This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why is it important for scientists to share their findings?

This comes up every year in my GCSE science paper. Its 2 points, so 2 marks. Its stuff like "Why is it important for scientists to share their findings" "Why should scientists communicate with each other"

Its only 2 marks, but any help?

Reply 1

Eau

15

RdotR

This comes up every year in my GCSE science paper. Its 2 points, so 2 marks. Its stuff like "Why is it important for scientists to share their findings" "Why should scientists communicate with each other"

Its only 2 marks, but any help?

Because people are smarter as a group than as an individual. There are many occasions when discoveries are made by collaborations of two science groups where missing holes of knowledge could be filled by communication and sharing.

Reply 2

ChemistBoy

16

Because publication of findings is the only way the entire scientific community can progress together. The sharing of findings via publication allows other scientists not to waste time repeating experiments unnecessarily and more importantly may allow other scientists to make a breakthrough that they were having problems with before, even if it is an unintended consequence of your research. The other importance in communicating scientific research is that of peer review, i.e. that the general scientific community is able to critically apraise your work and therefore ideas and methods are thoroughly tested by the community at large where they may not be by the individual.

Reply 3

iainmacn

10

Wouldn't disagree with any of that - it's also about the expansion of knowledge for the community as a whole rather than just for one company - which is sort of interesting as what with people patenting stuff there's a bit of a comflict between the scientific ideal and the commercial aspect of new medicines etc.

I think I'm correct in saying that the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick was very much linked to stuff done on X ray crystallography at Kings by Rosemary Franklin and one of her colleagues (can't remember his name). I seem to recall she died and so didn't get included in the nobel prize but lots of people felt she should have been jointly credited

Reply 4

ChemistBoy

16

iainmacn

Wouldn't disagree with any of that - it's also about the expansion of knowledge for the community as a whole rather than just for one company - which is sort of interesting as what with people patenting stuff there's a bit of a comflict between the scientific ideal and the commercial aspect of new medicines etc.

Well I did say most the the first part of that. I'm currently involved in some patenting and I agree with you that it does go against what science is about and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

I think I'm correct in saying that the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick was very much linked to stuff done on X ray crystallography at Kings by Rosemary Franklin and one of her colleagues (can't remember his name). I seem to recall she died and so didn't get included in the nobel prize but lots of people felt she should have been jointly credited

Essentially, although to credit Rosalind (not Rosemary) Franklin would have meant completely rewriting the rules for the Nobel Prize (which forbids posthumous recipients) but there is a suspicion (!) that she may well have not been included on the list as it was common only to split the prize into three parts although I personally doubt this.

Reply 5

Kyle_S-C

12

As regards the issue of patenting, that exists in order to provide inventors, scientists and most importantly, the companies funding research, an incentive to conduct research which would otherwise not happen. It may go against the scientific ideal, but with many scientists fighting for funding it's a necessity that science is able to prove itself productive, especially in companies which can sometimes regard R&D as a source of cost rather than a valuable investment. Also I think corporate secrecy agreements are more in opposition to the scientific ideal as they prohibit mention of scientific developments whilst patents (after filed) merely prohibit the application of research. Competition in science isn't a new thing and it is much cleaner than the Newton vs. Leibniz style debate.

Reply 6

ChemistBoy

16

Kyle_S-C

As regards the issue of patenting, that exists in order to provide inventors, scientists and most importantly, the companies funding research, an incentive to conduct research which would otherwise not happen. It may go against the scientific ideal, but with many scientists fighting for funding it's a necessity that science is able to prove itself productive, especially in companies which can sometimes regard R&D as a source of cost rather than a valuable investment. Also I think corporate secrecy agreements are more in opposition to the scientific ideal as they prohibit mention of scientific developments whilst patents (after filed) merely prohibit the application of research. Competition in science isn't a new thing and it is much cleaner than the Newton vs. Leibniz style debate.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with making science 'productive' and 'a valuable investment for companies' should be our primary motivation as scientists. Patents take a long time to process in comparison to journals (and more importantly oral presentations of results), government should fund much of science (and indeed does in the UK) because it has long term, unpredictable benefits. For example, when JJ Thompson first discovered the electron it was dismissed as a mere scientific curio of no use at the time, in a system where science must show tangible benefits in order to receive funding we lose the potential for discoveries of great importance and impact such as this.

