DOCSLIB.ORG

What Defines Priority Feb.10Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Defines Priority Feb.10Final What efines D “Priority of Discovery” in the Life Sciences? Ronald D. Vale1 and Anthony A. Hyman2 1Dept. of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, sity Univer of California San Francisco and The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, San Francisco, USA 2Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany Address correspondence to: [email protected] and hyman@mpi-­‐cbg.de Summary A scientist’s job is to make a discovery and then broadly disseminate this new knowledge, so as to benefit the scientific mission and society overall. In exchange for releasing this knowledge, the scientist wishes to be acknowledged for their original contribution. This pact, which is embodied in the term “priority of discovery”, is crucial to the process, culture and reward system of science. Yet for something so fundamental to the scientific enterprise, the rules behind “priority of discovery” are rarely discussed, written about, or even taught. Here, we break down “priority of discovery” into two steps: 1) disclosure, in which the discovery is released from an individual or small group of scientists to -­‐ the world wide community, and 2) validation, in which other scientists assess both the accuracy and importance of the . work Scientific disclosure iscrete is a d event, although we argue it has different rules and meaning from a public disclosure as defined by patent law. Acquiring validation is a more complex process that starts with peer review and is followed by an extended period in which the experiments are repeated and the concepts are considered. Currently, in the life sciences, both of these steps are embodied in publication through a peer-­‐reviewed journal. However, we propose that biologists could be better served by separating the , steps with the first step of disclosure occurring through a preprint server, followed by a second step of validation occurring through a journal publication or potentially other community-­‐recognized mechanisms that achieve the same goals. This division of these steps is embedded in the practices of the physics and mathematics communities. We also believe that “priority” is not simply a race for the first time-­‐stamp, but rather that quality plays a critical role in how scientists ultimately judge discoveries. 2 Introduction A scientist conducts experiments, analyzes the data, and then arrives at a new understanding of the natural world; we use the term “discovery” to refer to this collective process. If the work is original, the evidence accurate, and the interpretation clear and well-­‐ supported, it is expected that other scientists will acknowledge and cite the work in a reasonable manner, thus solidifying the original investigator’s “priority” iscovery for this d . This straightforward and deceivingly simple explanation of “priority of discovery” masks considerably complexities when reduced to practice. Indeed, disputes over “priority” have permeated every epoch of modern . science The classic article on the priority of discovery by Robert Merton (Merton, 1957) describes how many of the early scientific giants in physics and chemistry (Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Cavendish, Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, etc) were embroiled in battles over priority. In biology, Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent conception of natural selection as a driving force for s evolution provide a fascinating case study, which reveals the complexities of “priority” even when the scientists themselves act benevolently and respectfully (Merton, 1957). Debates over “priority” continue today, from the mildly aggravating “they should have cited my paper” to deliberations over Nobel Prizes. A recent article on the history of CRISPR and genome editing highlights how interpreting priority of discovery remains a complex issue and can trigger -­‐ wide spread reactions within the scientific Lander, community ( 2016). Indeed, as long as human nature persists and the scientific enterprise places a premium on original work, then controversies and angst over “priority” will remain an inevitable component of science. It is worthwhile reconsidering the issue of “priority” in light of the many changes that have occurred in the scientific enterprise over the last several decades. With many more scientists on the planet, all accessing the same information and many seeking to answer reasonably evident next questions, competitive situations arise more frequently. An original idea that so completely separates one scientist from all of his/her contemporaries, like “Relativity”, is more likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, both the speed of discovery and communication are both much faster than they were even 3 twenty years ago. Darwin’s decade long writing, his agonizing over what to do after discovering Wallace’s similar ideas, and his eventual publication of the “Origin of the Species” seems like a glacial drama compared to how competitive situations arise and play out today. In addition, the rnet inte provides the first major technological breakthrough in science communication since the Royal Society launched the first scientific journal, the Philosophical Transactions, in 1665. These changes lead us to re-­‐examine such basic questions : as what is priority of discovery and what constitutes an acceptable means of communication to establish rity prio of discovery? Comparing a Patent to Priority of Discovery Can scientists learn from the legal profession with regard to defining priority? After all, the granting of a patent also involves assigning intellectual property based upon an original invention or discovery. A patent transfers knowledge into an asset that can be bought and sold, and many scientists and scientific institutions use patents to claim and protect their work for purposes of commercialization. However, we argue that intellectual property for a patent is fundamentally different both in process and purpose from establishing priority within the scientific community. The granting of a patent is defined by a set of written guidelines, and these rules usually differ significantly in different countries. In contrast, scientific