Open Access, Free Knowledge For Free Innovation

Innovation Tools that Work: Part 5

Every innovator’s dream is free access to pertinent knowledge. Knowledge is the catalyst speeding up innovation, endlessly recombined and reused in novel applications. If we want cheaper and faster paced innovation, we should increase the availability of knowledge and make accessing it as easy as possible. Unfortunately, the way our world works contravenes this in many ways.

Not only have university fees around the world skyrocketed (though exceptions like Germany do exist) but other ways to access knowledge have become unaffordable as well. Every year, billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money is being put into research around the entire globe. Once this research has been completed, it needs to be shared with others to have any value. Under the current publishing paradigm, however, this involves submitting the results to journals for publication, which can then demand thousands of dollars for access to published articles. The upshot? The average person cannot afford these knowledge-based innovation catalysts even though the research was paid for with their taxes.

From the publisher’s perspective, this arguably outdated system works well. And the best part of this model for those publishing the research is that, with the recent advent of digital publication, distribution outlays have sunk to practically zero.

Since the initial research is funded by someone else, this part costs the publisher nothing. Also the necessary peer reviewing of the paper is carried out by other scientists and is usually free for the publisher. Nowadays articles can be put online after publishing, also costing the publisher very little. Some journals offer editorial services, but not all. So why is the price for an article so ridiculously high for so many research periodicals? Perhaps it reflects a world view when education and literacy was the domain of the wealthy minority. Perhaps it is just profit mongering.

For example, at the time of writing, publications such as the Journal of Comparative Neurology have annual subscription fees of around $30,000 for both the print and online publication. These preposterous fees have mobilized significant opposition as well as the rise of new publications that seek to make the peer reviewed research more accessible.

According to many people, this lack of access to knowledge holds back innovation and progress. It has provoked opposition from librarians, scientists and even politicians. Their stance provides inspiration to hundreds of thousands of people around the whole world to join forces and pry open the gates to humanity’s intellectual achievements. To see what can be done let’s turn to a programmer trying to revolutionize biology.

The Cancer Battle

Matthew Scholz is a software engineer by training. Before reorienting his career compass, he had enjoyed a successful livelihood as a software entrepreneur. However, in 2008 he decided that it was time to change course and began his own independent research into immunology and gene therapy. He had no formal training in biology, no degree in medicine. He just had a desire to solve the riddle of one of humankind’s most debilitating diseases. To his aid, he had access to free journal articles.

To make significant progress in cancer research, it seems one often needs innovative and unorthodox thinking. Scholz’s previous work experience gave him such an advantage, and he quite naturally utilized computer science tricks in his approach to the cancer problem. His rationale being: if computers can adapt to cope with a new software virus, why can’t we do this with human cells?

So Matthew launched headlong into his newfound passion. After encountering one hurdle after another, he decided on a different approach to solving the problems he encountered than simply going it alone. Instead of researching and solving each new problem himself, he consulted experts to do it for him. “Every time I ran into a question I couldn’t answer, I’d recruit a new advisor,” he stated.

However, it wasn’t just the access and utilization of experts that made it possible for him to start a company set up to solve the supposedly impossible: it was made possible by open access journals and Wikipedia. This kept his limited funds available for attending conferences, allowing him to acquire even more advanced knowledge in order to tackle the second leading cause of death in America. Despite the Immusoft founder receiving help from consulting experts, soaking up the latest research at conferences and partnering with several receptive institutions, without basic access to information he could not have even begun his inspiring work.

At the time of writing, Immusoft has raised $2.7 million and had successfully completed tests on mice. The new CEO is now hoping to use the newly raised funds to carry out human trials. If they are successful, he will seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to then commercialize his treatments. As Alan Leong, an analyst at Biotech Stock Research states, “The odds are against him probably getting this far”. However, without free access to the necessary knowledge, he could not even have rolled the dice.

The Value Of Open Access

Immusoft may not succeed in its stated endeavors, but the fact that it is even possible for non-experts in biology—like Jack Andraka or Matthew Scholz—to educate themselves enough to start a venture or potentially generate a breakthrough treatment for cancer can only be seen as testaments to the value of open access and its ability to lower the risk and barriers to participate in solving humanity’s problems. This is the true power of open access.

Part of this was an excerpt from my forthcoming book Innovation Tools, to be released 5 July 2016 on Amazon (click here).