya nu?

[@yanusanders7686]

J Briggs Nobody it's a fake profile

[@jeffbriggs1987]

wow. I feel violated. your life is a lie.

[@TheEternalPheonix]

J Briggs All our lives are a lie.

[@stevenfeldstein6224]

I’ve been talking about this problem for years!! We’re supposed to be living in the Information Age but the real information is mostly inaccessible! But I’m not sure I agree with the speaker’s solutions about local and public media... open access - definitely... There are so many new ways for media (even high-brow academic media) to make money.. If these arcane journal editors would give it some thought they can probably figure out how to make the info more widely available and at the same time maintain their revenue levels. the overpriced and over-exclusive subscription based system seems just wrong in the Information Age that we are supposed to be living in.

[@elusive842]

great talk and a much needed conversation to be held!

[@AxcelleratorT]

Great talk and so perfectly on point! Well said Erica!

[@jiwenwang3693]

Public can have access to more information and even be involved in researches. This is very fantastic :)

[@trajan74]

The reselling of research to unis is one potential source of rising tuition.

[@b_uppy]

Simply put, because research isn't *entirely* publicly funded is often the problem. Universities oay staff wages but to fund and pay for the extras for actually conducting the study comes from private entities with the goal to monetize or suppress/sanitize information corporations might find deleterious.

[@rakiburrahmanayon754]

Making it available for students and for the public are two different things I guess. Implementing this idea will be extremely beneficial for the students. But most of the general public just want to hear the gist of a research, which most researchers will feel insulted to even share with them considering they have done so much more than that. A research consists of so many aspects and gives many information in it's conclusion. As general public want only the thing they want to hear, it will be tough for the researchers to explain their research in a short form (like in 4 to 5 sentences).

[@Wanderor2003]

It is sometimes downright problematic, when populist media claim that research A means conclusion Z, but you cannot access the research to verify what was really written and what they really measured! Some media say really crazy things and it has a real impact on our collective choices (for what little democracy we have). ( I am in Quebec, but we have our own bad media I assure you :P ) ( edit: and, no insult meant, but they generally feed from US news agencies.)

[@nguyenuchuy456]

i just focused on the main point (the title), and the others the speaker said just suggestions of the way to do this it can not be denied that if these academic research is free to access, people will much more benefit from that. And we already paid though tax. Otherwise, how much is enough for an INFORMATION you produced ? For those who said that it is not enough, as the figure shown they pay for each other- repeated circle without US. We are participating in an involuntary donation. In my opinion, most of the profit providers are schools, and it might be a threat if all the sources are free. People can learn independently at home, thus the system will be broken (sorry for my bad English).

[@prabinpuri5262]

Finding a firsthand information is very difficult.

[@Mcormic]

Man I hope Thunderf00t sees this. Vindication. Preach. And some people pirate music, games, movies, etc there's ways to add academic research papers to that list. Publicly available, but not easily accessible. I do wonder though. If academic research became publicly accessible, would the incentive to only publish favorable results decrease because it's public knowledge? Or would it get worse due to a possible lack of funding? Regardless, I agree. But again, pharmaceutical research is heavily weighted by private investors. Sad fact is, the public doesn't actually fund everything. Phizer stopped funding Alzheimers and Parkinson's research for example. Definitely fascinating to think about.

[@webkilla]

hear hear - this is a good point, and a great idea worth sharing

[@muhammadabdullahhanif8860]

The most aprecitated Ted talk on last six month

[@stephanies1223]

What I wouldn't do for a tool to search studies based on easily reported data like demographic information, ethnic, gender, location, etc. as well as excluding abstracts without full texts available or a score of selected studies that gives a percentage of how frequently the hypothesis was proven vs. disproven vs. inconclusive. Even some results in clear plain English would do!

[@hoangkimviet8545]

Very wonderful :-0

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Good IDEA .. and the political process should also be available for the people to review - online Voting on polices for EVERYTHING !

[@kikokazuma]

Big question!

[@Wanderor2003]

Reminds me of how the Canadian Conservative government silenced public research that they did not like :P It boggled my mind: our PUBLIC money for research that cannot be accessed? On a more general term, I appreciate when universities share their knowledge to the people. Where I live, Quebec City, some university institutions hold public conferences, post articles on popular media, etc., which I of course encourage.