priority is guided by the culture and practices within a scientific community, rather than by rules established by a governing authority (e.g. the NIH or the ). ERC Furthermore, assigning “priority of discovery” is a practice that is applied globally rather than nationally, as it involves a body of knowledge that belongs to all of mankind. The granting of a patent is also binary; an inspector(s) decides whether or not to award a patent for the claim, and if challenged, a court will decide whether or not to uphold the patent. In contrast, a more complex, organic and democratic ed system is involv in establishing “priority of discovery”; there are no appointed scientific inspectors or judges, with the exception of the very tiny fraction of scientific work being considered by prize committees (and their outcomes cannot be overruled in a court). Rather than using a system of inspectors, “priority” is most commonly defined by how scientists credit one 4 another’s work through citations in manuscripts and at meetings, and thus priority frequently takes several years, sometimes decades, to emerge. The intent of a patent claim and priority of discovery are also fundamentally different. The primary goal of a patent is to stake territory as one’s own and exclude others (or make them pay for using your intellectual ) property , thus serving a goal of commercialization. The invention only enters the public domain for free use after many years. In contrast, the disclosure of work for “priority of discovery” is intended to encourage others to make use of the discovery and expand upon it for non-­‐commercial . use t No only is this aligned with mission of science, but the scientist’s claim “priority” can only be firmly established when others validate i.e. ( repeat) and affirm the importance (through further development) of the original discovery. Priority of Discovery as Two-­‐Step Process of Disclosure and Validation If a patent is an imperfect framework for “priority of discovery”, how might one better explain and define this ? term Robert Merton (Merton, 1957) makes an interesting analogy between a “discovery” and “property” by considering the valuation of the “property”. With generous araphrasing p and extension of his argument, a scientist’s discovery is initially known and belongs to only her/himself. This is the “eureka moment”, which is a thrilling reward for a scientist’s hard work. However, exclusive ownership of this “property” is of little actual value, as it neither advances the scientist’s reputation nor serves science as a whole. Thus, the scientist must eventually disclose the discovery. At that moment, the “property” of the single or small group of scientists is transferred to the “pubic trust” of science, the collective body of knowledge that benefits society overall. Once transferred, all scientists have the right to use this new knowledge and it is no longer under the control of the original scientist. Implicit in signing over his/her property, the scientist expects the scientific community to acknowledge their contribution; they would like to see a virtual “plaque” that links their name to this new piece of knowledge. In practice, this acknowledgment usually comes in the form of citations in the papers from other scientists, 5 which can accumulate over time. If the scientist does not receive this credit, then he/she feels that ir the property was lost, never to be reclaimed,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discover the History of Science the History of the Royal Society
    Discover the history of science The history of the Royal Society Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the Boyle and John Wilkins, the group national academy of science in the UK, soon received royal approval, and from made up of a Fellowship of approximately 1663 it would be known as ‘The Royal 1,600 of the world’s most eminent Society of London for Improving Natural scientists. Throughout our history, we Knowledge’. have played a part in some of the most life-changing discoveries, and remain The early years of the Society saw dedicated to recognising, supporting, revolutionary advancements in the and promoting excellence in science. conduct and communication of science. Hooke’s Micrographia and the first The origins of the Royal Society lie in issue of Philosophical Transactions a group of people who began meeting were published in 1665. Philosophical in the mid-1640s to discuss the new Transactions, which established the philosophy of promoting knowledge of important concepts of scientific priority the natural world through observation and peer review, is now the oldest and experiment, which we now call continuously published science journal science. The very first ‘learned society’ in the world. meeting on 28 November 1660 followed a lecture at Gresham College To find out more, visit: by Christopher Wren. Joined by other royalsociety.org/about-us/history leading polymaths including Robert Image: Illustrations showing microscopic views of seaweed and rosemary from Micrographia,by Robert Hooke, 1665. The Royal Society’s journal of the history of science. Editor: Professor Anna Marie Roos, University of Lincoln, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Revamping Federal Climate Science Recommendations for the Next President of the United States
    GETTY SHIPING IMAGES/LIU Revamping Federal Climate Science Recommendations for the Next President of the United States By John Podesta, Bidisha Bhattacharyya, and Bianca Majumder December 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Contents 1 Introduction and Summary 4 Recommendations to restore scientific integrity across the government 9 Recommendations for rebuilding the federal climate science workforce 13 Recommendations to coordinate climate science in the White House and across the federal government 19 Recommendations to define interagency climate science research and data priorities 31 Recommendations for prioritizing adaptation and resilience 34 Recommendations to promote international coordination on climate science 40 Conclusion 41 About the authors 41 Acknowledgments 44 Appendix: References and further reading 46 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States has been the global leader in climate science for decades. Unfortunately, progress has slowed—and in some