Should Science Be Free? A Modest Proposal.
by Daniel Jones

Thought provoking piece by a friend of mine, including the discussion that occurred on Facebook afterwards. Posted with author's permission. Original post is here.

-----------------------------
It is interesting. People DEMAND knowledge. You expect your therapist to be up on the most cutting edge research on how to treat your given disorder. You expect public policy to be based on scientifically proven evidence of what is most effective. You expect teachers to use the most effective teaching tools at their disposal. Public health messages to use the most persuasive messages and up to date facts. Cancer screenings to be more accurate. AIDS tests to be precise. Economic policies that actually help all those involved...Legislation about criminals that is most effective at keeping crime off the streets....On and on it goes...

It may come as a shock to some, but all of that is based on HUMAN RESEARCH....and ALL of that research requires PEOPLE as participants.

It reminds me of the "henny penny" story where everyone wants to eat the bread, but no one was willing to help in its baking.

Without volunteering for participation in research there would BE NO SCIENCE. At least none that informs the human condition. But of course our greedy society demands FREE information and access to all science, but also to be PAID or COMPENSATED in some way for helping in the process....does that make sense to you??

So here is my proposal: You don't want to participate as a subject in research studies. Fine. Don't. But next time you go for therapy, you should have to pay extra for a therapist that actually knows what she/he is doing. Furthermore, do you want access to scientific information? Well then the public library should start charging anyone and everyone for primary source articles (because they themselves should have to pay a hefty price for access to them). Secondary source articles should be illegal (because you shouldn't permit the dissemination of information for free). We should go so far as to keep them behind glass cases and only permit access to them via lock and key upon payment....or perhaps for easy access you could swipe your credit card through a machine that will allow access. It should be a felony to disclose what you read to a third party without that third party paying a fee for information.

All I'm trying to get at is next time you look to an authority for help of ANY KIND, or public policy of any kind, and remember refusing to participate freely in a study, you should be ashamed of yourself. Why should we (the scientists) have to PAY a subject to participate in a study, when the subject can turn around and have free access to the outcome and profits of the labor?

What I think is doubly sad is that when I do send my research link to some (particularly guys) they won't click on it for fear that it is a virus or porn. Shows where society is headed. And they are doubly disappointed when it ISN'T porn. Can't win.

My whole point is that you think nothing of taking a cute little "What flower are you?" survey online for your own personal amusement. Why not next time participate in something that might benefit OTHERS as well as yourself???.....just a thought, and a modest proposal.

-Dan
---------------------------------
TOM BRACE: Tom Brace at 4:29pm May 5
Fair go, but consider this:

Science, especially that which addresses and seeks to treat/augment/enhance "the human condition" would not be possible unless experiments/tests, studies, etc. are performed upon PEOPLE. So, seeing your proposal from "the other side," any person you (scientists) wish to perform those procedures upon should, as it follows, be compensated for their time and their bodies/minds.

Think of it like this: You're an artist. You live down the street from an art supply store. Would you expect the purveyor of said store to just GIVE you the materials to produce your art? Would you expect the model to just DONATE their time and likeness without any recompense? So it goes with any commodity. Supply/demand, my friend. Everyone benefits.

And holding information at arm's length and keeping it forbidden from "the great unwashed masses" without the money to pay or the "need" to know is equally problematic. I don't presume to know what was in yer head and heart when you wrote this, but it seems like you're (theoretically) trying to have it both ways, saying that people who charge to be studied must not only not expect payment for services rendered, yet must pay for the results of those services (or not expect to have access to the information).

Further, I don't think too many people who read your piece will "be ashamed of [themselves]", nor would they take too well to being told that they should. That's just human nature.

Remember, the "what flower are you" quizzes are FREE, and whomever takes them knows going in that they are inane and just time-consuming Facebook distractions. But when actual, real scientific research is involved, if I may quote Jesse James (not the historical western outlaw) when he says...

"ya gotta pay up, sucker!"

DANIEL JONES: True, and good point. However, the scientists is NOT paid by the publication...artists are. Advertising with models, selling paintings, music gigs, record deals...all these things have a bottom line pay off. There IS no bottom line payoff for a scientist to produce MORE science that benefits woman/mankind.