[@Wanderor2003]

I never felt excited at the prospect of publishing in an expert journal that only a few would read (I never did actually) and everything I wrote had to be understandable by non-experts (from my own criteria: if you cannot explain things in a way non-experts can understand, maybe you do not really understand yourself).

[@ronmader]

We need a new manner of defining ‘prestigious’

[@florijnsteenhuisen]

Such an important issue!

[@sunlightprince3173]

That is a very good question.

[@taylortate8014]

there is already work being done to translate academic articles and books into urban dialects to make texts more accessible. u can check out the translations at www.wekissthesky.com

[@HakuCell]

her point is obviously valid. the current economic system is in the way though.

[@maxerd]

Welcome to the rabbit hole, you're not just talking about the nature of academic research, you're addressing the entire concept of Intellectual Property laws. Erica Stone is regarded as a severely dangerous actor by multiple industry oligarchs.

[@mechanicalboy9492]

Please.. this is really important I too want this

[@riseabove3133]

Right on, sister!

[@larryholbrook5307]

Keep people un-informed about what we know is a fact.

[@scasey1960]

I completely agree!!

[@jasonsmith4969]

I have been asking this for fucking years. WHERE can I actually learn what is happening now. Not just academics! No more locked doors!

[@Buggie214]

Awesome 👏🏾

[@two-face1041]

Wait actually she has a very valid point

[@beardollars]

I swear I heard an entire room balk when she said the public could be considered experts. What a shame.

[@famistu]

Great point for debate. Let me guess. Dislikes from members of those "five" companies? 😋

[@famistu]

iliveasnatalie speech is about publicly funded research? No? 😋 I don't have time now to watch one more time. As I mentioned in my first sentence. That is very complex subject.

[@sara2md]

Amazing 😊

[@nilsp9426]

Don't we also have a right to know? Why not make it a basic right to access scientific publications. And even if you do not have the means (e.g. a computer and internet), there should be a place to go and access it (like a free library). Isn't it ironic, that when you have cancer, and there are studies done, that you are not allowed to freely access that knowledge, despite its public funding? Who would have more rights to know, than the person with that cancer?

[@ThomasGlynnJr]

Amazon could break this cycle in a heartbeat

[@divyasasidharan2960]

there are so many layers to it but probably consciously left out so u can speak up. but we r in times where information has to be shoved into ppl coz a large number of humans r distracted increasingly for making profits n consolidating powers. The public need to wake up n look for good data n info

[@iviewthetube]

Foreign governments have better access to this information then we do -- and we paid for it.

[@Cl0ne66]

Use sci-hub.io. It unlocks paywalls.

[@Redorgreenful]

The information should be readily available to the public as they already pay for it. 👍 But engaging through social media? Don't scientists have so much on their plate already? Now they have to defend their research with Twitter eggs? Has this person been on Twitter or other social media lately? It's better to increase exposure with existing platforms: more funding for public television (Nova) & expand explanatory news (like Vox). A lot of scientists already engage with the public on Twitter, but that should be for enjoyment, not their livelihood

[@Lostpanda123]

One word; scihub.

[@bluegypsydoll]

AGREED. AND GREED. AND NO TRANSPARENCY. free but noT free✌

[@shaminoranger8588]

Name and shame lady. Boycott Elsevier.

[@animatedJ0J0]

How about investing in public education to develop science literacy among common people, instead of risking delegitimizing research by incentivizing a sort of "yellow journalism" for researchers? There are literally millions of research articles being produced out there, often with conflicting results, and it takes an effort to seek out the truth, even for the experts. The only ones who would get any media attention would still be those with exaggerated or misconstrued results.. Those prestigious publications are acting as a filter to sort out the articles that are most legitimate and academically profound. If there needs to be a change it's those of us who read and interpret those articles.

[@cyrus05w]

???

[@cyrus05w]

I'm halfway through the video now and I wanted to add, there should be a request form to receive a packet of all research being done at one facility that is of public Fundinged. Although this was 20 years ago. something may have changed

[@unk884]

Aaron Swartz

[@za012345678998765432]

check out sci-hub, it's like the pirate bay of scientific research

[@thehint1954]

Academia is just generally stuck up its own behind.

