Thanks for your reply, but I fear that it too misses the mark in some critical areas.\n\nThe publishing world is not all that dissimilar from the health insurance world. In health insurance, insurers serve as brokers between the suppliers (providers, hospitals) and buyers (patients). In the publishing world, the same dynamic exists, with the publisher serving as a broker.\n\nUnlike the health care world, the publishing world has thousands of brokers or publishers. They also have a high percentage of non-profit publishers, where, absent profits, the publisher simply passes through the general costs of publication.\n\nBut in your analysis, you identify yourself as a single customer, not able to enjoy the benefits of group purchasing discounts that larger buyers currently enjoy. Ah, the market at work - much as it does in the health care arena. Those in the individual market routinely saw 20-30% increases in premiums throughout the years (as did small businesses), as they couldn't enjoy group pricing discounts that other larger group plans benefited from. No doubt you are frustrated by this dynamic, but is such a fundamental market evolution cause for a total transformation to a more inefficient model?\n\nAs an individual that is being priced out of a market that is increasingly benefiting group buyers, you have a few choices - particularly in a market as robust as the publishing world. You could seek to reduce cost but maintain quality by grouping with other interested professionals and work with the publisher to work out a group rate. This could be done through your professional org perhaps? Or a local library? You could also encourage your colleagues to stop driving demand in such magazines. You don't comment on the quality of Nature, but you seem to enjoy it being an "aggregator" or good science. Since when has a well-functioning market not seen a quality good rise in value so much where a competitor emerged to garner significant market share? It seems the price of Nature is approaching bubble-like dynamics. I would say a market shift will be fast approaching as customers and providers will be tired of perpetuating the bubble - as UC's boycott of Nature will help reduce demand and cost.\n\nIf the meritocracy of science is being perpetuated by scientists wanting to be published in the very vehicles that drive their own merit and reputation, then you can expect prices to rise in those handful of journals. And you can blame those same scientists for perpetuating the cycle while simultaneously complaining about the resultant costs (driven by their own increased demand!). Even if Nature were a non-profit entities, the demand on their peer review, editing and printing/e-infrastructure costs would rise, resulting in higher subscription costs.\n\nBut the best way to deal with a bubble in a well functioning market, driven by irrational actors (in the form of scientists that *must* be published in nothing but Nature!), is to alleviate demand and cost drivers by moving scientists to other publications. In simple terms, UC is dong the right thing by boycotting and driving their scientists to different journals. \n\nBut this bubble in Nature's price, driven by irrational behavior to be published in Nature, is NOT a reason to pass the cost of Nature to everyday Americans that have no interest in Nature. When institutions look at what journals they will buy, and when you do as well, you scrutinize and discriminate, choosing only to buy those that you derive commensurate value from. This is the definition of optimization. But in the proposed OA model, you would eliminate this efficient user-fee model that encourages choice, discrimination and scrutiny, only to replace it with a model where all Americans pay for a service and product that only a handful of Americans actually use. \n\nThe heart of the matter is: where does the taxpayer's investment in NIH end? With the last day of the grant? With the final word of the grantee's manuscript? With the last word of the final peer reviewed journal article? With a final product or drug, or percentage of that product, that results from taxpayer funded research?\n\nMy view, and the traditional view of NIH, is that the taxpayer's investment ends with the last day of the grant. That is why a grant funding mechanism is used. Grants encourage behavior or activities by third parties, with the belief that the third party will create something of value for the taxpayer, and the grantee gets to keep all intellectual property resulting from the grant. However, if NIH used contracts, which are used when the government wants to fund a specific activity with the goal of owning the results of that activity at the conclusion of the contract, then OA advocates would have a leg to stand on by saying the government owned the final results from grantee's work, and thus be responsible for the publication costs as owners of the research results.\n\nYet, as we currently stand, grantees continue to own their research results, per a grant funding mechanism. As such, they need to seek publication in journals to publicize their work, and journals carry the cost of those operations, paid for by those that want to read the science. Grantees are also able to sell their IP and collect royalties.\n\nBut if you want the government to control the publication system, then for the same reasons you must accept that scientists do not own their research results and are not permitted to sell their IP to developers. You can not have it both ways. To do so is an unprincipled giveaway of taxpayer property that he and she is forced to again purchase back from researchers and developers twice over.