by Credit – Getty Images
Ddespite significant advances in research and treatments – from liquid biopsy to vaccines, from precision medicine to CAR T-cell therapy – it remains the leading cause of death across the globe, claiming around 10 million lives per year .
And beyond the horrific human toll alone, the economic burden of cancer on patients and their families exceeds $21 billion each year, a number that is expected to reach $25 trillion between now and 2050.
Recognizing that much remains to be done if we hope to ever cure this intractable disease, the White House recently announced a $240 million investment in the Cancer Moonshot revitalization initiative, which aims to reduce the death rate halve cancer in the next 25 years.
But while funding and policy are critical, they are not enough to enable scientific progress; unhindered access to the latest research is just as vital.
With this understanding the White House provided a clear path to accelerate innovation and facilitate better scientific collaboration: its Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued rules that would make all published federally funded research available free — no delays, embargoes, or subscription paywalls. not just for cancer, but for all life-threatening and life-changing diseases.
Open science pays dividends
This practice, called Open Science, aims to remove barriers to the creation and dissemination of research and offers a promising strategy for achieving the Cancer Moonshot goals.
We only need to look at the rapid discovery of COVID-19 vaccines to know that Open Science not only works but pays huge human dividends.
During the pandemic, all research and data related to COVID-19 was made available through Open Science, enabling researchers to find treatment and vaccine solutions in record time. There is ample evidence that when researchers open and share scientific research at scale, they can move quickly, innovate and save lives.
Shouldn’t cancer research data be widely accessible, especially since the dots can be connected with new technologies across huge datasets?
It seems the answer is a simple “Yes!” But while scientific research thrives on openly accessible information, scientific publication, which disseminates findings, relies heavily on limited, paid access. More than half of the world’s published research is locked behind expensive subscriptions. And it’s a lucrative business: global scientific publishing is a $27 billion-a-year industry, dominated by a handful of companies and traditional practices slow to change.
Unless we fully embrace Open Science, historic achievements such as COVID-19 vaccines may be mere anomalies, and cures for cancer may take years, if not decades. and other life-threatening diseases.
Read more: How COVID-19 is revolutionizing healthcare around the world
As it stands, critical information that could help save or extend millions of lives – especially as we face unprecedented cancer drug shortages – is not being shared immediately, or widely accessible, or free to read by the individuals responsible for finding the necessary medicines and treatments. .
And here’s why:
When researchers do their critical work, whether at public or private universities, nonprofit or for-profit institutions, it is often made possible through grants from federal funders such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.
The scientists carry out pioneering research, pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Then, by choosing to publish the results, they gain external support through rigorous peer review, and see their work in highly respected scientific journals. There is an element of prestige in doing so, and often their career prospects depend on publishing research.
Make taxpayers pay again
But the subscription paywall model means that the information in those journals is sold back to universities and institutions that in turn pay large subscriptions, allowing only the scientists affiliated with them to access new research.
Deep-pocketed academic institutions can afford to climb these subscription paywalls. But that leaves the unaffiliated scientists in a quandary. And it forces American taxpayers, who fund a combined $5 billion in cancer research each year, to pay again if they want to read the results of that research.
Publicly funded scientific research should certainly be freely and immediately available to that same taxing public. The prevailing business models of publishing – such as journals that offer limited open access to articles, or subscription agreements where the content of their paywall slowly escapes, year after year – do not accept that simple idea. They are simply preserving an increasingly outdated method of teaching and learning.
Open Science’s promise not only to cure cancer but to help tackle the world’s most pressing problems—harmful diseases, public health crises, climate change, and more—makes no sense. the old ways of keeping science closed no longer. economic, political or ethical perspective.
At Frontiers, the world’s most cited multidisciplinary scientific publisher, we’ve been pursuing Open Science since our founding 15 years ago, and we’re not the only ones. Leading research organizations like NASA are changing the way they work to embrace Open Science practices; major funders in Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom are updating their policies to make new research widely disseminated immediately instead of paywalls; and the United Nations is the driving force behind Open Science policy recommendations.
Fighting cancer should be no different. Policymakers and science funders must mandate Open Science, science publishers must quickly transition their subscriptions to Open Science models, and Congress must codify OSTP guidelines, which can change through a presidential administration, as a federal law.
Achieving the goals of the Cancer Moonshot will not be easy. But, with 10 million lives at stake each year, Open Science can help us achieve them.
Call us at letters@time.com.