So I would expect someone to invest their own money in something that could yield a profit for them in the long run...but why should I bankrupt MYSELF trying to do something that I will never (and should never) get paid for....which is helping others.

Grants do NOT go in the pocket of the researcher. 100% of a grant goes to the institution, only 50% of which is at the scientists discretion. So doing good research yields no financial reward whatsoever. Pats on the back, maybe, but the reality is that a full tenured professor with 50 published articles makes the same amount of money as a full tenured professor (at the same institution) that has 500.

TOM BRACE: Scientists don't get paid whatsoever for their work? Ever?

Who would want to be a scientist, then? Everyone's gotta eat! :-)

In regard to your point on the bottom line payoff: Many (some would say too many) artists toil in obscurity, too, with no apparent payoff. Some have achieved greatness only long after their deaths (not a pleasant career outlook, if yer a starving artist, eh?). MOST of them do it for the sheer love of their art. We both play(ed) hockey at the same rink. Did we ever get paid? No, we did it because we love to play, and we find it hard to not play. So it is, I believe, with some scientists. They "do science" for the love of science - the joy of discovery, the thrill of the scientific process, the exercise of their abilities and gifts in that field.

Question: Why should one NEVER expect to get paid for helping others? I'm not advocating a hardline mercenary attitude toward it all, but I speculate that "help" is also a commodity of sorts, in certain regards. Police, firemen (excluding volunteer firemen), doctors, paramedics, armed servicepersons ALL get paid for helping people. Why should that not apply to scientists?

I'm of the belief that the worker is worthy of his/her wage, whatever field they're in. I also believe that information should be as freely accessible as possible (I do realize that some things should not be accessible to the public - for example, if it would compromise national security, or something like that).

Your proposal provides a banquet for thought. I'm just tossin' in my dollar, waiting for my $.98 in change..! lol

DAN JONES:I'm enjoying this intellectual engagement....thanks for the replies.

In response to your first line, scientists EAT because they TEACH...not because they do research. University profs will get paid the same amount of money if they teach required courses regardless of whether they do a day of research or not. The only exception is well funded government institutions (i.e., National institute of drug abuse) where they have a specific problem on the table that the government is paying them to solve, which in the long run saves the government money.

Your point is well taken, that most scientists DO do what they do (hahaha, I love that alliteration), because they love it. And I'm not saying that it should change so that we should get paid by the publication.

Metallica brought this issue to the table better than either of us with their lawsuit against Napster. If we take that situation as a analogy, you will see my point. Metallica put a lot of time, energy and resources into their music, and felt offended that people just "took" for free. But as scientists, that is EXACTLY what we do. Would you argue that I love my job more than Metallica loves theres?

Our playing hockey was certainly enjoyable, but we didn't do it because of obligation...and it didn't help society (well, it kept the angry Andy Kennard off the streets, and the Slovaks out of trouble) but aside from that...didn't benefit society at large.

All I'm trying to say is that you are right, the artist often does toil in obscurity, and does so because they love what they do. BUT, if you want to appreciate the artist's final product, you gotta pay up (buy the CD, purchase the painting, etc.)....Nobody is paying me for trying to solve the dilemma of unprotected sex in college students. Nor am I asking to be paid. All I want is to at least not have to empty my own pockets to try to help society. Which I am doing by paying for subjects.

TOM BRACE:I see your points much more clearly now - the Metallica analogy was a good one.

And I'm cracking up at your reasons for us playing hockey!

So lemme see if I got this straight: your point/issue is with the RESEARCH side of science as opposed to the teaching side of it. I'm gathering that you would appreciate it if the cost of your scientific "subjects" would not have to come out of your pocket, with no ultimate return to you. Did I get that right?

Hmmmmm... All I can say at this juncture is "good luck" in having that happen! :-) I suppose that such is the cost of doing science, as in any enterprise (shameless Star Trek plug!). Perhaps if you considered it an INVESTMENT, it might make your plight just a tad more palatable. I truly and respectfully hope so. Bon chance, mon ami!