Closed Autism

We've all heard about it: the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Celebrity crusaders, admittedly of noble intent, campaign against vaccines, and entreat parents to protect their children from the perceived dangers of vaccination. Such a link, if existent, would be quite newsworthy. But all too often the media can be swept up in the sensationalist opportunity, and fail to consider evidence to the contrary.

And while the news media may facilitate the spread of celebrity influence, some websites blatantly distort the truth entirely, catering to those whose minds teeter on the brink of decisiveness. Yet one thing is clear, that all of these disparate players in the autism debate (celebrities, news reporters, web publishers, and even parents) are at minimum two degrees of separation from the evidence.

The first degree, and most direct source of interpretation, is the scientist performing the study. Though bias and conlfict-of-interest may play some role, the general concensus of the scientific community, at least on the autism-MMR issue, is coherent. But just as white light passing through a prism separates into its constituent colors, the scientific data, once presented to the heterogenous populous, may be interpreted a myriad of ways.

And these different perspectives, some patently ridiculous, are all given due consideration. Because the color of the initial light source (the science) is obscured from view by a veil of closed access. Walled-off from the buzzing discussions, science exercises little influence over public opinion.

Just a few days ago, I read a fascinating little piece on a link between autism and vinyl flooring online in Scientific American. Eager to examine the full results, I sought after the journal NeuroToxicology, a decidedly closed access publisher.

It is exactly this sort of thing that allows unfounded scandals to initiate, and perpetuate. In other words, insularity in academia can yield insanity in public.

Nathan

Why Open Acces? Why not?

It seems that the natural order of things tends toward openness. Nature was open; it was man that built walls and roofs. Water flowed freely; it was man that built dams and bottled it. Knowledge was open; it was man that closed it.

But entropy can be a good thing. Because it means that barriers, organization, and other impediments to free interaction do not impose their will. And two atoms must first make contact before they can react, and in so doing, create something new.

So too goes for science and ideas. Hypotheses from disparate fields may have great potential if brought together, but when not given free reign and open access, lie idly to waste. And right now, we have the hydrogen and oxygen separated into two different compartments. Break down that wall, though, and we get the knowledge that is water.

Nathan

Catch 44

In Joseph Heller's novel, the military introduces a requirement entitled Catch 22: the insane will be removed from flight duties if requested, but asking to be relieved from flight service proves the serviceman is, in fact, sane.

The Catch 22 is essentially whenever fundamentally flawed logic is applied in a surprisingly rational way. And unfortunately, one has been applied, with a modern twist, to scientific publishing -- Catch 22, Version 2.0, with multiplication, 44.

One argument against Open Access goes something like this: the scientists don't actually want OA, because if they did, they would make sure all of their research is published OA. And clearly, not all researchers ensure free access to their research, though the number that do is growing.

But here's the rub: this situation exists because of the Catch 44. New discoveries need past research to build upon (Newton's shoulders of giants), and scientists relying on OA are more likely to return the favor (publish their own research OA).

So in our current predicament, there often isn't enough OA research available in a targeted field of discovery for OA-dependent investigators to use. We end up with fewer OA-inclined authors and thus fewer OA-papers. Or at the very least, these authors, due to their lack of resources, publish less freqency.

This gives us a low signal-to-noise ratio (I call closed access research noise because its important message is hidden from the rest of us), so the noise prevails. And this ingenious trap de facto seems more likely to be enforced by law if the likes of John Conyers (D-MI) get their way.

Nathan

The grass is not Green on the other side

When the skies turn gray with impending storms and the hilltop fence looms gloomily over the expanse, many turn their thoughts inward and ponder the glory of what lies across the way. While this escapism may work for a little while, its empty promise soon reveals its hollow core when the true nature of the other side of the hill is revealed to be not as verdant as what was hoped. And the same holds true for Open Access, because although the antipodal decline may flaunt a grand diversity of flora, its face is pockmarked with the glaring signs of impracticality.

Green OA, in which papers are archived in freely accessible repositories, may seem a perfect compromise between Gold OA (OA publishing in which authors usually pay) and traditional closed access publishing. However, as the annals of American History have taught us (read Missouri and 3/5ths Compromises), when facing a profound question, a middle ground only manages to avoid decisiveness for so long. At some point, a decision must be made, and procrastinating only leads to increased strife (Bleeding Kansas, anyone?).

Compounding this issue, Green OA is markedly unsustainable. As papers are archived and freely accessible, traffic will be diverted from closed access journals to free repositories. In the basic functional definition of supply-demand economics, demand for closed access publishers will decline, as will their revenues. While as a proponent of OA, I wont shed a single tear at the downfall of a system I find exclusionary, however, such a collapse will cause problems. If Green OA is overemphasized, and Gold OA is not established, the peer review and editorial oversight required for the reliable communication of science would experience a vacuum of infrastructure. Free repositories such as PubMed or arXiv don't complete the critical functions; this burden is heaped upon publishers. Coordinating these things and publishing papers costs money, and these funds must either come from the author or reader end.

As of now, the middle ground is the most enticing option, though I personally find it myopic. If history has taught us anything, let it be not to repeat the mistakes of the past. And although the OA debate cannot hope to compare in magnitude with the profound questions of yesteryear, I feel the fundamental lessons remain highly relevant. With this healthy dose of retrospect, perhaps we can reach the pastures of promise not by trudging across dense foliage, but rather perambulate upon a golden path.

Nathan

There's more to Open Access than money

Open Access is much more than free access to scientific literature. It's progress, in the most fundamental meaning of the term: the next, infinitesimal yet integral, step towards scientific nirvana. It's stripping away the ancient vestiges of a bygone scientific paradigm. It's a scientific revolution as defined by Kuhn, though it doesn't change how we do science; it changes how we view science. And it's the goal towards which we strive.

Martin Luther King, Jr. noted that "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." But history, just like a rolling ball, has inertia and will obey the Newtonian laws, follows its path until an outside force acts upon it. Now, the question arises as to the nature of this clearly potent mechanism. But the force that alters this trajectory is not of mystical or ephemeral construction. It is the power of action and conscience, words and deeds. Without these, history continues straight along on its merry way, unconcerned about the desires and hopes of its passengers.

Nathan

Open them up: Reinforced doors have long hidden intellectual incest

There's a reason why incest is illegal in every single US state and the District of Columbia. It drives its evolutionary course straight towards disaster. Genetic diseases caused by incest are plentiful and deleterious. But most of all, incest represents the bygone age during which royalties attempted to keep the "pure blood" within a closed group. But this blood soon spoiled with the ravage of disease.

Though scientific research may not immediately call to mind sexual relations between family members, the fundamental principles do not differ. Bedchamber doors have been replaced with payment pages and royal secrecy with registration requirements. And similarly to the royalty of antiquity, assumptions of superiority are a powerful driving force behind the institution.

Public outrage or participant opposition alone are not able to bring about an end to the practice. Instead, a combination of these forces is required. Through cooperation and careful application of strength, we can fling wide these stubborn doors hiding the abominable practice of intellectual incest.

Nathan

Intellectual Property or Intellectual Propaganda?

Everywhere you look, everyone wants to stand up for something. People are Pro- life, choice, and pretty much any noun with a positive connotation. No one wants to be anti-anything, because those are the naysayers who are destroying our country, right?

But this entire concept of antithetical positives creates a false dichotomy that inaccurately describes the options. Who's going to say "Oh, I just despise life" or "There's nothing I hate more than choice"? Pretty much no one, in my opinion. And honestly, neither of those descriptors actually get to the fundamental issues of privacy, maternal health, and reproductive rights.

That's why, if you listen to the rhetoric, opponents of OA aren't opposing anything at all! They're just for intellectual property rights. But peel back the shiny label and the same malfunctioning product is there. And it's time we turn it right around and demand a full refund. Oppose closed access and contact your representatives about HR801!

Nathan