|
Author
|
Topic: Truth, Ownership, and Scientific Tradition
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 13 December 2002 07:43 PM
There's an interesting piece here about the relationship between science, industry and intellectual property. The author reviews several examples of "scientific deception" and summarizes: quote:
[R]ecent events ... force us to confront a fundamental flaw in modern beliefs about science: Research linked to property has a built-in conflict of interest toward the truth.
After discussing the manner in which research for profit encourages secrecy rather than peer review he concludes: quote:
For each of us aspiring to a technical career, there comes a moment when we must choose between creating knowledge and creating property. Both choices are legitimate and important, but only one is science.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 13 December 2002 09:41 PM
The Lib wrote: quote:
this is exactly why we must have readily enforcable and clear intellectual property rights laws. it allows peer review and advancement without undue harm to profits.
I believe you missed part of Laughlin's point. He wrote: quote:
For a research investment to be justified, it must produce value equal to or greater than that of the investment.
I wonder how many research projects resulting in scientific advancements we now take for granted would have been cancelled had there been a cost/benefit analysis done before the projects were undertaken.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 17 December 2002 12:47 AM
Another great example is the time Microsoft convinced the US Patent Office that they had actually "invented" the electromechanical mouse. As a result, Apple Computer had to pay Microcrap royalties on a device they'd been selling with their computers well before 1985.The problem seems to be two-fold: 1. They hire absolute dolts at the US Patent Office who wouldn't know a RAM module from a donkey. 2. They can't refuse to issue patents just because the smart cookies who have BS detectors smell a whole pile of it in the application.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 17 December 2002 12:07 PM
There's a related story in the New York Times about a movement to make scientific articles more accessible to everyone.New Premise in Science: Get the Word Out Quickly, Online quote:
A group of prominent scientists is mounting an electronic challenge to the leading scientific journals, accusing them of holding back the progress of science by restricting online access to their articles so they can reap higher profits.Supported by a $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the scientists say that this week they will announce the creation of two peer-reviewed online journals on biology and medicine, with the goal of cornering the best scientific papers and immediately depositing them in the public domain. (snip) The new publishing venture, Public Library of Science, is an outgrowth of several years of friction between scientists and the journals over who should control access to scientific literature in the electronic age. For most scientists, who typically assign their copyright to the journals for no compensation, the main goal is to distribute their work as widely as possible.
Related link: Public Library of Science quote:
The PLoS journals will be controlled and run by scientists, and will retain all of the important features of scientific journals, including rigorous peer-review and high editorial and production standards, but will employ a new publishing model that will allow PLoS to make all published works immediately available online, with no charges for access or restrictions on subsequent redistribution or use.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
