The ideas that Robert Merton introduced allowed for more collaboration within the field of science. CUDOS  was a set of “norms” that promoted a higher level of thinking within the science community.  As we saw in our example in class, there were examples in history that would’ve benefitted from certain CUDOS norms.  As beneficial as the Mertonian norms seem, I would like to talk about the potential detriments that these ideas may cause.

First, although communalism may promote collaboration and ideas of teamwork, it also reduces incentive. Why would one scientist want to go above and beyond to find a scientific breakthrough when he can merely rely on other to further his work? There is no personal drive to be the best as all findings will be rewarded to the group of people and not individuals. Universalism is a concept that would allow for a more inclusive space. Letting anyone contribute to science would provide more literature, but the quality of work would be in question. How could you take a young scientist’s word if he is not established in his field yet. It allows for more contributions but there must be some sort of qualifications before someone can publish their work. Again, disinterestedness is an idea that reduces incentive. In order to be successful, I believe that you need to have a genuine interest in whatever you study. Finally, organized skepticism is one of the norms that I believe is hardest to poke holes in. I agree with the idea of peer review, it helps at all levels, The only negative that I foresee is people who are established in science might become upset with others criticizing their work and findings that they worked so hard to produce.