Amsterdam, 4 April 2016
Carlos Moedas - Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation
Last week, The Washington Post published an article about Alexandra
Elbakyan, a 27 year old student from Kazakhstan and Founder of Sci-Hub,
an online database of nearly 50 million pirated academic journal
articles. To some, she is "The Robin Hood of Science." To others, she is
a notorious cyber-criminal.
Elbakyan's case raises many questions. To me the most important one
is: is this a sign that academic journals will face the same fate as the
music and media industries? If so – and there are strong parallels to
be drawn − then scientific publishing is about to be transformed.
So, either we open up to a new publishing culture, with new business
models, and lead the market... Or we keep things as they are, and let
the opportunity pass us by. As I see it, European success now lies in
sharing as soon as possible, because the days of "publish or die" are
disappearing. The days of open science have arrived.
So today I want to talk to you about:
1. Why open science is a good thing
2. A common vision for open science
3. And what we plan to do next.
In my view, there is a strong economic, scientific and moral case for
embracing open science. Which brings me to my first point: why open
science is a good thing and one of the 3 core priorities of my mandate.
Let's take the example of open access first of all.
A recent study analysed the economic impact of opening-up research
data. Using the example of the European Bioinformatics Institute of the
European Molecular Biology Laboratory, the study demonstrated that the
institute generates a benefit to users and their funders of around 1.3
billion euros per year − just by making scientific information freely
available to the global life science community. This is equivalent to
more than 20 times the direct operational cost of the institute!
So open access increases the value of public investment in science.
But, more than that, it also contributes to scientific excellence and
integrity by: opening up research results to wider analysis, allowing
research results to be reused for new discoveries, and enabling the kind
of multi-disciplinary research that is increasingly needed to solve
global problems in the 21st century.
Then, there is the moral case for open access. I think the public
have the right to see the results of the research they have invested in.
In short, open access makes complete sense. It generates income,
raises excellence and integrity, and involves the public in what they
pay for. The question is rather how do we make the transition? Who pays
and who benefits, and how do we do this together?
This brings me to my second point today, which is my vision for open science.
First, we need open access. Europe must transition from a pay to read
to free to read culture. Free doesn't mean no revenue, it just means
different revenue. I believe every scientific article from Europe should
be open access, for the reasons I mentioned before.
Second, we must clarify copyright. Europe must also transition from
legal uncertainty, to a clear legal framework for using data for
research: so that researchers are able to reuse and recombine big data −
enabling Europe to become a leader of data driven science.
Third, we must create infrastructure. Europe's final transition must
be one from fragmented data sets to an integrated European Open Science
Cloud. By 2020, we want all European researchers to be able to deposit,
access and analyse European scientific data through a European Open
Science Cloud.
So what do we need to achieve all this?
Scientific publishing needs to be financially sustainable, so who
should pay? The Dutch scientific community has led the way in
establishing a new funding arrangement with publishing companies.
This is the kind of new business model that we can all learn from,
but one that only works if we remove other barriers to open access. For
example, we need to look at how scientific success is measured, and make
use of alternative methods that do not rely solely on scientific
publications. In Horizon 2020, open access is already mandatory and
other funders are beginning to require the same.
Of course, open access naturally leads to researchers reusing data
and research results, but often the legal framework for doing so is
unclear, or differs from country to country.
So, to answer this need for clarity, the Commission will propose a
Copyright Directive that will include research exemptions, and we have
introduced specific provisions within the EU Data Protection framework.
On infrastructure, the Commission will set out an action plan to
establish a European Open Science Cloud in the next few days. While I
cannot go into details now, I can say that this action plan can only be
realised in close partnership with the scientific community, because,
together, we can not only generate more scientific collaboration,
research and education − but innovations in the fast emerging digital
economy as well.
So I welcome your ideas, on all of these ambitions and any others you
may have, here today and in the future. And I am inviting you to
continue to take part in the development of the European Open Science
Agenda. Help us decide how to provide incentives for open science. Help
us reflect on new ways to reward open scientists. Help us ensure
citizen scientists contribute to European Science as valid knowledge
producers, by 2020.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that we will soon launch the "Open
Science Policy Platform" to advise the Commission on the policy actions
required to implement the Open Science Agenda, as well as help with
their implementation. We will announce its members at the May 2016
Competitiveness Council.
Only last year, a group of leading international linguists, wanted
accessibility to their research results to be independent of expensive
commercial publishers. So what did they do? They left the editorial
boards of their academic journals and embarked on a new venture. They
found an open access publisher that could make their dream of low-cost
open access into a viable reality.
So, instead of asking ourselves how to stop the unstoppable… Let's ask ourselves how we're going to make openness work for us.
SPEECH/16/1225