cases, even moved backward— over the past four years, with the Trump administration dismantling core elements of the federal climate science apparatus. As the country and the planet head toward an increasingly unstable climate, the U.S. government needs to get back to the business of being the preeminent source of trusted applied science that supports climate change mitigation and adaptation decision-making of governments and civilian stakeholders. The science is clear: To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the United States and the world must take aggressive action to decarbonize all sectors of the global economy, protect the Earth’s natural systems, and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. This means achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally by no later than 2050 and ensuring an equitable and just transition to a clean energy economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors
    Syracuse University SURFACE School of Information Studies - Dissertations School of Information Studies (iSchool) 2013 Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors Youngseek Kim Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/it_etd Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Kim, Youngseek, "Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors" (2013). School of Information Studies - Dissertations. 85. https://surface.syr.edu/it_etd/85 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Studies (iSchool) at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Studies - Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists’ Data Sharing Behaviors by Youngseek Kim In modern research activities, scientific data sharing is essential, especially in terms of data-intensive science and scholarly communication. Scientific communities are making ongoing endeavors to promote scientific data sharing. Currently, however, data sharing is not always well-deployed throughout diverse science and engineering disciplines. Disciplinary traditions, organizational barriers, lack of technological infrastructure, and individual perceptions often contribute to limit scientists from sharing their data. Since scientists’ data sharing practices are embedded in their respective disciplinary contexts,
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN SCIENCE' an Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution
    This work is distributed as a Discussion Paper by the STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 06-38 THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF 'OPEN SCIENCE' An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution By Paul A. David Stanford University & the University of Oxford December 2007 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1874 The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University supports research bearing on economic and public policy issues. The SIEPR Discussion Paper Series reports on research and policy analysis conducted by researchers affiliated with the Institute. Working papers in this series reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research or Stanford University. THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF ‘OPEN SCIENCE’ An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution By Paul A. David Stanford University & the University of Oxford [email protected] or [email protected] First version: March 2000 Second version: August 2004 This version: December 2007 SUMMARY This essay examines the economics of patronage in the production of knowledge and its influence upon the historical formation of key elements in the ethos and organizational structure of publicly funded open science. The emergence during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries of the idea and practice of “open science" was a distinctive and vital organizational aspect of the Scientific Revolution. It represented a break from the previously dominant ethos of secrecy in the pursuit of Nature’s Secrets, to a new set of norms, incentives, and organizational structures that reinforced scientific researchers' commitments to rapid disclosure of new knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The NSB a History in Highlights 1950-2000
    The National Science Board A History in Highlights 1950-2000 NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD DR. JOHN A. ARMSTRONG, IBM Vice President for DR. MICHAEL G. ROSSMANN, Hanley Professor of Science & Technology (retired) Biological Sciences, Purdue University DR. NINA V. FEDOROFF, Willaman Professor of Life DR. VERA RUBIN, Research Staff, Astronomy, Sciences and Director, Life Sciences Consortium and Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Biotechnology Institute, The Pennsylvania State Institution of Washington University DR. MAXINE SAVITZ, General Manager, Technology DR. PAMELA A. FERGUSON, Professor of Partnerships, Honeywell, Torrance, CA Mathematics, Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA DR. LUIS SEQUEIRA, J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus, DR. MARY K. GAILLARD, Professor of Physics, Theory Departments of Bacteriology and Plant Pathology, Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of Wisconsin, Madison DR. M.R.C. GREENWOOD, Chancellor, University of DR. DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, Nancy Gore Hunger California, Santa Cruz Professor of Environmental Science, University of Tennessee DR. STANLEY V. JASKOLSKI, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President, Technical Management, Eaton DR. BOB H. SUZUKI, President, California State Corporation, Cleveland, OH Polytechnic University, Pomona DR. ANITA K. JONES Vice Chair, Lawrence R. Quarles DR. RICHARD TAPIA, Noah Harding Professor of Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, Computational & Applied Mathematics, Rice University University of Virginia DR. CHANG-LIN TIEN, NEC Distinguished Professor DR. EAMON M. KELLY Chair, President Emeritus and of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Professor, Payson Center for International Development & Technology Transfer, Tulane University DR. WARREN M. WASHINGTON, Senior Scientist and Section Head, National Center for Atmospheric DR. GEORGE M. LANGFORD, Professor, Department Research (NCAR) of Biological Science, Dartmouth College DR.
