DOCSLIB.ORG

AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide Academy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide Academy AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships Purpose: To sustain and protect academic freedom, academic professionalism, research integrity and public trust Dedicated to the memory of Victor J. Stone (AAUP President 1982-1984), University of Illinois College of Law “To impart the results of their own and their fellow specialists’ investigations and reflection, both to students and to the general public, without fear or favor . requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow specialists. Indeed, the proper fulfillment of the work of the professoriate requires that our universities shall be so free that no fair-minded person shall find any excuse for even a suspicion that the utterances of university teachers are shaped or restricted by the judgment, not of professional scholars, but of inexpert and possibly not wholly disinterested persons outside of their own ranks. To the degree that professional scholars, in the formation and promulgation of their opinions, are, or by the character of their tenure appear to be, subject to any motive other than their own scientific conscience and a desire for the respect of their fellow experts, to that degree the university teaching profession is corrupted; its proper influence upon public opinion is diminished, and vitiated; and society at large fails to get from its scholars, in an unadulterated form, the peculiar and necessary service which it is the office of the professional scholar to furnish.” “1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, Tenth Edition (Washington, DC: AAUP, 2006), pp. 294-95. © Copyright 2012 American Association of University Professors 1 Preface The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) hereby issues this comprehensive report, “Recommended Principles and Practices to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships,” for public comment. Responses may be directed to Greg Scholtz, director of the AAUP’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance ([email protected]). After a review of the comments received, the report will be revised as appropriate and published in a paperbound edition. Work on this project has been funded by a bequest from the estate of Victor J. Stone, a professor in the College of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign who served as AAUP general counsel and from 1982 until 1984 as AAUP president, and by grants from the Open Society Foundations, the AAUP’s Academic Freedom Fund, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). Publication of the report is being supported by grants from a number of AAUP chapters and state conferences, a complete list of which will be published with the book. This is one of the longest reports the AAUP has ever produced. It deals with issues that make the news weekly and that critically impact higher education in the United States and across the world. The days when industry-funded research was concentrated in a limited number of universities have passed. Every type and size of institution now faces both the opportunities and the responsibilities associated with businesses-sponsored research relationships. The report opens with a summary of recommendations for principles that colleges and universities should adopt, as appropriate, in their governing and advisory documents and in their contracts with outside funders. The main body of the report follows, beginning with an overview of the history and current state of engagement between industry and the academy. The balance of the report details each of fifty-six recommendations and guidelines, offering not only rationales for them, but also documentation and qualifications. Those involved in reviewing, adopting, and implementing the recommendations should benefit from this more detailed information contained in the main report. Appendix A summarizes the sources for each of these 56 recommended principles, and notes which are closely drawn from previous recommendations issued by the AAUP and other professional associations, and which are new or adapted from other sources. The report urges giving faculty governing bodies greater authority over the principles and standards regulating outside funding, and over the disposition of inventions derived from faculty research, but the report is by no means exclusively an assertion of faculty rights. It specifies— and emphasizes—the responsibilities that must come with outside funding, including public disclosure of all financial conflicts of interest. Not all will readily embrace these responsibilities, but the time has surely come when every institution needs to debate and consider them. This report began with a 2010 decision by Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure to examine the issue. A small group met early in 2011 to draft a set of sample recommendations. The resulting discussion helped reveal the scope and challenges of the project. Jennifer Washburn, an investigative journalist familiar with the relevant literature, was invited to help prepare a full report in collaboration with the AAUP president. Valuable advice came from Ernst Benjamin, former AAUP General Secretary, and from AAUP’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Shared Governance. A draft was then sent for review and comment to three AAUP standing committees (Academic Freedom and Tenure, College and University 2 Governance, and Professional Ethics—chaired, respectively, by David Rabban, Larry Gerber, and Debra Nails) and to numerous knowledgeable faculty members, administrators, and professionals. A substantial packet of responses included comments from Marcia Angell (Medicine, Harvard University), Gerald Barnett (Research Technologies Enterprise Initiative), Eric Campbell (Medicine, Harvard University), Michael Davis (Philosophy, Illinois Institute of Technology), John R. Fuisz (The Fuisz-Kundu Group LLP), Larry Gerber (History, Auburn University), Gregory Girolami (Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Stanton A. Glantz (Medicine, University of California at San Francisco), Claire Katz (Philosophy, Texas A&M University), Jonathan Knight (former head of the AAUP Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Shared Governance), Sheldon Krimsky (Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University), Russ Lea (Vice President for Research, University of South Alabama), Risa Lieberwitz (Labor and Employment Law, Cornell University), Gerald Markowitz (Public Health and American Social History, John Jay College of Justice), Debra Nails (Philosophy, Michigan State University), Richard Nelson (International Political Economy, Columbia University), Christopher Newfield (English, UC-Santa Barbara), David Rosner (History and Public Health, Columbia University), Donald Stein (Medicine, Emory University), and Stephen Wing (Epidemiology, North Carolina State University). Washburn and Nelson incorporated the responses as appropriate into a revised draft for the standing committees to review. The consultant readers are not, of course, responsible for the final recommendations, and providing their names here does not imply their endorsement of all of them, but thanks go to them for their serious, detailed, and immensely helpful engagement with the text. Jim Turk, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, participates in meetings of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. CAUT is issuing a much condensed (and adapted) version of our recommendations at about the same time as we place our full report online for comment. Faculty in other countries may find them useful as well. Finally, with a project of this scope, we welcome the opportunity to recognize the critical help we have had from the AAUP’s national staff. Greg Scholtz helped us manage the approval process and our requests from the Academic Freedom Fund. Bob Kreiser’s wide knowledge of AAUP history gave us timely access to key documents. Mike Ferguson found copy editors and managed their work, while also providing cost estimates for the project. Ezra Deutsch-Feldman shepherded us through the complexities of handling such a long document. And we could never have managed this massive enterprise without Martin Snyder’s flawless political and practical wisdom at every stage of the process. Cary Nelson AAUP President, 2006-2012 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.......................................................................................................................pp. 2-3 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................pp. 7-9 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………..…pp. 10-26 INTRODUCTION An Overview of the Benefits and Risks of Heightened Academic-Industry Engagement.....................................................................................................................pp. 27-104 • Why the AAUP is Issuing this Report • Balancing the University’s Diverse Missions • The Growth of University-Industry Engagement • What Accounts for Rising Levels of Academic-Industry Engagement? • Types of Academic-Industry Research Collaboration • The Benefits of Academic-Industry Engagement • The Risks Academic-Industry Engagement Poses (Risks 1-6) Part I. General Principles (1-7) Principles & Standards to Guide Academic-Industry Engagement University-Wide………………………………………………pp. 105-126 Principle 1:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Adaa Annual Conference April 9-12, 2015 | Hyatt Regency Miami, Miami, Florida
    ADAA_cover_Layout 1 3/21/15 9:41 AM Page 2 2015 ADAA ANNUAL CONFERENCE APRIL 9-12, 2015 | HYATT REGENCY MIAMI, MIAMI, FLORIDA PROGRAM ADAA_cover_Layout 1 3/21/15 9:41 AM Page 3 New and Noteworthy from Oxford Anxiety Disorders Incorporating Progress Edited by KERRY J. RESSLER, DANIEL S. PINE, Monitoring and Outcome and BARBA OLASOV ROTHBAUM Assessment into Counseling April 2015 528 pages 9780199395125 Paperback $89.95 and Psychotherapy A Primer Clinician’s Quick Guide to SCO T. MEIER Interpersonal Psychotherapy 2014 232 pages 9780199356676 Hardcover $55.00 MYRNA WEISSMAN, JOHN MARKOWITZ, and the late GE LD L. KLERMAN 2007 208 pages 10 Steps to Mastering Stress 9780195309416 Paperback $41.95 A Lifestyle Approach Updated Edition DAVID H. BARLOW, RONALD M. PEE, and Casebook of Interpersonal SA H PERINI Psychotherapy 2014 144 pages Edited by JOHN C. MARKOWITZ and 9780199917532 Paperback $19.95 MYRNA M. WEISSMAN 2012 504 pages Self-Care for Clinicians 9780199746903 Paperback $58.00 in Training A Guide to Psychological Wellness for Graduate Students in Psychology LEIGH A. CARTER and JEFFREY E. BARNE 2014 256 pages 9780199335350 Paperback $22.95 3 For more information and to place your order, visit oup.com/us ADAA_INSIDE_Layout 1 3/18/15 2:55 PM Page 1 WWW.ADAA.ORG « 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome From the Conference Co-Chairs ......................2 Welcome From the President ............................................3 BADGES All conference attendees must be Member Recognition Awards ............................................4 registered. Badges are required for 2015 Awards Program..........................................................5 admission to all sessions, meals, and receptions. Please wear your badge Meetings, Special Interest Groups, and during the conference, and remember to remove it outside the hotel.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships
    Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships Purpose: To sustain and protect academic freedom, academic professionalism, research integrity, and public trust. Dedicated to the memory of Victor J. Stone (AAUP President, 1982–84), University of Illinois College of Law AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS Distributed by the University of Illinois Press To impart the results of their own and their fellow specialists’ investigations and reflection, both to students and to the general public, without fear or favor . requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow specialists. Indeed, the proper fulfillment of the work of the professoriate requires that our universities shall be so free that no fair- minded person shall find any excuse for even a suspicion that the utterances of university teachers are shaped or restricted by the judgment, not of profes- sional scholars, but of inexpert and possibly not wholly disinterested persons outside of their own ranks. To the degree that professional scholars, in the formation and promulgation of their opinions, are, or by the character of their tenure appear to be, subject to any motive other than their own sci- entific conscience and a desire for the respect of their fellow experts, to that degree the university teaching profession is corrupted; its proper influence upon public opinion is diminished, and vitiated; and society at large fails to get from its scholars, in an unadulterated form, the peculiar and necessary service which it is the office of the professional scholar to furnish.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Transfer in Group-Authored Scientific Publications | Jaime A
    Insights – 34, 2021 Copyright transfer in group-authored scientific publications | Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Aceil Al-Khatib Copyright transfer in group- authored scientific publications Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf. Keywords collaboration; copyright; ethics; guest; ghost and gift authorship; joint authorship JAIME A. TEIXEIRA DA SILVA Independent Academic authorship researcher Authorship is of great importance in science publishing and has multiple functions,1 including intellectual contribution for the research conducted,2 and responsibility and accountability for the published work,3 as a currency for the quality of the published research and as credit for the authors as they advance their scientific careers.4 Collaborative research projects involve the division of professional labour to achieve desired objectives and this has caused a global expansion in the number of multi-authored publications.5 In the face of increasing collaboration globally,6 even though multiple authorship became ACEIL AL-KHATIB common in the past decade or so,7 until quite recently, there were considerable differences Associate Professor and disparities in the definitions of authorship among leading publishers, ethical bodies, or Department of Oral 8 in the ethical guidelines of research institutes and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • $ C^ 3$-Index: a Pagerank Based Multi-Faceted Metric for Authors
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) C3-index: A PageRank based multi-faceted metric for authors’ performance measurement Dinesh Pradhan · Partha Sarathi Paul · Umesh Maheswari · Subrata Nandi · Tanmoy Chakraborty∗ Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Ranking scientific authors is an important but challenging task, mostly due to the dynamic nature of the evolving scientific publications. The basic indicators of an author’s productivity and impact are still the number of publications and the citation count (leading to the popular metrics such as h-index, g-index etc.). H-index and its popular variants are mostly effective in ranking highly-cited authors, thus fail to resolve ties while ranking medium- cited and low-cited authors who are majority in number. Therefore, these metrics are inefficient to predict the ability of promising young researchers at the beginning of their career. In this paper, we propose C3-index that combines the effect of citations and collaborations of an author in a systematic way using a weighted multi-layered network to rank authors. We conduct our experiments on a massive publication dataset of Computer Science and show that – (i) C3- index is consistent over time, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of a ranking metric, (ii) C3-index is as efficient as h-index and its variants to rank highly-cited authors, (iii) C3-index can act as a conflict resolution metric to break ties in the ranking of medium-cited and low-cited authors, (iv) C3- index can also be used to predict future achievers at the early stage of their career.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Beliefs and Attitudes About Authorial Identity in Academic Writing
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UDORA - University of Derby Online Research Archive Authorial identity Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing Gail Pittam,a* James Elander,b Joanne Lusher,c Pauline Foxd & Nicola Paynee a. Faculty of Health & Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, UK b. Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby, UK c. Department of Psychology, London Metropolitan University, UK d. Department of Psychology, Thames Valley University, London, UK e. Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK Correspondence: [email protected] Cite as: Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170. Abstract Authorial identity is the sense a writer has of themselves as an author and the textual identity they construct in their writing. This paper describes two studies exploring psychology students’ authorial identity in academic writing. A qualitative focus group study with 19 students showed that authorial identity was largely unfamiliar to students, and highlighted the obstacles perceived by students to constructing authorial identities in university assignments. A questionnaire survey of 318 students explored the factor structure of an 18-item Student Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ). Three factors described aspects of student authorial identity (‘confidence in writing’, ‘understanding authorship’ and ‘knowledge to avoid plagiarism’), and three factors described approaches to writing (‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘pragmatic’). Confidence in writing and knowledge to avoid plagiarism were significantly higher among year two than year one students. Both studies could inform interventions to reduce unintentional plagiarism by improving students’ authorial identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Section
