> Doesn't matter if the public funded it. The public didn't mandate or pay for the publication rights or access.

So when your tax dollars pay for a scientist to do research, you don't think the papers that document that research should be public property? If scientists want to keep their research private, they should find private funding.

Note that, as in my previous post, I said "should". If you mean there isn't explicit language to that effect in the grants, see further comments below.

> The public might donate food to the poor. That doesn't give them the right to go into their house and rummage through their fridge.

Invalid comparison. The scientific papers in question are not the personal property of the scientists.

> Maybe there is a missed opportunity to require open access as a condition of public grant funding.

IMO this should be the case, and it's an outrage that it's not, since it should be an obvious requirement for any research that our tax dollars pay for.

> That doesn't change the fact that it is not a stipulated condition.

Maybe that wasn't written into the grants explicitly, but that just means our government is (once again) failing to act in our best interests.

▲

s1artibartfast 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It seems like you are jumping between the reality you would like and the reality that exists.

It is fine to want for something to be different, but that doesn't change the facts of how they are.

It's fine to advocate future papers be made public. I think it is antisocial and delusional to say past papers belong to the public just because that's what you would have wanted. The word for this is expostfacto recontracting, and undermines just about any system of law where is used.

Last, there are lots of reasons to pay for research even if it is not made public. Free public access is often the least of those concerns. Especially so when 99% of researchers whom might make meaningful use of the publication already have access through a journal system.

To understand this better, consider private drug patents coming from Public Funding. The government might rightly calculate that it is in the public interest too help a for-profit company develop a cancer cure with grants, then have no cure at all.

	▲	pdonis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It seems like you are jumping between the reality you would like and the reality that exists. No, you did that, by responding to my post where I said "should" as though I were trying to describe how things are instead of how they ought to be. > I think it is antisocial and delusional to say past papers belong to the public just because that's what you would have wanted. I didn't say that. You need to work on your reading comprehension. > The word for this is expostfacto recontracting No, the word for what you're doing is putting words in my mouth and attacking a straw man. > there are lots of reasons to pay for research even if it is not made public. Can you give some? > Especially so when 99% of researchers whom might make meaningful use of the publication already have access through a journal system. Which they then have to pay fees to, using more of our tax dollars, because of the sweetheart deals the government has given the journals. Not only that, but researchers nowadays share copies of papers over the Internet routinely (for example, using sites like arxiv.org), so they don't even need journals to know what other researchers are doing. So even that rationale for paying the journals is now out of date. > consider private drug patents coming from Public Funding A patent requires revealing the information that the invention is based on, in exchange for the exclusive right to produce the item for some period of time. So I don't see how this is an argument for keeping publicly funded research behind a paywall.