Ownership Rights in Science: Harriet A. Zuckerman on Evolving Norms of Intellectual Property

As was shown in “Priorities in scientific discovery, ” the classic 1957 paper by Robert K. Merton, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, peer recognition and, derivatively, more general recognition are central to the reward system and to intellectual property in science. 1 In discussing debyed recognition in a recent essay, we noted that the chance to receive the kind of acclaim that usually attends a major breakthrough is a powerful motivation for many scientists.z In the event of such a breakthrough, establishment of priority becomes a central concern. Self-promotion by scientists is a related issue that will IX discussed in the next issue of Current Contenrs” (C@). Also closely related to matters of priority and recognition is the question of ownership of scientific ideas and dkeoveries. Last year, in a special section of Science, Technology, & Human Values, several authors wrote on the theme of “Changing notions of ownership in science.”4 The papers derived from a session on that topic at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, held in the fall of 1986 in Pittsburgh, Pemsylvania. One of the participants was sociologist Harriet A. Zuckerman, also at Columbia. Her article, which outlines the topic and briefly introduces the other papers in the section, constitutes an excellent overview, which we are reprinting this week in CC.5 As Zuckerman notes, the issue of ownership in science engenders many conflicts— some old, some new. Particularly significant is the emergenee of what she calls “new June 26, 1989