    [Show full text]
  • How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed Erin Mckiernan National Autonomous University of Mexico
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 7-7-2016 How open science helps researchers succeed Erin McKiernan National Autonomous University of Mexico Philip E. Bourne National Institutes of Health C. Titus Brown University of California, Davis Stuart Buck Laura and John Arnold Foundation Amye Kenall BioMed Central See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons McKiernan, Erin; Bourne, Philip E.; Brown, C. Titus; Buck, Stuart; Kenall, Amye; Lin, Jennifer; McDougall, Damon; Nosek, Brian A.; Ram, Karthik; Soderberg, Courtney K.; Spies, Jeffrey R.; Thaney, Kaitlin; Updegrove, Andrew; Woo, Kara H.; and Yarkoni, Tal, "How open science helps researchers succeed" (2016). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 24. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/24 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Erin McKiernan, Philip E. Bourne, C. Titus Brown, Stuart Buck, Amye Kenall, Jennifer Lin, Damon McDougall, Brian A. Nosek, Karthik Ram, Courtney K. Soderberg, Jeffrey R. Spies, Kaitlin Thaney, Andrew Updegrove, Kara H. Woo, and Tal Yarkoni This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/24 1 How open science helps researchers succeed 1 2 3 4 5 2 Erin C.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Science Moving Forward — Progress Report to the FDA Science Board’S Science Looking Forward Subcommittee
    FDA Science Moving Forward — Progress Report to the FDA Science Board’s Science Looking Forward Subcommittee FDA MISSION STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 FDA’S UNIQUE AND CRITICAL ROLE IN ADVANCING REGULATORY SCIENCE................................................................................ 4 SECTION A. BUILD A STRONG FOUNDATION FOR REGULATORY SCIENCE ....................................................... 7 1. PROVIDE STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND VISION FOR REGULATORY SCIENCE ......................................................................... 9 2. ESTABLISH REGULATORY SCIENCE PRIORITIES .............................................................................................................. 9 3. OPTIMIZE ORGANIZATION, GOVERNANCE, AND REVIEW .............................................................................................. 12 4. ENHANCE RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments and Research with Humans: Values in National
    DCCUNBNT RESUME ED 125 906 SE 020 984 TITLE Experiments and Research with Humans: Values in Conflict. INSTITUTION National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.; National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C.; National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 75 CONTRACT NO1-0D-5-2116 -------NOZE 231p. AVAILABLE FROM Printing and Publishing Office, National Academy of Sciences,72101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418 ($5.00) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$12.71 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Behavioral Science Research; Communications; Conferences; Educational Responsibility;, *Ethics ' Federal Legislation; *Human Resources; *Research; Research' Projects;, *Scientific Research IDENTIFIERS *National Academy of Sciences ABSTRACT This book contains the .foraal presentations and discussions of a public forum organized by the National Academy of Scientes and held in February 1975. The topics discussed include informed consent by the research subject based on a full explanation of :what will be done, the workings of tyre ptocess, and the potential risks and benefits; research on fetuses\and on children.; research, participation by the,econosically poor,military personnel, prisoners, and the insiitutionalized; the teens used .to obtain volunteers for experiments; and the future role of federal legislation. A recurrent. theme, the balance between the promises and perils of human research and betwe'em societal and i dividual I, considerations, isemphasized. In addition, this v ume illustrates the successes and failures of,communication when a ontroversial subject is explored in a public arena. (Author /SD) ***********************************************************#***********- * Documents acquired by ERIC include many informalunpublished * materials not available from other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Priority and Privilege in Scientific Discovery
    Priority and privilege in scientific discovery Mike D. Schneider and Hannah Rubin Abstract The priority rule in science has been interpreted as a behavior regu- lator for the scientific community, which benefits society by adequately structuring the distribution of intellectual labor across pre-existing re- search programs. Further, it has been lauded as part of society's \grand reward scheme" because it fairly rewards people for the benefits they produce. But considerations about how news of scientific developments spreads throughout a scientific community at large suggest that the pri- ority rule is something else entirely, which can disadvantage historically underrepresented or otherwise marginalized social groups. 1 Introduction In scientific practice, discoveries of sufficient impact appear to generate certain quantities of prestige, which are to be bestowed upon particular scientists by the scientific community at large. The priority rule is a broad descriptive norm concerning the proper allocation of that prestige. The inference toward such a norm comes via an observed phenomenon in the history of science whereby, in situations of multiple discovery, disputes about who deserves the prestige that comes associated with a discovery are often fought by way of assertions about who was first to make it. That the history of science is laden with instances of multiple discovery has been known since at least the early 1900s. Ogburn and Thomas [1922] document 148 such cases in a variety of high-profile domains of scientific inquiry, and mention in a footnote there there are disputes over priority of discovery in many cases. (In one example, the authors report that the discovery of the cellular basis of animal and vegetable tissue was claimed by seven independent researchers in or around the year 1839.) The particular investigation of these so-called \priority disputes" was eventually taken up (famously) by Merton [1957].
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME SE 041 452 Setting Priorities for Science
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 231 610 SE 041 452 TITLE Setting Priorities for Science. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology. U.S. House . of Representatives, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session (September 30; December 8, 1982). No. 172. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. House Committee on Science and 'Technology. PUB DATE. 83 NOTE\ 237p.; Not available in paper copy due to small size of print. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Decision Making; Development; *Federal Aid; Financial Support; *Government Role; *Industry; *Policy Fornfation; Program Descriptions; Research; *Scientific Research; State Action; Technological Advancement; Technology IDENTIFIERS Congress 97th; *Research and Development; *Science Policy ABSTRACT Setting priorities for allocating funding and other resources is one of the central issues of federal scienCe policy. Presented in these hearings are the views of witnesses (government officials, scientists, economists, and industrial personnel) on various issues related to setting,priorities for science. Among the issues addressed (in the form of questions) are: (1) How can the greater public interest be reflected in federal R&D decision-making, both in the choices and in the development ,and application of technology? (2) How is the optimal funding level of basic research determined? (3).What are the proper roles of government and private industry in funding applied R&D? (4) Should the United States target naticinal economic competitiveness? and (5) What role should state and localities play in determining the direction of scientific research? In addition to transcripts of testimony presented, two supporting papers are provided in appendixes.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Manners in Science. a Set of Principles and Guidelines
    POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE FOR ETHICS IN SCIENCE GOOD MANNERS IN SCIENCE A SET OF PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES Third (amended) edition Warsaw 2001 Table of Contents 1. Foreword 2. General principles 3. The scientist as creator 4. The scientist as master and boss 5. The scientist as teacher 6. The scientist as consultant 7. The scientist as expert 8. The scientist as promotor of science 9. The scientist as a member of the public and the international community 10. Appendix 1 (selected bibliography) 11. Appendix 2. The list of chairmen and scientific secretaries of the Committee for Ethics in Science at the Board of the Polish Academy of Sciences for the period 1993-2005 FOREWORD In the discussions that took place as the two previous editions of this booklet (entitled "Good Manners in Science") were prepared and then published, it was not unusual for doubts to be raised about whether such a publication could in any way change the negative state of almost everyone's feelings regarding the scientific ethos in Poland. The justification for a presentation of exemplary guidelines touching upon the most frequent violations of ethics and designated for the rapidly growing ranks of scientists and scientific personnel reflected a perceived need to supply a framework compilation that would take in the diverse issues and desiderata connected with research activity, with a view to ensuring integrity and reliability in science. Poor scientific research is not only valueless and capable of causing material losses. By leading others astray, even for a short while, it may do damage to both scientific circles and the wider community, where results become a basis for interference in public life, excite emotions in society or raise false hopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientism: a Cult of «A Chosen Scientist»
    Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2 (2013 6) 163-170 ~ ~ ~ УДК 165.02 Scientism: a Cult of «a Chosen Scientist» Daniil V. Pivovarov* Ural Federal University named after B.N. Yeltsin 51 Lenina, Ekaterinburg, 620083 Russia Received 08.02.2013, received in revised form 15.02.2013, accepted 22.02.2013 The article discusses two themes: the first one is the concept of scientism as the specific form of scientific religiousness; the second one is a cult of a chosen scientist as a version of scientism. Usually scients allocate scientific geniuses with exclusively positive angelic properties, and ascients, on the contrary, find out in geniuses of any science only negative demonic features. The author puts forward a hypothesis, according to which the scientific genius in the maximal degree personifies a human nature, and this nature in an equal proportion is made by the beginnings of goods and harm, angelic and devil attributes. The given dialectic assumption is concretized in the text on an example of the analysis of the cult of Sir Isaac Newton. Keywords: sociocentric religion, monism and pluralism, scientism, ascientism, scient, ascient, cult of a chosen scientist. 1. Scientism scientism discredits the humanities poorly Scientism is 1) a cult of natural science; 2) using experiment and mathematical language; worship of its experimental and mathematical natural sciences also cultivate methodology of methods; 3) absolutization of the role of scientists empiricism, naturalism and antihistorisism. and scientific experts in a society, and also a cult Since the 30-es of the 19th century scientism of selected scientists-geniuses; 4) a belief that all gets into sociology through O.
    [Show full text]