The technical logic behind Pearce’s objection is straightforward. In experimental science, hardware cost is a quantifiable variable, just like measurement precision, throughput, or error rate. When a paper describes an open-source instrument, the bill of materials is the specification that makes replication possible. Removing it does not merely soften a claim; it breaks the chain of reproducibility that peer review is supposed to guarantee. A peer-reviewed comparison of cost, reproducibility, and performance, Pearce writes, is no more an endorsement of one product than a methods-comparison paper is an endorsement of one technique. It is part of the scientific record needed for replication, evaluation, and efficient public spending. Demanding its removal forces researchers to publish incomplete research, which he characterizes as fundamentally anti-science and inconsistent with the United States government’s own public-access and open-science policies, which now emphasize free, immediate access to federally funded research outputs and the data underlying them.

The economics at stake are substantial. Peer-reviewed research has repeatedly demonstrated that open-source scientific hardware simply costs less than proprietary equivalents. A recent HardwareX review found average savings of 87 percent overall, rising to 92 percent for 3D-printed tools and 94 percent for tools that combine 3D printing with Arduino-class open-source electronics, while earlier case studies often reported savings in the 90 to 99 percent range. The United States currently spends billions of dollars annually on scientific equipment, much of it proprietary and often manufactured internationally. Pearce points to Finland as a cautionary benchmark: an analysis there found that Finnish science funders could save between 2.84 and 27.7 million euros per year simply by shifting to open-source purchasing. Scaled to the American research enterprise, he argues, a conservative estimate suggests federally funded science could run ten times faster, with ten times more equipment at the same cost, if open hardware became the default.

The letter offers a concrete illustration of what such savings look like in practice. An open-source syringe pump library, developed in the United States, documented a device that can be built for roughly 50 dollars in any American laboratory, while internationally manufactured proprietary equivalents cost 1,500 dollars and in some cases up to 2,500 dollars. Stating that price difference, Pearce insists, is not disparagement of the private sector; it is an empirical fact. That design library was downloaded thousands of times within its first months of publication, producing a calculated substitution valuation of between roughly 1 and 12 million dollars in savings to the scientific community in a single year. Since then, the designs have been downloaded tens of thousands of times, conservatively saving scientists tens of millions of dollars. Censoring such data, Pearce argues, prioritizes the commercial comfort of legacy vendors over the efficiency of government researchers and the success of American small businesses.

A central misunderstanding, according to the letter, is the assumption that open hardware is anti-commercial. By definition, open-source hardware licenses permit anyone, including private enterprises, to study, modify, distribute, make, and sell products based on a published design. Far from competing with industry, federal researchers who publish open designs are providing free, rigorously tested research and development to American small and medium-sized enterprises, enabling those firms to commercialize new products without the crippling overhead of initial prototyping and design. The Open Source Hardware Association, a United States-based organization composed primarily of such enterprises, exists precisely because open licensing can be a viable and profitable business model. Some authors in this field have gone so far as to call for all government-funded hardware research to be open source by default, on the grounds that the public has already paid for it.

The commercial track record cited in the letter is extensive. Arduino, whose open-source microcontroller platform has become the de facto standard for embedded prototyping in laboratories worldwide and underpins countless HardwareX publications, is now owned by Qualcomm, a San Diego-based technology firm with roughly 44 billion dollars in annual revenue. SparkFun Electronics of Boulder, Colorado, grew into a 32-million-dollar-a-year business with 146 employees by selling open-source electronic components and educational kits. Adafruit Industries in New York City generates more than 45 million dollars annually selling open-source hardware. Backyard Brains of Ann Arbor, Michigan, commercialized open-source neuroscience tools first described in peer-reviewed open hardware literature, while Opentrons of Long Island City democratized laboratory automation with open liquid-handling robots that displaced proprietary systems costing an order of magnitude more.

The examples extend into heavy manufacturing and even the military. LulzBot, headquartered and manufactured in Fargo, North Dakota, is an entirely open-source 3D printer manufacturer that has competed directly with proprietary incumbents and is used by the United States Marines, whose motto of improvising, adapting, and overcoming is well served by hardware whose designs can be freely modified and repaired. Adjacent firms have flourished on the same ecosystem: re:3D of Austin, Texas, a spinoff founded by NASA engineers, and MatterHackers of Lake Forest, California, both built thriving businesses around the open-source RepRap 3D printing project, the self-replicating rapid prototyper that catalyzed the modern desktop printing movement. Collectively, Pearce writes, these open hardware firms employ thousands of Americans and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue, all built on openly licensed designs. When a federal researcher publishes a low-cost environmental sensor or diagnostic tool, he argues, they are planting the seeds of the next generation of American hardware startups.

Open hardware also carries a strategic dimension that goes beyond price. Because designs can be produced with distributed manufacturing technologies such as 3D printing, CNC milling, laser cutters, and open-source microcontrollers, scientific equipment can be fabricated locally and on demand within the United States. This insulates research supply chains from global disruptions, from pandemics to trade conflicts, and repatriates manufacturing capability that has migrated overseas. A federal grant that once could afford only a single proprietary instrument can instead fund an entire laboratory of open-source equivalents, accelerating discovery across any scientific field the equipment touches. Pearce frames these efficiencies as exactly the kind of fiscal discipline that cost-conscious administrations should champion, suggesting that agencies celebrate open hardware breakthroughs with press releases and awards rather than suppress them.

The letter closes with concrete demands directed at the Bureau Approving Officials. Pearce urges them to permit empirically grounded bills of materials and cost comparisons in manuscripts, to issue written guidance distinguishing comparative scientific analysis from endorsement, and to align manuscript review with agency public-access plans and the broader open-science expectations of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The underlying principle, he argues, is simple: federal researchers should be allowed to report proudly how they are saving taxpayer money and providing open-source research and development to the American public. Whether the agencies respond by revising their review guidance or by continuing to redact economic data will signal how seriously the United States takes both the openness of its science and the competitiveness of the small manufacturers who depend on it.

The dispute is likely to resonate well beyond the federal bureaucracy. As open-source instruments, from syringe pumps to bioprinters, become mainstream tools in laboratories worldwide, the question of who may publish what about them has become a genuine constraint on the scientific record. Pearce’s letter, published as an editorial in HardwareX, places the issue squarely before the officials who control the clearance of government manuscripts, and before a research community that has watched open hardware deliver documented savings measured in the tens of millions of dollars. The stakes, as he frames them, extend to the integrity of peer review itself: a literature stripped of cost data is a literature that can no longer fully support replication, evaluation, or the efficient use of public funds.

Subject of Research: Open-source scientific hardware and federal censorship of cost data in U.S. government research publications

Article Title: An open letter to the Bureau Approving Officials of the United States government

Article References: Pearce, J. M. (2026). An open letter to the Bureau Approving Officials of the United States government. HardwareX, 27, Article e00825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2026.e00825

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.ohx.2026.e00825

Keywords: open-source hardware, HardwareX, scientific equipment, censorship, bills of materials, 3D printing, federal research policy, open science, cost savings, distributed manufacturing, small business, peer review