Dear Colleague,
A very Good morning to you all from the East of England.
This week’s NEJM has published a perspective by Martin Frank “Access to
Scientific literature – A difficult balance”.
The author asks an interesting question.
“At a time of shrinking budgets for biomedical research, does it make sense
to spend scarce dollars on publication costs instead of on research to
develop treatments and cures for disease? “
The perspective concludes “Willinsky makes the case for access to research
literature as a public good, but the advancement of medical knowledge
through research is also a public good. When there is not enough money to go
around, the question facing us is this: How should we decide which public
good is preferable? “
As a firm believer in open access publishing I personally feel that if huge
sums of money are poured in to generating evidence and if there is not
enough to access it then this might defeat the purpose of generating
evidence. The scientific community should find the right balance and ensure
that research evidence can be accessed by all at an affordable cost if not
free (although the later is preferable).
Although the perspective applies mostly to the US setting, I thought the
concept and the subsequent debate might be of interest to members of our
list. Thanks to NEJM this piece is free access and can be accessed from on
line NEJM @ http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/354/15/1552.pdf
Wishing you all a wonderful Easter break.
Warm regards & very best wishes,
Badri
Dr.P.Badrinath MD, BS, M.Phil, MPH, PhD (Cantab), MFPH
Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Affiliated Clinical Lecturer,
Suffolk West PCT & University of Cambridge, UK
http://myprofile.cos.com/badrishanthi
Disclaimer: The above views are my own and not that of my employing
organisations.
|