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,