Surely some mistake as 'Two Brains' opts for free access to UK scientific research

“Making British taxpayer-funded scientific research free online, as the Government has apparently determined to do, is one of those decisions which is very welcome in principle, but likely to be very bad and counter productive in practice.It's the charitable, magnanimous thing to do, but it is also naive and uncommercial – in fact quite typical of the way in which Britain has squandered its scientific heritage, to the great benefit of everyone else but to zero gain for the UK economy. None the less, David ‘two brains’ Willetts, the universities and science minister, has in his wisdom decided this is the way to go. He thinks it will be good for Britain; unless other countries follow suit, which seems most unlikely any time soon, it's hard to see why. As things stand, UK universities are estimated to spend around £200m a year with the big global research publishing companies such as Reed Elsevier to gain access to the latest cutting-edge research papers. This has obviously been a cause of growing complaint. How much better if all universities simply made their research ‘open access’. That way they cut out the middle man. Unfortunately, the cost of ‘peer-group review’ and publication would still have to be paid by someone. These costs are at present substantially shouldered by the big publishers. In future, universities and other UK-based research organisations would have to meet those costs themselves. What they gain from not having to pay the big publishers will be more than lost in the cost of self publication. A Government-sponsored report by Dame Janet Finch into open access estimated these extra costs at £50m to £60m ... More troubling still, everyone will still have to have to pay for research from most other parts of the world, assuming others don't follow suit. Since Britain accounts for only 6pc of all published research, that means the great bulk of what universities need will still have to be paid for. And if publishers cut up rough and decide to carry on charging the same amount for their publications regardless of the fact that UK research has become free, there will be no saving at all. Mr Willetts believes that where Britain leads, others will surely follow. Don't bet on it. The notion that in the modern, connected world, all information should be free is a wonderful ideal in theory, but it ignores the fact that trustworthy information costs a lot to produce. Academia naturally wants its stuff to be free. That way, it gains a much wider audience than otherwise. But remember, scientific and legal publishing is one of the UK's more successful industries. Reed Elsevier alone pays more in UK taxes (this reference corrects an earlier version which referred just to corporation tax) than all university spending on research publications put together. To be fair, there is some support for open access both in the US and Europe. But there is little evidence of other governments just gagging to follow the trail being blazed by the UK. In such circumstances, making UK research open access amounts to a subsidy by UK taxpayers' to overseas rivals. At a time of growing austerity, this is just plain daft.”