- Email: [email protected]
Access to information is crucial for science
Correspondence
Heldur Netocny/Lineair/Still Pictures
Access to information is crucial for science In response to the Editorial “Bad decisions for global health” (Jan 22, p 272),1 as a scientist from a developing country, I wish to bring to the attention of all concerned the difficulties I face while accessing the latest research publications. I became acutely aware of this problem after I moved back to India. During my stint in the “west” I never even thought about how I was able to access the latest articles for review. Now, to get the full text of a paper and be faced with a “paywall” is a struggle in itself. The cost of each article is a burden on the institute’s budget and the price quoted for subscriptions is impossible to arrange. My question is why do I have to pay to access research information that is funded by the taxpayer? How can big publishers have control over information that they have not created? Universal access to high-quality information is central if we hope for a just and better world. The current system is accentuating knowledge disparities between the haves and the have-nots. And the dream of a better tomorrow is turning sour for the people from the south. There needs to be a serious debate about the ownerships of digital rights where the concerns of poor countries are properly addressed. The long-term solution seems to be a move towards open source while access should be provided to those who cannot afford it in the medium term. I congratulate The Lancet on its open access policies, including HINARI; it is unfortunate that my country is ineligible despite its low per-capita income. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
Gulrez Shah Azhar [email protected] Indian Institute of Public Health, Sardar Patel Institute Campus, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380054, India 1
1404
The Lancet. Bad decisions for global health. Lancet 2011; 377: 272.
The efforts made by The Lancet to highlight the issue of access to scientific literature should be lauded.1 We have previously highlighted the dangers of attempts to copyright science.2 Medical journal publishers are indeed a privileged lot. They profit from the creativity of scientists without paying for the intellectual contribution. Peer review is a cornerstone of medical publication, and that too comes free. If these were works of fiction, authors would be negotiating a royalty fee. With the open-access publishing movement still in its infancy we need to consider other options. One option is for professional associations to publish medical journals and allow free access to research contents after a time lag. Already leading journals such as the BMJ, British Journal of Psychiatry, and New England Journal of Medicine adopt this model. The number of journals published by such organisations would have to be increased substantially if it is to have a noticeable effect. The enormous profits made by medical publishers show that professional organisations can develop a model of medical publishing providing free access and still be financially viable. There are other options. Influential journals can negotiate with their publishers to ensure free access to certain countries, as The Lancet has done. The collective influence of the scientific community can definitely change current practice because without the scientific community there cannot be scientific journals. The action by the major publishers to limit access to their content to the poorest of countries should trigger off a process which ensures scientific knowledge remains accessible. Science is too important to be run as a business. We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
Raveen Hanwella, *Varuni de Silva [email protected] Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
1 2
The Lancet. Bad decisions for global health. Lancet 2011; 377: 272. de Silva V, Hanwella R. Why are we copyrighting science? BMJ 2010; 341: c4738.
Children and multidrugresistant tuberculosis Mercedes Becerra and colleagues (Jan 8, p 147)1 report high rates of tuberculosis in household contacts of patients with multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant (MDR/ XDR) tuberculosis. We welcome their recommendation that a diagnosis of MDR or XDR tuberculosis should prompt systematic surveillance of household contacts and investigations. However, they seem to have overlooked young children present in these households. Children contribute substantially to the global burden of tuberculosis and young children are at increased risk of disease progression and poor outcome, particularly within the first 12 months after exposure.2,3 The prompt assessment of children in a household affected by tuberculosis is therefore essential. Few data exist to guide management of children in close contact with adults with drug-resistant disease.4 Becerra and colleagues’ study provided an excellent opportunity to gather such data, but results on children younger than 5 years seem to have been omitted, and data from older children are not reported separately from the adult cohort. No conclusions relating to the risk of disease in children can therefore be drawn from this study. We acknowledge that the diagnosis of paediatric tuberculosis can be challenging, which might have been the reason why paediatric issues were not addressed in this paper. Despite these difficulties, however, epidemiological data are urgently required to inform preventive strategies for this vulnerable group.5 Failure to report paediatric data represents a missed opportunity to inform such strategies. Future www.thelancet.com Vol 377 April 23, 2011
