When I came to UC Berkeley in 2003, I joined the lab of Michael Eisen, co-founder of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), agreeing that I would not publish in subscription journals. That was before PLOS became a publisher and launched PLOS Biology. Nature Communications, eLife, Science Advances and many other high profile open access journals did not exist. Eisen was actually warned by other professors at Berkeley that he would not get tenure without publishing in Science\/Nature\/Cell (SNC).Eisen had no trouble recruiting incredible students and postdocs and he got tenure and HHMI, despite his open access-only condition for joining the lab. Fifteen years later, we have clearly reached the next level where it\u2019s not just individual scientists like Eisen making a commitment to open access, but funders themselves are starting to require that their grantees agree to immediate open access publishing as a condition of accepting the funding. In 2015, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation became the first to require immediate open access publishing from grantees. And a few months ago, a group of European national funding agencies released their Plan S initiative which builds on the Gates Foundation mandate and is catalyzing a push to shift the entire publishing industry from subscriptions to open access. (Plan S started with 11 agencies when it was announced in September, but has quickly expanded with many more joining and India announcing support for Plan S just a week ago.)In response to Plan S, some researchers voiced a concern that the most selective subscription journals like Cell are important for success of early career researchers (ECRs); if Cell is off limits to grantees of Plan S funders, the worry is that ECRs will be at a disadvantage for fellowships, jobs, and grants. I wondered how many ECRs share this concern and ran the following poll:More recently, I was struck by a quote from an article in Times Higher Education, \u201cSome prospective PhD students told THE that they would move to a non-Plan S country to avoid the restrictions.\u201d It inspired me to run a poll, directly asking about this to see how many scientists would go so far.Out of 397 people responding, a total of 5 said that they \u201cwould not apply\u201d to a funder who is part of Plan S.Of course, my Twitter polls will be skewed by my followers and attitudes can vary by country and discipline. Having said that, the responses I got seem to be in line with the experience of the Gates Foundation since their open access mandate went into effect in 2015. It seems that no grantees have turned down funding from the foundation, in response to the new policy. I also wonder how much the attitudes of researchers will shift over the next decade, as Plan S goes into effect. The plan is designed to bring about \u201cthe complete elimination of publication paywalls in science.\u201c The concern today is about having to submit to eLife instead of Cell. Yet, it is almost guaranteed that the SNC journals will switch from subscriptions to open access under pressure from Plan S. These super-selective journals make their living by rejecting papers, but if they begin to reject great papers from grantees of Plan S members, they are going to select themselves right out of existence.Over the past fifteen years, the attitudes towards Gay Marriage in the United States have flipped 180 degrees. We\u2019ve gone from 60% against it in 2004 to 62% in favor today. My prediction is that in ten years, when all science journals will be open access thanks to Plan S and other open initiatives, funder mandates for open access will face as much resistance as depositing an abstract in PubMed.