>
>> So we have what some would call a 'natural experiment' here: even just 10
> years ago, the percentage of published academic research available
> electronically -- behind a paywall or not -- was tiny. Back then access to
> nearly all academic research took phone calls, xerox machines, and money to
> get access to. So that "rely on what resources are available" idea was
> even more so true back then.
>
> How are we doing with a portion -- admittedly still nowhere close to "all"
> -- of it freely available? Are the 'profound political implications' that
> were nearly *always* ignored back then having somewhat of a profound impact
> now? And is there any reason to believe that if the rest of it were
> magically available for free that we'd be that much better off?
>
I think the article you just passed around yesterday about lead and its connection with violent crime is precisely the kind of thing that open access to scholarly information gets you. IIRC, all of the links to the pdfs of the papers were full text. Not only could a culturally influential (in his own way) individual like Kevin Drum explore this topic more fully, but he could share directly the original sources from which he builds his argument - available instantly and in full text. Bracketing all the issues of jargon being a barrier (people learn all kinds of inane sports, cooking, and fashion jargon - why not science?) it is incredibly more likely that people could get full access to this information than ever before. I take your argument that it's full use would require a different set of cultural processes and priorities, but keeping it locked up in by rentier for-profit publishers is hardy going to serve is in reaching that ideal.
Sean