Heldur Netocny/Lineair/Still Pictures
Access to information is crucial for science In response to the Editorial “Bad decisions for global health” (Jan 22, p 272),1 as a scientist from a developing country, I wish to bring to the attention of all concerned the difficulties I face while accessing the latest research publications. I became acutely aware of this problem after I moved back to India. During my stint in the “west” I never even thought about how I was able to access the latest articles for review. Now, to get the full text of a paper and be faced with a “paywall” is a struggle in itself. The cost of each article is a burden on the institute’s budget and the price quoted for subscriptions is impossible to arrange. My question is why do I have to pay to access research information that is funded by the taxpayer? How can big publishers have control over information that they have not created? Universal access to high-quality information is central if we hope for a just and better world. The current system is accentuating knowledge disparities between the haves and the have-nots. And the dream of a better tomorrow is turning sour for the people from the south. There needs to be a serious debate about the ownerships of digital rights where the concerns of poor countries are properly addressed. The long-term solution seems to be a move towards open source while access should be provided to those who cannot afford it in the medium term. I congratulate The Lancet on its open access policies, including HINARI; it is unfortunate that my country is ineligible despite its low per-capita income. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
Gulrez Shah Azhar [email protected] Indian Institute of Public Health, Sardar Patel Institute Campus, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380054, India 1
1404
The Lancet. Bad decisions for global health. Lancet 2011; 377: 272.
The efforts made by The Lancet to highlight the issue of access to scientific literature should be lauded.1 We have previously highlighted the dangers of attempts to copyright science.2 Medical journal publishers are indeed a privileged lot. They profit from the creativity of scientists without paying for the intellectual contribution. Peer review is a cornerstone of medical publication, and that too comes free. If these were works of fiction, authors would be negotiating a royalty fee. With the open-access publishing movement still in its infancy we need to consider other options. One option is for professional associations to publish medical journals and allow free access to research contents after a time lag. Already leading journals such as the BMJ, British Journal of Psychiatry, and New England Journal of Medicine adopt this model. The number of journals published by such organisations would have to be increased substantially if it is to have a noticeable effect. The enormous profits made by medical publishers show that professional organisations can develop a model of medical publishing providing free access and still be financially viable. There are other options. Influential journals can negotiate with their publishers to ensure free access to certain countries, as The Lancet has done. The collective influence of the scientific community can definitely change current practice because without the scientific community there cannot be scientific journals. The action by the major publishers to limit access to their content to the poorest of countries should trigger off a process which ensures scientific knowledge remains accessible. Science is too important to be run as a business. We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
Raveen Hanwella, *Varuni de Silva [email protected] Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
1 2
The Lancet. Bad decisions for global health. Lancet 2011; 377: 272. de Silva V, Hanwella R. Why are we copyrighting science? BMJ 2010; 341: c4738.
Children and multidrugresistant tuberculosis Mercedes Becerra and colleagues (Jan 8, p 147)1 report high rates of tuberculosis in household contacts of patients with multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant (MDR/ XDR) tuberculosis. We welcome their recommendation that a diagnosis of MDR or XDR tuberculosis should prompt systematic surveillance of household contacts and investigations. However, they seem to have overlooked young children present in these households. Children contribute substantially to the global burden of tuberculosis and young children are at increased risk of disease progression and poor outcome, particularly within the first 12 months after exposure.2,3 The prompt assessment of children in a household affected by tuberculosis is therefore essential. Few data exist to guide management of children in close contact with adults with drug-resistant disease.4 Becerra and colleagues’ study provided an excellent opportunity to gather such data, but results on children younger than 5 years seem to have been omitted, and data from older children are not reported separately from the adult cohort. No conclusions relating to the risk of disease in children can therefore be drawn from this study. We acknowledge that the diagnosis of paediatric tuberculosis can be challenging, which might have been the reason why paediatric issues were not addressed in this paper. Despite these difficulties, however, epidemiological data are urgently required to inform preventive strategies for this vulnerable group.5 Failure to report paediatric data represents a missed opportunity to inform such strategies. Future www.thelancet.com Vol 377 April 23, 2011