It is peculiar to hear large commercial publishers saying that Open Access would be a very good thing for the pharmaceutical and other industries, and then claiming that this is a problem with the Open Access model. The chemical, biotech and pharmaceutical industries play a major role in the UK economy, and so this argues strongly for Open Access. To say that they do not contribute significantly in terms of publishing research is inaccurate. Industry publishes a significant amount of research itself, and also funds much research within the academic community that then goes on to be published. It is certainly possible that under an Open Access model, institutions (and countries) that publish a lot of research would pay a somewhat higher proportion of the cost of publishing than they do currently. Since it is the process of publishing the research that incurs the lion's share of the costs (with Internet distribution being very cheap in comparison), this is the most logical, sustainable way to fund the publication process. In contrast, the current situation, in which small universities effectively subsidize the cost of publishing the research carried out at relatively wealthy research centres, is far more inequitable and unsustainable. But in any case, the absolute amount of money expended by the research institutions will fall, due to the far greater efficiency of Open Access publishing. Furthermore, research institutions that support Open Access will benefit greatly in terms of kudos and influence, due to the greater accessibility and visibility of their research. These institutions would therefore be cutting off their nose to spite their face to oppose Open Access on the grounds given above.