...As it stands, not all, but too much of the general public has a deeply ingrained skepticism about scientific research....It seems as though many members of the general public would rather listen to, and believe, a few quacks rather than the world wide network of specialists....
So, what should we do? ...
Some have advocated that, so called, Open Access would be a tactic to create greater familiarity with science in the public. The idea is that by using the Internet as a tool to provide free access to scientific papers, the public could gain a better knowledge and appreciation of science because of the ease at which one could acquire the information. I should mention that there are more reasons for moving to an open access framework of scientific publishing, however, any feasible implementation of open access for the purpose of promoting science to the general public can’t just consist of giving out scientific papers for free. Chad of Uncertain Principles explains it nicely:
I’ve never been all that fired up about the idea of Open Access publishing, for the simple reason that I’ve seen the physics arxiv. I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I can’t make heads or tails of 80% (or more) of what’s on there. [ ... ] I don’t really think that the free access to preprints will have any hugely transformative effect on the general public, because the knowledge base required to read any of those papers is so large and specialized.
John Willinsky of UBC gave a nice talk (video here) at the Science in the 21st Century conference about Open Access publishing. He mentions two things people require to learn: motivation and context....The public already has motivation, but giving access to these sources is not enough in and of itself (it’s a start). The public also needs context; background information given to them about the topic....
[S]cience blogs are most likely to be maintained by scientists that are truly motivated to share their knowledge with the public. I think this is really the major key to bridging the gap....
Comment. I agree with Willinsky on this. The problem with Chad's view (as quoted) is the way it forgets the benefits of OA for professional researchers, regardless of the benefits for lay readers. For my take, see this comment from May 2006:
...I'm not so optimistic as to think that simply making primary science easily available online will do much to foster scientific literacy and scientific knowledge among non-scientists, let alone convert creationists to evolutionists. Easy access completes the puzzle when there is antecedent interest and background, and we need help from teachers, journalists, and politicians to create that interest and background. For the same reason, however, I'm not so pessimistic as to think that OA will make no difference.
There are two mistakes to avoid here. One is to think that OA has no role to play in helping non-scientists understand science. We can call this the Royal Society mistake, after the RS's recent report on educating lay readers about science that doesn't even mention OA. The other mistake is to think that the overriding purpose of OA is to educate lay readers. No OA advocates believe this, but some publisher-opponents of OA either believe it or pretend to believe it in order set it up as a straw man and knock it down. (The most recent example is the American Society of Human Genetics, as quoted in the NYTimes for May 8 [2006].) To avoid both mistakes we have to accept that the problem and solution are both complicated. OA will play a role in public education about science --it's neither irrelevant nor sufficient-- and the size of that role is up to all of us.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/23/2008 11:29:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
