Issues surrounding data access, ownership, and control raise important issues for science policy.
The new sociology of science has examined many features of scientific knowledge and practice,
but has made only preliminary efforts to study data access. Building on ethnographic studies of
scientific laboratories (and other constructivist work), this article suggests how the new sociology of science can study data access empirically. The article develops a perspective based on
an analysis of the process of scientific production and the creation, packaging, and exchange of
data streams. It also provides an example of how constructivist studies can contribute to policy
analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barinaga, M.1989. The missing crystallography data. Science245 (15 September): 1179-81.
2.
Bartlett, J. W. , and J. V. Siena.1983-84. Research and development limited partnerships as a device to exploit university owned technology. Journal of College and University Law10:435.
3.
Bent, S. A. , R. L. Schwaab, D. G. Conlin, and D. D. Jeffery.1987. Intellectual property rights in biotechnology worldwide . New York: Stockton.
4.
Bowker, G.1992. What's in a patent? In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law.Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
5.
Callon, M.1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation. In Power, action, and belief , edited by J. Law, 196-233. Boston : Routledge.
6.
Cambrosio, A. , P. Keating , and M. Mackenzie.1990 . Scientific practice in the courtroom: The construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute. Social Problems37:275-93.
7.
Cecil, J. S. , and R. Boruch.1988. Compelled disclosure of research data: An early warning and suggestions for psychologists. Law and Human Behavior12(2):181-9.
8.
Cecil, J. S. , and E. Griffin.1985. The role of legal policies in data sharing . In National Academy of Sciences, Sharing Scientific Data , 123-47. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
9.
Chubin, D. E.1985. Open science and closed science: Tradeoffs in a democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values10:73-81.
10.
Clarke, A. E.1990. Controversy and the development of reproductive sciences. Social Problems31:18-37.
11.
Collins, H. M.1985. Changing order. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Cozzens, S. E.1989. Social control and multiple discovery in science: The opiate receptor case. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
13.
Davidson, S. J., and R. L. DeMay.1986. Application of trade secret law to new technology— Unwinding the tangled web. William Mitchell Law Review12:579.
14.
Eisenberg, R. S.1987. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research, Yale Law Journal97:177.
15.
Etzkowitz, H.1983. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science . Minerva21:198-233
16.
Etzkowitz, H.1989. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: A case of the transformation of norms. Social Problems36:14-29.
17.
Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co. 1985. 758 F. 2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985).
18.
Ferguson, J. R.1981. Scientific and technological expression: a problem in first amendment theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review16:519.
19.
Fordham Law Review. 1984. Note, microorganisms and the patent office. Fordham Law Review52:592.
20.
Friedman, A. S.1986. Law and the innovative process: preliminary reflections. Columbia Business Law Review1:1-47.
21.
Fujimura, J. H.1987. Constructing do-able problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science17:257-93.
22.
Fujimura, J. H.1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundry objects, "translation," in Science as practice and culture, edited by Andrew Pickering.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Hagstrom, W. O.1965. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books .
24.
Harvard Journal of Legislation. 1987. Note, patent and trade secret protection in university-industry research relationships in biotechnology. Harvard Journal of Legislation24:191.
25.
Hilgartner, S. forthcoming. The human genome project. In Handbook on Science, Technology, and Society, edited by J. Petersen et al. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Kenney, M.1986. Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven: Yale.
27.
Krimsky, S.1991. Biotechnics and society: The rise of industrial genetics. New York : Praeger.
28.
Knorr-Cetina, K.1981. The manufacture of knowledge. New York: Pergamon .
29.
Knorr-Cetina, K.1992. The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship between laboratory and experiment in science. In Science as practice and culture , edited by A. Pickering.Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
30.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Latour, B. , and S. Woolgar.1979. Laboratory life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Lynch, M.1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
33.
Mackenzie, M., A. Cambrosio , and P. Keating.1988 . The commercial application of a scientific discovery: The case of the hybridoma technique. Research Policy17:155-70.
34.
Mackenzie, M., P. Keating , and A. Cambrosio.1990 . Patents and free scientific information in biotechnology: Making monoclonal antibodies proprietary. Science, Technology, & Human Values15:65-83.
35.
Markle, G. E. , and S. S. Robin.1985. Biotechnology and the social reconstruction of molecular biology. Science, Technology, & Human Values10:70-9.
36.
McCain, K. W.1991. Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:491-516.
37.
Melton, G. B.1988. When scientists are adversaries, do participants lose?Law and Human Behavior12:191-8.
38.
Merton, R. K.1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The Sociology of Science , edited by R. K. Merton and N. W. Storer.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California. 1988. 249 Cal. Rptr. 494.
40.
National Academy of Sciences.1985. Sharing research data. Committee on National Statistics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41.
National Council of Lawyers and Scientists.1989. Project on scientific fraud and misconduct, report on workshop number three. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
42.
Nelkin, D.1984. Science as intellectual property. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
43.
Nelson, R. R.1989. What is private and what is public about technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values14:229-41.
44.
Pickering, A., ed. 1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Rip, A.1982. The development of restrictedness in the sciences. In Scientific establishments and hierarchies, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol. 6, edited by N. Elias, H. Martins, and R. Whitley , 219-38. Boston: Reidel.
46.
Samuelson, P.1989. Innovation and competition: Conflicts over intellectual property rights in new technologies . In Owning scientific and technical information : value and ethical issues, edited by V. Weil and J. W. Snapper, 169-92. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Sieber, J. E.1988. Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior12:199-206.
48.
Stanley B., and M. Stanley.1988. Data sharing: The primary researcher's perspective. Law and Human Behavior12:173-80.
49.
Star, S. L.1988. Introduction: The sociology of science and technology. Social Problems35:197-205.
50.
Traweek, S.1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
Vanderbilt Law Review. 1984. Note, forced disclosure of academic research. Vanderbilt Law Review 586:607-8.
52.
Weil, V.1988. Policy incentives and constraints on scientific and technical information. Science, Technology, & Human Values13:17-26.
53.
Weil, V, and R.D. Hollander , 1989. Normative issues in data sharing . Paper presented at the 1989 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
54.
Weil, V, and J. W. Snapper , eds. 1989. Owning scientific and technical information : Value and ethical issues. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
55.
Weiner, C.1986. Universities, professors, and patents: A continuing controversy. Technology Review (February/March): 32-43.
56.
Zuckerman, H.1988. Introduction: Intellectual property and diverse rights of ownership in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values13:7-16.
