Is it fair that research that can potentially save lives is only accessible for a fee? This is the moral question posed by some digital archivists at the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic in China. The answer was direct: no, it is not ethical. Despite being illegal, the group has collected and made available in the form of an archive a collection of over 5,000 scientific publications on the coronavirus family of which a large part was only available for payment. An act of rebellion that comes after years of public debate around the world on how ethically correct it is to pay for access to studies that can save lives.
Access to scientific articles: is it ethically right to ask to pay?
Scientific research does not work in watertight compartments and the sharing of ideas has always been the driving force behind new discoveries, with the international collaboration between scientists that has always led to significant results. However, scientists (and in particular doctors) often have to deal with theinability to freely access published studies, even if these have been financed with public money. In fact, publishers who publish major journals often request payments to access studies.
This choice means that, for example, African doctors who faced the ebola epidemic in 2015 did not have access to published studies on the virus. This prevented access to vital information to save the lives of infected patients.
The question that many ask is therefore where is the right balance between the right of scientific journals to see their activities remunerated and that of scientists, doctors, professionals and, more generally, the public to access freely and without costs important documentation to protect public health.
In particular, what appears to be a contradiction emerges: in many cases the studies are carried out thanks to public funding and, therefore, thanks to the contribution of the community. Why, then, should the community not have access to the fruit of the research efforts it financed? If the publication in the most prestigious scientific journals gives authority and weight to the studies, why are they not made available for free in archives managed by public institutions?
The issue is not easy to resolve and joins other debates related to free access: for example, in Europe there has been talk for some time of making compulsory publication of the source code of software commissioned by the public administration. The line of thought of those who ask for greater openness appears logical and does not lack merit, but the other side of the coin is that of the huge costs of checking the studies: the review often has high costs that must be compensated with revenues.
At a time when publishing is not in good health, not even in the professional and scientific fields, and when it is becoming increasingly difficult for publishers to obtain funding and a balance between market needs and quality, the issue of financing publications scientific is not of secondary importance and clashes directly with the need for greater openness and availability of information.
"It is illegal, but it is a moral imperative". These are the words with which shrine, a Reddit user who contributed to the creation of the coronavirus study archive, comments on his gesture. At the basis of the decision to make the studies available for free, the discovery that a recent publication was accessible only for a payment of around $ 40. Together with a group of other people, he therefore thought of looking for the study on Sci-Hub, a sort of "Pirate Bay of scientific studies", where he recovered about 5,200 studies on the coronavirus family published between 1968 and 2020. These viruses they are behind not only the current epidemic, but also behind diseases such as SARS, MERS and normal flu.
Some publishers like Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Nature have announced that they have removed their own paywall to access coronavirus studies at the end of January. This move is to be appreciated, however it is legitimate to wonder how much access to these resources at an earlier stage of the epidemic could have changed its fate.
The intent behind the creation of this study archive is good, but it does not solve the problem. Action by legislators around the world is needed to resolve the root issue. How many lives are you willing to risk to keep your studies behind the wall of payments?