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008 No. 160 Senate (Legislative Day of Wednesday, September 17, 2008) The Senate met at 10 a.m., on the ex- U.S. SENATE, we read in his book, an occasional scuf- piration of the recess, and was called to PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, fle off the field. Senator HAGEL is a order by the Honorable MARK L. Washington, DC, October 2, 2008. man who won a football scholarship to To the Senate: PRYOR, a Senator from the State of Ar- go to college because of his athletic Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, kansas. of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby prowess but had to change his plans appoint the Honorable MARK L. PRYOR, a when injury left him with an PRAYER Senator from the State of Arkansas, to per- uncorrectable pinched nerve in his The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- form the duties of the Chair. neck. fered the following prayer: ROBERT C. BYRD, Senator HAGEL is a man who risked Let us pray. President pro tempore. his own life on many occasions, but on Eternal God, today we open our Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the one occasion risked his own life and hearts to You as we remember that chair as Acting President pro tempore. suffered terribly to save his brother’s life in the jungle of Cambodia during You are our help in ages past and our f hope for years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Irresponsible Authorship: a Growing Typology
    Steven Engel and April Johnson Irresponsible Authorship: A Growing Typology Academic spam email (ASE) has become its own specific subgenre. ASE includes messages from predatory journals offering quick and painless processes, opportunities to serve on editorial boards, or calls to present at dubious conferences (Wood and Krasowski). Like all electronic communication, ASE takes time to read, sort, and delete. In a study of recipients of the 2015 National Institute of Health’s K Award (a competitive career development funding mechanism), all respondents reported receiving academic spam emails daily, and over 15% of awardees indicated that they spent over 10 minutes a day dealing with them (Wilkinson, et al). In addition to being a nuisance, academic spam emails can provide challenges for new faculty members who are less able to determine the legitimacy of the quality of the offers due to a lack of experience. Even well-mentored developing researchers might be unsure of who to ask for guidance about the deluge of questionable opportunities. And because of this never-ending stream of email, it can be an additional challenge to determine when and how often to make the request. These spam emails range from ones that appear to be legitimate publishing venues or conferences to those that blatantly invite the receiver to commit fraud. Some feel like they are a mash-up of translated politeness moves, mail-merge errors, and a lack of understanding about the expectations of academics. Others are amusing in their boldness or cluelessness. But underlying many of these spam emails are elements that bring to the surface the array of ways that authorship can be abused in scholarly writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Together, Saving Lives. Together
    Together, saving lives. Together, Together, 2019 Annual Report saving lives. 2019 ANNUAL REPORT American Foundation for Suicide Prevention American Foundation Angela Drake lost her daughter, Brittany, to suicide in 2016. She channeled her grief into fierce determination to help others by educating them about suicide prevention. Angela presented our Talk Saves Lives™ program to her local high school in South Dakota. Several days later, a student approached her at the mall. “Thank you,” she said. “If you hadn’t come to my school that day, I wouldn’t be here.” 1 Education programs are just one of the ways we are raising awareness. Learn more about AFSP awareness Our Out of the Darkness™ Walks bring programs starting visibility to the cause while creating a on page 14 sense of community and raising funds to support the fight. After losing her mother to suicide, Dimple Patel was at first reluctant to confront what had happened. Participation in an Out of the Darkness Walk in 2014 helped her begin a journey toward deeper understanding, including pursuing a doctorate in clinical psychology, which she received in 2019. 2 Our efforts to raise awareness Learn more about complement our drive to #StopSuicide. our prevention efforts starting on James Purvis was inspired to volunteer page 28 after losing a loved one to suicide and struggling with his own suicidal ideation. Today, he is chairman of the board of our Greater San Francisco Bay Area chapter. He talks to men about the need to confront tough emotions. Compassionate leaders like James inspire AFSP’s bold Project 2025, a nationwide initiative to reduce the annual rate of suicide in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Personalized Medicine in Psychiatry
