The new information and communication technologies hold tremendous promise for both carrying out scientific research and disseminating the results. The importance of these technologies to the achievement of economic and military ends may, however, hamper their use for scientific purposes. Similarly, and perhaps of greater significance, the way these technologies are employed in defense and in the private sector may adversely affect the progress of science and seriously constrain the whole realm of scientific activity. Thus conflict over the use of new technologies is likely to give rise to a number of information-related public policy issues, issues on which the scientific community will have to take a stand. Decisions made in this regard will govern the flows of information within and across the borders of the United States, profoundly affecting scientific communication and perhaps even determining the future of U.S. science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Sherri Turkel, The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984).
2.
James R. Beniger , “Information Society and Global Science,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
3.
3. U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal Government Information Technology: Electronic Record Systems and Individual Privacy, OTA-CIT-296 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986).
4.
4. U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, OTA-CIT-302 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986).
5.
5. Bernard Barber, Science and the Social Order (New York: Free Press, 1952), pp. 7-8.
6.
6. Ibid., p. 7.
7.
7. Ibid., pp. 45-46.
8.
8. Talcott Parsons, The Social System (New York: Free Press, 1951), p. 333.
9.
9. Ibid., pp. 332-33.
10.
10. Ibid., p. 333.
11.
11. Barber, Science and the Social Order, p. 46.
12.
12. Ibid.
13.
13. Ibid., pp. 50-52.
14.
14. Ibid., pp. 85-87.
15.
15. Ibid., p. 84.
16.
16. Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 270.
17.
17. Ibid., pp. 270-78.
18.
18. The practice of publishing and disseminating scientific works was one of the developments that provided an impetus for science during the Renaissance. As Barber points out, “The [scientific] societies also became the channels not only of national but of international communication in the new knowledge. Each society had regular foreign correspondents charged with reporting events in his country; and reading letters of these correspondents was a feature of the meetings.”Barber, Science and the Social Order, p. 54.
19.
19. Merton, Sociology of Science, p. 293. Describing the process, Merton says, “This way in which the norms of science help to produce this result seems clear enough. On every side the scientist is reminded that it is his role to advance knowledge and his happiest fulfillment of that role, to advance knowledge greatly. This is only to say, of course, that in the institution of science originality is at a premium.” Ibid.
20.
20. Ibid., p. 294.
21.
21. As quoted in Bruce Willis Bugbee, Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1976), p. 72.
22.
22. As quoted in J. D. Bernal, Science and Industry in the Nineteenth Century (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953), p. 86.
23.
as quoted in Harriet Zuckerman, “Deviant Behavior and Social Control in Science,” in Deviance and Social Change, ed. Edward Sagarin (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1977), pp. 88-89.
24.
24. Christopher Burns and Patricia Martin, The Economics of Information, Contractor report prepared for U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Boston: Christopher Burns Inc., 1985).
25.
The rapid obsolescence of laboratory and research tools, combined with the highly complex and sophisticated nature of the equipment now needed for advanced technology research, results in capital costs beyond the reach of most academic institutions. For example, in 1970 the cost of new instrumentation in U.S. universities' laboratories was estimated to be $200 million; in 1980, it was $1 billion. National Research Council, Revitalizing Laboratory Instrumentation (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982).
26.
26. David Dickson, The New Politics of Science (New York: Pantheon, 1984), p. 66.
27.
27. Philip L. Bereano, “Making Knowledge a Commodity: Increased Corporate Influence on Universities,”IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, pp. 8-9 (Dec. 1986).
28.
28. As quoted in Henry Etzkowitz, “Entrepreneurial Science and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science,”Minerva, 21(2-3):199 (Summer-autumn 1985).
29.
29. “Academe and Industry Debate Partnership,”Science, 219(4481):150-151 (Jan. 1983).
30.
as quoted in Bereano, “Making Knowledge a Commodity,” p. 12.
31.
31. Dorothy Nelkin, Science as Intellectual Property: Who Controls Scientific Research (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 1-8.
32.
32. Ivars Peterson, “Bits of Ownership: Growing Computer Software Sales Are Forcing Universities to Rethink Their Copyright and Patent Policies,”Science News, 21 Sept. 1985, pp. 189-190.
33.
33. Ibid.
34.
34. “Who Owns the Human Genome?”Science, 237(4813):358-361 (July 1987).
35.
35. Ibid.
36.
as cited in Barber, Science and the Social Order, p. 21.
37.
37. Fred W. Weingarten, “Controlling Cryptographic Publication,”Computers & Security, 2(1):41-48 (1983).
38.
38. David A. Wilson, “Federal Control of Information in Academic Science,”Jurimetrics, 27(3):283-296 (Spring 1987).
39.
39. With respect to computer science support, see U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues, OTA-CIT-268 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985).
40.
See also U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, The Impact of Information Technology on Science: Science Policy Study Background Report No. 5, 1986.
