Because academic journals are products of inelastic demand. Researchers need to publish to keep their jobs[1]. Thus there is absolutely no incentive for the channels through which this publishing occurs to offer free access.

[1]By the way, being able to publish is especially necessary to receive public funding in the first place.

> By the way, being able to publish is especially necessary to receive public funding in the first place.

Being published in Nature gives you bonus points when it comes to funding. Which I don't quite understand, cause Nature is like the last journal where I'd look for newest information on my subject.

Publication in Nature is not so much for newest information on your specific and somewhat narrow subject, but for more or less breakthroughs of various degrees.

From guidelines[1]:

- report original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere)

- are of outstanding scientific importance

- reach a conclusion of interest to an interdisciplinary readership.

[1]http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/#a1

My professor argued that keeping even publicly funded research and data behind paywalls will keep at least some of the people who have no idea about the scientific method from doing dangerous nonsense with it. I don't share this opinion.

This sounds like a variation of the Metallica defense. Does EMI own Elsevier?