We have been focusing on scientific communication, social structure and knowledge production.
- Does the web’s influence on science enough to talk about change in general?
- Or is it impossible to go beyond the context of local practices?
- Where could those changes be observed?
- Are there any other categories that should be taken into account?
Can “Science 2.0” learn from developments of the “Web 2.0” regarding Intellectual Property rights, in particular the “open-source movement”?
The diagnosis that intellectual property rights may conflict with norms traditionally associated with science, i.e. the so-called “Mertonian norms”, isn’t new to “science 2.0”, but has already been recognized for “science 1.0”.
In short the argument goes like this: IP rights, with their possibility to exclude others from intellectual content and to license this content for money, give a financial incentive to create new knowledge. Science, in the Mertonian ideal at least, only needs reputation as an incentive. But not only do the incentives clash, but IP rights, through their exclusion effects, stand in direct opposition to some of Merton’s norms, most importantly to what he calls “communalism”. But since we don’t live in an ideal world, we have to accept – for now at least – that there is financial pressure on scientists to capitalize their research. Read on…
Tonight we’ll start the seminary “Science 2.0” that will accompany our blog.
Come and join! Share your ideas, discuss and let’s find out what there is to discover about science!
Bielefeld University – 18-20H – U6-211