Newton and Liebniz's famous argument over plagiarism would not happen to day, not because of patent law, but because of copyright law, an entirely different thing - science deals not just with ideas or processes, but with arguments and critiques and it is often these arguments and critiques that are important to protect, patents can't do that.

As a young scientist I am coming into a world where there seems to be a push for science to yield immediate and tangible benefits and this is typified by such phrases as 'technology transfer' which are bandied about so often in my world. Fundamental research is often sidelined in favour of more media-friendly, technological work (granted I probably fall into the latter category now).

Having been involved several times with patents (first in a commercial setting and now in academia) my experience has definitely been one of suppression of information - granted, unlike coporate secrecy (which I also have experience of) patents allow ideas to be shared (although there are problems with that I will come to later), but they don't allow people to apply your research. The latter is an important point in science; often an individual will read a publication and find a way to improve a technique or apply it to a particular situation and he will be free to do so and have no problems with the legalities of the issue. This is really the crux of the issue, an academic scientist needs to be free to explore, they need as much freedom as possible and patents obstruct that freedom.

One has to consider what the primary motivation for a patent vs and academic article is. For an academic article the motivation for the author is to present his or her findings for scrutiny and general publication, i.e. to share their work. With a patent the primary motivation is to protect a commercial interest and this is the problem that I alluded to earlier. Patents are publically available and should ideally list the information about the invention, however on the 3 seperate occassions I have been involved with patents the primary motivation of the legal team is to provide a patent that contains the least amount of information possible about the invention whilst still rendering it patentable, because when patents attorneys aren't drafting patents they are trying to get around them. This clearly puts the patent at odds with the free sharing of ideas and data with others in the scientific community.

Patents also take a long time to get out too and in the interim details cannot be made freely available, what this means, in practice, is that scientists are forced to attempt publish work which omits certain, often important, information concerning their experiments - this either results in rejections from journals (a negative impact on the scientist) or it results in possibly the complete supression of key points concerning the scientific discovery from public knowledge.

Reply 7

Kyle_S-C

12

I do agree with you that the situation is not ideal in any way and I would prefer it if science could rely wholly on government funding without the necessity of justifying its productivity. Whilst I have much less experience than you, I did work with a scientist during my gap year and he made a point of discussing these kinds of things with me. He had experience both in postdoctoral research in an academic and commercial enviornment, finding that neither was truly ideal and that wherever one went there was fierce competition for limited funding opportunities.

The general public is becoming more aware of science and, as a result, science now has to contend with being able to justify itself to the media and to accountants, whether they work for private companies or the civil service. As ever money has dragged us kicking and screaming away from the ideal situation to somewhere where pragmatism reigns and the people running research departments tend not to be the best scientists but the most determined and savvy individuals who are capable of acquiring funding.

I do think that the patent system has something to offer in terms of incentives for entrepreneurial inventors most especially, as well as driving corporate R&D, though its rather stringent pre-filing secrecy requirements seem a little excessive.

It does seem that scientists now have a lot more to deal with and it is with some trepidation that I look forward to a career in science, but at the same time I think it is good to force scientists to look in a more critical fashion at their research so that we can tackle wider problems and provide a valuable service.

Reply 8

ChemistBoy

16

Kyle_S-C

I do agree with you that the situation is not ideal in any way and I would prefer it if science could rely wholly on government funding without the necessity of justifying its productivity. Whilst I have much less experience than you, I did work with a scientist during my gap year and he made a point of discussing these kinds of things with me. He had experience both in postdoctoral research in an academic and commercial enviornment, finding that neither was truly ideal and that wherever one went there was fierce competition for limited funding opportunities.

It is true, the ideal is just that, an ideal. To make it reality would mean and endless pot of money available to scientists to whatever they liked, but that would be totally unviable. So we have to accept some limits - however it is an ideal that is to be worked towards, not away from.

The general public is becoming more aware of science and, as a result, science now has to contend with being able to justify itself to the media and to accountants, whether they work for private companies or the civil service. As ever money has dragged us kicking and screaming away from the ideal situation to somewhere where pragmatism reigns and the people running research departments tend not to be the best scientists but the most determined and savvy individuals who are capable of acquiring funding.

