Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-110-unanswered-questions-7-...
Dear Margaret and all,
You wrote: In seeking evidence about OA and saving lives, this study would be useful to review: "The impact of COVID-19 on the debate on open science: a qualitative analysis of published materials from the period of the pandemic" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03804-w The article is Open Access. The section "Clear ‘line of sight’ to the benefits of OS" is particularly relevant to our discussion; I won't paste the entire section here but it includes many citations that might provide a basis for a deeper discussion.
The abstract reads: 'This study is an analysis of the international debate on open science that took place during the pandemic. It addresses the question, how did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the debate on open science? The study takes the form of a qualitative analysis of a large corpus of key articles, editorials, blogs and thought pieces about the impact of COVID on open science, published during the pandemic in English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. The findings show that many authors believed that it was clear that the experience of the pandemic had illustrated or strengthened the case for open science, with language such as a “stress test”, “catalyst”, “revolution” or “tipping point” frequently used. It was commonly believed that open science had played a positive role in the response to the pandemic, creating a clear ‘line of sight’ between open science and societal benefits. Whilst the arguments about open science deployed in the debate were not substantially new, the focuses of debate changed in some key respects. There was much less attention given to business models for open access and critical perspectives on open science, but open data sharing, preprinting, information quality and misinformation became most prominent in debates. There were also moves to reframe open science conceptually, particularly in connecting science with society and addressing broader questions of equity.'
The impact that is being discussed here represents part of what we have been describing over the past few weeks as the 'indirect' impacts of open access on health.
A quote from the full text: 'During the pandemic, many of its advocates saw the pandemic as finally demonstrating unequivocally the case for OS, with some going as far as to assert “Open science saves lives” (Besançon et al. 2021)' Also '[the] current pandemic makes abundantly clear that the public availability of public knowledge indeed saves lives – but it doesn’t do so only now, it always does' (van Gerven Oei 2020).
I would agree that 'Open science saves lives'. Open science is more than open access. Both are drivers of the global evidence ecosystem and therefore have the potential to improve the availability and use of reliable healthcare inforamtion and save lives. In the current discussion our focus is on open access to the full text of research papers. There are of course many derivative publications (clinical guidelines, formularies, educational resources...) that are open-access, and they clearly are used extensively by clinicians to inform their decisions and save lives. What is in doubt is the extent to which original research papers directly save lives - we have been unable to identfy a single case. Even if it is true that open access to research has little direct impact, our discussion over the past few weeks has shown that open access to research has substantial indirect impacts
I would also certainly agree that 'the public availability of public knowledge indeed saves lives'. This was self-evident long before the pandemic. However, I would not use the term 'public knowledge'. Public knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as 'something that people know because it has been reported in the news' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public%20knowledge This definition is itself not accurate, as public knowledge can also spread by word of mouth or any other medium. The main problem is that the term 'public knowledge' says nothing about the reliability of that knowledge: is it based on cumulative evidence derived from robust research? For us on HIFA, this is critical. There are many examples of so-called 'public knowledge' that are frankly dangerous, including popularly held false beliefs as well as misinformation from governments.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org