    PERSONALIZED MEDICINE IN PSYCHIATRY AUTHOR INFORMATION PACK TABLE OF CONTENTS XXX . • Description p.1 • Editorial Board p.2 • Guide for Authors p.4 ISSN: 2468-1717 DESCRIPTION . Personalized Medicine in Psychiatry provides a home for basic and clinical investigators, neuroscientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, residents, and medical and graduate students to publish high quality research papers, reviews, new ideas and perspectives, debates, case reports, applied technologies that contribute towards advancing our basic, clinical and therapeutic knowledge of personalized medicine in psychiatry. Personalized medicine in psychiatry seeks to identify factors that contribute to vulnerability to psychiatric disorders and accuracy of diagnosis as well as the major goal of increasing efficacy of therapeutic interventions and decreasing adverse effects by considering the individual characteristics of each patient (e.g. genetics and epigenetics, physiological, endocrinological, psychological, brain imaging and medical comorbidity). Personalized medicine in psychiatry encompasses both which individual should receive what specific type of treatment based on personalized measures, and also identifies those at risk, thereby reducing long-term costs of mental health as well as morbidity. The journal fills a broad void encompassing studies of endophenotypes and biological markers, pharmacological and psychotherapeutic approaches, educational and rehabilitation concerns, and environmental and behavioral, psychological and social research, all with the
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Authorship with and Acknowledgement of Patient Partners in Patient-Oriented Research
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Libraries & Cultural Resources Open Access Publications 2020-07-02 Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research Richards, Dawn P; Birnie, Kathryn A; Eubanks, Kathleen; Lane, Therese; Linkiewich, Delane; Singer, Lesley; Stinson, Jennifer N; Begley, Kimberly N Research Involvement and Engagement. 2020 Jul 02;6(1):38 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112244 Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Richards et al. Research Involvement and Engagement (2020) 6:38 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00213-6 COMMENTARY Open Access Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research Dawn P. Richards1,2*† , Kathryn A. Birnie1,3†, Kathleen Eubanks1, Therese Lane1, Delane Linkiewich1, Lesley Singer1, Jennifer N. Stinson1,4 and Kimberly N. Begley1 Abstract The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Chronic Pain Network was founded in 2016 and is a patient-oriented research network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Network incorporates patient partners throughout its governance and operations meaning that patient partners may contribute to research projects in ways that warrant scientific authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Network did a brief informal review of guidance on patient authorship in 2019, but could not find any practical documentation to guide its members on this topic. Note the term patient partner here refers to a patient (or caregiver or other person with lived experience) who is a partner or collaborator on a research team. This guidance does not address patients as participants in a research study.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Author and Authorship' in Scientific Journals
    Jay N Shah: ‘Author andEDITORIAL Authorship’ in Scientific Journals ‘Author and Authorship’ in Scientific Journals Jay N Shah Editor In Chief, Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences Broadly ‘author’ is a person who originated or gave existence to anything and takes responsibility for that’, as defined in the ‘medical-dictionary. thefreedictionary.com’. ISSN: 2091-2749 (Print) Science relies on new developments. Validation and accurate documentation 2091-2757 (Online) of scientific research findings is important. Author has the responsibility of integrity of research, the findings and its publication. Clear guidelines for ‘author and authorship’ are necessary to distinguish among authors, coauthors and guarantor in order to be responsible for the integrity of the research publication. The publication in the peer reviewed scientific journal Correspondence serves to communicate and validate such findings and so author needs to Prof. Dr. Jay N Shah have substantive intellectual contributions for the work. Editor in Chief Journal of Patan Academy of Health There is important and significant credit attached to author and authorship. Sciences Being listed as author in research publication has advantages of ‘respect from Email: [email protected], [email protected] the peers, progress in career and status’ in all aspects of ‘academic, social, and financial’ issues. Sharing authorship bounds us to take responsibility of all published information. All listed authors are accountable in case of fraud or misconduct. Authorship is the ‘collective’ responsibility of research and its publication. Authors need to take responsibility for their own specific contribution plus overall work and be familiar with all listed authors to minimize the possible misconduct of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science
    Advance praise for Scientific Authorship'. ‘“ What is an author?’ is a question that has been central to cultural and literary studies for almost thirty years. This collection of essays opens up genuinely new perspectives on this question and shows us how much science studies has to contribute to fundamental issues in the humanities.” —Arnold I. Davidson, University of Chicago This page intentionally left blank SC I E N T I F I C A u t h o r s h ip Credit and Intellectual Property in Science ED ITE D BY M a r io B ia g io l i & P e t e r G a l is o n |J Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2003 by Routledge Published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2003 by Taylor 8c Francis Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. “Uncommon Controversies” is abridged and adapted by permission of the publisher and the author from Who Owns Academic Work?: Battling for Control of Intellectual Property by Corynne McSherry, pp. 68-100, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
    [Show full text]