Are the general public more aware of science? Most major scientists don't seem to think so. I recently attended a series of lectures by very eminent scientists (nobel laureates and the such like) on the problems facing science and a big point was the dimishing of scientific education and the continued lack of media coverage of scientists. The media have become increasingly hostile towards science (especially medical science) and this is possibly driving government to seek more directly applied science to fund, but it is a falsehood to say this is driven by a more enlightened public making demands of scientists, the public are generally at least as ignorant as they have ever been.

I do think that the patent system has something to offer in terms of incentives for entrepreneurial inventors most especially, as well as driving corporate R&D, though its rather stringent pre-filing secrecy requirements seem a little excessive.

Companies have to protect their commercial interests, and I have no real problem with patents in that context, but in academic, with public money behind you, taking out patents seems somewhat unethical, yet universities push for it constantly.

It does seem that scientists now have a lot more to deal with and it is with some trepidation that I look forward to a career in science, but at the same time I think it is good to force scientists to look in a more critical fashion at their research so that we can tackle wider problems and provide a valuable service.

I think scientist already are quite critical of their research as a group ('progress through doubt' as I heard someone say recently), but what scientists are being asked to do is predict the future and receive funding based on that - bad move. Science has shown time and time again that the importance of a scientific discovery can often be revealed only after many decades of other research.

Reply 9

Kyle_S-C

12

ChemistBoy

Are the general public more aware of science? Most major scientists don't seem to think so. I recently attended a series of lectures by very eminent scientists (nobel laureates and the such like) on the problems facing science and a big point was the dimishing of scientific education and the continued lack of media coverage of scientists. The media have become increasingly hostile towards science (especially medical science) and this is possibly driving government to seek more directly applied science to fund, but it is a falsehood to say this is driven by a more enlightened public making demands of scientists, the public are generally at least as ignorant as they have ever been.

I don't necessarily think that the general public have more of an understanding of science, but it's been raised to a higher profile due to global warming and GM crops and other such "controversies". I think that's why science is becoming more accountable, it's just a shame that it's becoming accountable to an ill-informed and ruthless media.

ChemistBoy

Companies have to protect their commercial interests, and I have no real problem with patents in that context, but in academic, with public money behind you, taking out patents seems somewhat unethical, yet universities push for it constantly.

From what I've seen of many universities, they're just as obsessed about private money as most companies. I heard that the databook for one subject is to be sponsored by Shell.

ChemistBoy

I think scientist already are quite critical of their research as a group ('progress through doubt' as I heard someone say recently), but what scientists are being asked to do is predict the future and receive funding based on that - bad move. Science has shown time and time again that the importance of a scientific discovery can often be revealed only after many decades of other research.

I think that scientists are certainly critical of the veracity and validity of other science, but academia still seems somewhat detached from the world at large. Sometimes I think we need to stop and ask if certain things are really worth the money, sure, they may be very interesting, but there are very necessary and important things which could be done with the vast sums of money involved in funding large-scale research. Financiers whether private or public must balance competing demands on limited resources.

ChemistBoy

scientists are being asked to do is predict the future and receive funding based on that - bad move.

My nuclear powered vacuum cleaner begs to differ. :biggrin:

Reply 10

ChemistBoy

16

Kyle_S-C

From what I've seen of many universities, they're just as obsessed about private money as most companies. I heard that the databook for one subject is to be sponsored by Shell.

They do, that's the problem.

I think that scientists are certainly critical of the veracity and validity of other science, but academia still seems somewhat detached from the world at large. Sometimes I think we need to stop and ask if certain things are really worth the money, sure, they may be very interesting, but there are very necessary and important things which could be done with the vast sums of money involved in funding large-scale research. Financiers whether private or public must balance competing demands on limited resources.

I think the peer-review process that determines whether projects are funded or not does a perfectly good job of this already in this country. Scientists already work within an overall predefined budget set by government. There is already plenty of stopping and asking if things are worthwhile as it is we don't need more, probably scientifically illiterate people chipping in with their views. At the end of the day, prediciting the future usefulness of a particular avenue of research is nigh-on impossible for the experts in those fields, other people haven't got a chance in hell of getting it right.

Why is it important for scientists to share their findings?

Related discussions

Articles for you