[Sorry, since the article I reference in here is not online, I can’t link you to it—if you would like to read the full text aside from what I’ve summarized/quoted in here, send me an email].
As I said in a comment about an earlier post, I am a Senior Literary Editor for The Triple Helix, which is an undergraduate journal of science, society, and the law which has many chapters worldwide. As a Senior Literary Editor, I come across many writers’ takes on different issues relating to science, society, and the law—a sphere which includes questions of science communication.
One of my writers at UC Berkeley, Dena Chen, raised my awareness to a particular issue in science communication during the last literary cycle. She wrote about the inadequacies of public access databases to inform scientific innovators about the politics and legal issues tied with the creation of a new product, or the publishing of a new discovery. Such issues arise, for example, in the judicial sides of patent law and intellectual property-- scientists unaffiliated with a large company may be underinformed or unaware of such issues in their quest for scientific innovation. These political and legal obstacles are often a great hindrance to the creative process.
In her article, Chen discusses the current methods scientific innovators use to gain awareness about the legalities and politics tied with scientific development. Court records and legal proceedings from previous cases aren’t free—under the current system, called PACER, such documents are too expensive for an individual to access. Thus, large companies are favored and individual scientists, lacking resources and knowledge of intellectual property rights, are at a distinct disadvantage. Chen continues by arguing for free public access to cases and past court documents relating to patent law and copyright infringement. She argues that “inventors, law firms, judges, juries, investors, and the public need the help of professional, conclusive judicial policies and free databases to observe a more efficient and functional intellectual property legal system.”
Though this issue somewhat relates more to our earlier units on knowledge distribution, I was wondering what the class thought of this issue. What do such legal and political obstacles mean for the production of “science” in terms of biases toward large companies or universities? Are these factors impeding the synthesis of “reliable knowledge about the world”? Is a free database system the answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I remember hearing a speech on this issue in my COMM 201 class last semester. Personally, I think these kinds of things should be accessible to everyone. Second, the patent law as it stands now is extremely ridiculous--there are patents out there for sealing an envelope with your tongue. Patents and legal paperwork be freely accessible, or at least more accessible, but the patent system as it stands should also be revised. Many officials reading incoming patents compare them against currently filed patents. These people are not necessarily experts in the field. If patents could be posted online, real experts in the field could post their comments. Then, the officials could deem the incoming patent as a novel innovation based on the comments. This would not only help move the production of reliable knowledge forward, but it would also make the patent system more efficient. Another plus: less copyright infringement due to stupid patent laws.
If this process is not revised, people with money and power will be in total control of where science moves forward.
The issue of intellectual property shows just how enmeshed the fields of legality, politics, and science are in contemporary society.
We had briefly discussed the norms proposed by sociologist, R. K. Merton, and the idea of IP and patents is diametrically opposed his ideas of communism and universalism. If my IP is protected under patent law, you do not have open access to it. Thus such ideas pose a problem particularly for individuals, rather than large conglomerates or institutions, do to their inability to purchase such access.
While open access to information and publications may pose the solution to IP problems in the realm of science, such a policy will cause new issues to arise. For example, we must evaluate which aspects of science are important to us; IP may allow people to achieve economic gains and thereby encourage research, however, does that undermine our production of scientific knowledge for the sake of academia? Open access encourages general understanding, but does it lessen the authority of professional expertise?
Consequently, the pros and cons of each method should be valued and weighed before we seek to change our current policies.
Post a Comment