Везде
If science is a public good, why do scientists own it?
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
If science is a public good, why do scientists own it?
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000617-8-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Steve Fuller 
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 4
Pages
23-39
Abstract
I argue that if science is to be a public good, it must be made one. Neither science nor any other form of knowledge is naturally a public good. And given the history of science policy in the twentieth century, it would be reasonable to conclude that science is in fact what economists call a ‘club good’. I discuss this matter in detail in two contexts: (1) current UK efforts to create a version of the US DARPA that would focus on projects of larger, long-term societal interests - i.e. beyond the interests of the academic specialities represented in, say, the US NSF; (2) what I call the‘organized hypocrisy’ involved in presenting science as a public good through the so-called ‘peer review’ process.
Keywords
science, public good, NSF, DARPA, organized hypocrisy, peer review
Date of publication
01.12.2020
Number of purchasers
11
Views
331
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Bazerman, C. Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987, 356 pp. 
2. Belfiore, M. The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World. New York: HarperCollins, 2009, 320 pp. 
3. Bush, V. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington DC: Office of Scientific Research and Development, 1945, 204 pp. 
4. Darnton, R. The Great Cat Massacre. New York: Basic Books, 1983, 320 pp. 
5. Fuller, S. The Governance of Science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2000, 192 pp. 
6. Fuller, S. Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, 490 pp. 
7. Fuller, S. Knowledge Management Foundations. Woburn MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002, 288 pp. 
8. Fuller, S. The Sociology of Intellectual Life. London: Sage, 2009, 192 pp. 
9. Fuller, S. “Deviant Interdisciplinarity as Philosophical Practice: Prolegomena To Deep Intellectual History”, Synthese, 2013, vol. 190, pp. 1899-1916. 
10. Fuller, S. Post Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game. London: Anthem Press, 2018, 218 pp. 
11. Fuller, S. “Against Academic Rentiership: a Radical Critique of the Knowledge Economy”, Postdigital Science and Education, 2019, vol. 1, pp. 335-356. 
12. Fuller, S. A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition: The Name of the Game. London: Anthem Press, 2020, 250 pp. 
13. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1959, 259 pp. 
14. Haldane, R. The Reign of Relativity. Toronto: Macmillan, 1921. 
15. Kevles, D. “The National Science Foundation and the Debate Over Postwar Research Policy, 1942-1945”, Isis, 1977, vol. 68, pp. 5-26. 
16. Knorr-Cetina, K. The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981, 189 pp. 
17. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. Laboratory Life. London: Sage, 1979, 271 pp. 
18. Samuelson, P. “Pure Theory of Public Expenditures and Taxation”, in: J. Margolis and H. Guitton (eds.), Public Economics. New York: Macmillan, 1969, pp. 98-123. 
19. Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, 448 pp. 
20. Stokes, D. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997, 196 pp. 
21. Turner, S. and Chubin, D. “The Changing Temptations of Science”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2020, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 40-46.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate