by In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Robert Merton, an American sociologist who is considered a founding father of modern sociology, introduced his “Mertonian norms” which outlined the four sets of institutional imperatives. “CUDOS,” or communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism were declared to comprise the basis of the ethos of modern science. While this “ethos of science” has not been codified, Merton declares that the values “can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists […] in countless writings on the scientific spirit and in moral indignation.”
Yet these norms, which conceptually uphold the “morals” of science are unachievable in a capitalist society. The Mertonian norm of Communalism, for example, declares that a sense of “common ownership” of scientific goods (including intellectual property) is required in order to promote collective collaboration. Furthermore, this norm declares that scientists should have equal access to these goods, and reward for discoveries should not be private ownership, but rather recognition and esteem. The patenting mechanism that makes innovations “private property” in the capitalistic economy goes against the ethos of science. The patenting of intellectual knowledge, prevalent in capitalistic society, while providing a certain recognition to individuals for their discoveries, also directly counters the democracy of science by allowing for the “secrecy” of knowledge, and the “ownership” of scientific knowledge.
Merton recognizes the incompatibility of communalism with patenting, when he declares :
The communism of the scientific ethos is incompatible with the definition of technology as “private property” in a capitalistic economy… Patents proclaim exclusive rights of use and, often, nonuse. The suppression of invention denies the rationale of scientific production and diffusion.
Yet Intellectual Property rights, which allow for the patenting of scientific knowledge, not only go against the communalism ethos of science, but threatens the production of knowledge for greater societal need. In Biopiracy, the Plunder of Knowledge, Vandana Shiva points to the ways in which the patenting of intellectual property destroys intellectual diversity and creativity. IPR’s which Shiva argues are founded on the fallacy “that people only if they make profits and guaranteed them through IPR protection” negates the scientific creativity of those not spurred by the search for profits. In turn, the patenting system has led to the skewing of research to target greater commercial interests rather than social needs. Molecular biology, for example, has become increasingly important in the 21st Century for techniques for the biotechnology industry. In turn, other disciplines of biology that may not be as commercially profitable but socially necessary have “shriveled up and died.” Thus, Shiva argues, patents are not necessary for “developing climate of invention and creativity,” and are more importantly used as instruments of market control — which ultimately undermine the social creativity of the scientific community by stifling the free exchange of knowledge among scientists.
As we ignore the useful and the necessary to concentrate only on the profitable, Shiva warns that not only are we “destroying the social conditions for the creation of intellectual diversity,” but as priorities shift from social need to potential return on investment, “entire streams of knowledge and learning will be forgotten and become extinct.”
The threat of patenting goes well beyond the violation of a Mertonian norm, and in fact threatens to hinder the pursuit of knowledge that isn’t deemed “profitable.” Yet if it is capitalism monopolizing scientific progress, perhaps it is our economic values, rather than patenting itself, which need to be reconsidered.
Sources
Shiva, V. (1998). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Dartington: Green Books in association with The Gaia Foundation.
Merton, R. K., & Storer, N. W. (1998). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.