[@johnpratt7439]

Academic research is privately purchased -- why isn't it privately funded? | There, I fixed it.

[@freesk8]

No one should be forced to pay for any research. What right has anyone to make anyone pay for research if they have not given their consent? This means that no taxpayer funding should go to research. Then they can keep the results private if they like. But, yes, so long as there is government funding of a research study, the results should be made public.

[@QarthCEO]

Because a profit motive is the strongest driver of progress. Countries with free access to scientific research develop far fewer innovation than the United States. The fact of the matter is, money moves the world. So if you want an open-access system that serious researchers will use, you had better have a strong financial incentive to get those researchers to actually use it.

[@youwhat.]

Xaro Xhoan Daxos i feel like patents and fame are usually enough incentive

[@QarthCEO]

Patents are ridiculously expensive to obtain, and even more so to defend. Fame follows monetary success of innovations.

[@OliverTacke]

a) Actually, there are studies suggesting that profit being the strongest driver of success is not plainly true (cmp. Boldrin/Levine). b) Is the link between free access to scientific research and innovation (what kind of innovation?) that you're mentioning based on correlation or on a causal relationship?

[@QarthCEO]

Boldrin/Levine do not argue against the profit motive. The primary basis for Intellectual Property, and for violating it, is profit motive. Boldrin and Levine clearly acknowledge this in their book Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly. Their ideas are, of course, not grounded in reality. Why would any corporation spend the billions of dollars required in research to develop a drug only to have someone copy it immediately thereafter? Why would anyone write a book only to have someone else copy it and sell it without paying them a cent? Would you spend your life inventing something just to have a corporation copy it and sell it without paying you anything?

[@OliverTacke]

Xaro Xhoan Daxos Xaro Xhoan Daxos Boldrin/Levine don't argue against a profit motive, but they show that the statement "no money, no innovation" doesn't hold up automatically, and that restricting access to nontangible assets such as knowledge by patents and copyright is not automatically a driver for innovation. And yes: I am creating blog posts, pictures, videos, a podcast and software (that's actually used globally), and they are all openly licensed and anyone is invited to share and reuse them, even for profit. Also, I even work for a company whose primary product is open source software, and we're really thriving. Strange, isn't it? What about my correlation/causality question?

[@floisheremuch]

I hear theres a kazakh scientific paper pirate site, maybe only a google away..........

[@Jcewazhere]

And here I didn't think NASA could get more awesome :)

[@peet315]

the world lost one of the smartest people for this cause Aaron Swartz RIP

[@Zibit21]

This would make the Flat Earth Movement disappear!

[@isaacAdam]

Second

[@jeffbriggs1987]

A lot of it is.

[@Sam-ep3jo]

all of it is, if you use sci-hub ;)

[@Rolroorlo]

Universities need money from other universities as a backing from those, rep and money, represents credibility

[@ChelovegII]

Sci-hub

[@bethisway]

Blah

[@RobSomeone]

Gofundme doomsday device

[@ifourier7987]

So much bullshit.

[@ZalMoxis]

Folks brianaustinlambert33 - check out this channel. Believing any of this garbage in this TED post will not help.

[@Rolroorlo]

who is going to make the job to translate?? more money to pay. its stupid

[@caerllion]

There are plenty of sites that present studies from all over the world... www.eurekalert.org For example... She could have done one web search and saved TED from another pointless talk

[@TheBoyWonder0071]

Thicc

[@Wepwawet]

First dislike

[@basiler2099]

wow i see you like to live dangerously

[@Wepwawet]

Basile Rambach yup sub me xD

[@basiler2099]

Gimme them vbucks to me if i sub

[@basiler2099]

boop im subbed

[@nnkk7742]

I hate ted. Wish they would stop farming fake sentiment.

[@Rolroorlo]

next step would be to give free degrees, to understand Correctly these studies

[@Ponas_Lukas]

Well this idea will make research less profitable and if something is less profitable you are going to get less of it

[@Rolroorlo]

im pretty sure most is not publicly funded

[@Rolroorlo]

Its stupid to publish a technical study to non-professional public

[@thehint1954]

A lot of papers would be relevant to my work but they're stuck in some obscure journal.

[@JT-901]

Aaron Swartz