Truth, Ownership, and the Scientific Tradition

number6x writes "The Physics Today website has an article by Robert Laughlin titled "Truth, Ownership, and the Scientific tradition". The article deals with some recent blunders in the scientific community like the falsification of data at lucent covered here on slashdot. The article is mainly about the conflict between the free exchange of ideas that the scientific community needs to survive, and the demand for property ownership that commercial sponsors demand."

Comments

french "artists"

[everyplace]

I'm still laughing over those french guys who got the papers submitted to the international physics journals. That and their honorary PhD's.

Re:a questionable assertion

[kedi]

AC wrote: "I think you have slightly missed the point of that sentence. The sentence is pointing out that research for research's sake isn't very welcome in the CORPORATE environment where a greater return on investment is desired. (The point being, that science is BECOMING too corporate-centric as opposed to more "expanding the boundaries of human knoweldge" centric as it was in the past.) So, you aren't really in dispute."

Thanks. I re-read the article and realised that you are right. Thanks for pointing that out.

BTW. on searching I found that Prof. Robert B. Laughlin received a Noble Prize in Physics in 1998 [http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/index.htm]
[http:/ /www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1998/]

kedi

Ethics Guidelines for Physicists

[Drog]

As stated, the physics community has been scarred by two scandals recently. First the Berkeley scandal last July, in which scientists retracted their claim to have created element 118, after realizing that the crucial data analysis by Dr. Victor Ninov could not be confirmed. Then last September, nanotechnology superstar Dr. J. Hendrik Schön, of Bell Labs, was found guilty of falsifying data on the properties on superconductivity and organic electronics. He was fired and more than a dozen published papers were retracted).

So last month, the American Physical Society, representing some 40,000 physicists, expanded the ethical guidelines for researchers, in their Statements on Profession Conducts document. The new guidelines call for more ethics training in science and urge all research institutions to adopt the same set of misconduct procedures. The guidelines also clarify co-authors' roles and duties, making it clear that when you put your name on a paper, your reputation is on the line.

Biologists faced similar scandals during the Gallo and Imanishi-Kari cases in the 90's. Unlike Robert Gallo and David Baltimore, who survived the scandal virtually unscathed, the physicists involved in today's scandals are actually being held accountable.

The above info was compiled from an article that originally appeared here.

Re:a questionable assertion

[dcollins]

From the article: "For a research investment to be justified, it must produce value equal to or greater than that of the investment."

I find this extremely questionable. History is full of scientific discoveries and ideas which were not able to produce equal or greater value for long time. Can anyone enlighten me about the value produced by Einstein's research?

Einstein's most important results had no research investment funding it whatsoever. Hence, it does not serve as a counterexample to an assertion about "research investment".

Patents Are The Solution

[Compulawyer]

There has always been a delicate balance between the open and free exchange of ideas like that which occurs in scientific dialog and the need for those who invest in scientific endeavors to be able to recoup their investment. Patents are the means by which this balance is struck.

This is not a new idea. Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . . " (capitalization in original). This clause is the basis of Congress's power to grant patents and copyrights.

The trade-off is simple: Inventors are given a limited time (currently 20 years from date of the filing of a patent application) during which they may recoup their investment and profit from their work with the reassurance that they may sue to stop anyone who tries to get a free ride off their work by copying an invention and thereby trying to profit from the work of another. In exchange, the patent has to contain "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." 35 U.S.C. sec. 112, para. 1.

Section 112 is one of the most litigated provisions in the law. Ever. Each and every word has been exhaustively examined by the federal courts and has been found consistently to carry out the policy of ensuring that once the limited time for recouping an investment has passed, that society as a whole has enough information so that anyone in that technical area ("art") can make and use the invention simply by reading the patent.

What are the alternatives to this regime? There are two that readily come to mind. The first is that if you believe that all scientific knowledge should be immediately available without restriction, then by all means, publish the work and make it freely available to anyone who wants it. No one will stop you from doing that (unless of course you are teaching how to build nuclear weapons, etc., ...). The second alternative is to protect your invention by keeping it as a trade secret.

Trade secrets do little to promote the progress of science. They work more of a hindrance. Those who have chosen this route must ensure that their invention truly remains secret or their protection and ability to recoup their investment is lost or greatly diminished. The principal "progress" occurs when someone decides that the invention is too valuable to not have access to, and decides then to reverse-engineer the invention to discover its secrets. Trade secrets potentially last in perpetuity, so it is theoretically possible that no one will ever learn or benefit from the secret scientific advance.

I am not blind - I know there are substantial problems with patent examinations that allow invalid patents to issue. However, the proper remedy for that is to ensure only good patents issue. How? First, by allowing the PTO to hire enough competent examiners to handle the work flow. The PTO is a self-sufficient agency. It is actually a significant profit center for the government. Much of the money paid into the PTO however is immediately diverted by Congress for other purposes instead of being put back into the PTO to improve the agency. Most recently, Congress drastically increased the size of user fees at the PTO to pay for Homeland Security. I am confident in saying the the diversion of user fees from the PTO is among the Top 3 Gripes of every patent attorney in the US.

The execution may be flawed at times, but the policy is sound. We have advanced much further as a society by granting patents than we would have otherwise.