Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ What's so Original in Academic Research?
Weiye Loh

What's so Original in Academic Research? - 26 views

started by Weiye Loh on 21 Aug 09
  • Weiye Loh
    #1 Weiye Loh on 21 Aug 09
     
    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2009_02_13/caredit.a0900021

    But this column isn't about the carpet cleaner who won the Nobel Prize. It's about the courtesy van driver who didn't. The 2008 Nobel Prize in chemistry honors Osamu Shimomura, professor emeritus at Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Boston University Medical School; Martin Chalfie, the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of biological sciences and department chair at Columbia University, and Roger Tsien, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC San Diego, for "the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP," according to a Nobel statement. Used as an intracellular "tagging tool," GFP is a "guiding star for biochemistry" that lets scientists watch processes involved in cancer, neural development, and much more.

    But a fourth man, Douglas Prasher, played what Tsien has called "a very important role" in the GFP story, making it possible for Chalfie and Tsien to do their work. "They could've easily given the prize to Douglas and the other two and left me out," Chalfie has been quoted as saying in numerous media reports. But they didn't give it to Prasher, and for anyone interested in understanding the scientific labor market, the tale of Prasher, the protein, and the prize serves, rather like a glowing body within a cell, as a marker revealing realities often obscured by misconception and myth.

    Since everything is built upon past knowledge, past works, etc., what exactly is original? Is it then ethical to accord someone the title/ status/ ownership of certain intellectual property?
  • Elaine Ong
    #4 Elaine Ong on 24 Aug 09
     
    Hi~

    I found your question quite interesting and this is what I thought of and questions that arose when I try to reason it out...

    What exactly is original? This is like a question that tries to grasp the essence of what is the truth? I agree with you that a lot of things are built upon past knowledge, past works, etc. For example before releasing a journal article, you have to conduct research on other school of thoughts, and after that form a research question and design your own research - experiments, focus groups, etc. But by basing your experiments on previous works of knowledge, you are already heading towards building upon or modifying what people have found in the past. Does that contend as originality or adapting accordingly (cultural and historical specificity)? If it is the latter, then is it ethical to even acknowledge that their article or experiments are 'original'?

    Besides that, different perspectives and interpretation of results may also affect the quality of 'originality' pertaining to the results obtained through academic research. Let's say even if two parties look at the same 'material' brain, both may not result in the same conclusions. They would definitely base their deductions from past experiences and inherent beliefs about the brain. Even political ideologies and social-cultural factors play a role in determining what they see as being 'original'. It is also impossible to have a blank mind before observing something in order to obtain a truly 'original' conclusion after an 'original' translation of that subject matter. EVEN the translation of the non-human object by researchers could be violating the non-human object's rights of speaking for itself. Is it ethical for us to be representatives of non-human actors and claim to understand them at last or even manipulate them for our own ends?

    As for the 2nd question, Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce (WIPO). I feel that whatever the person (applying for IP rights) has reviewed or based his new experiments upon, and whether or not his basis was 'original', the fact that he had delved deeper into the issues and addressed questions that were perhaps not answered in past works, it is still a creation of the mind.

    But then again I would also like to question the motivation of scientists/researchers. Since they often claim that their 'quest for truth' or research results are solely for the 'betterment of society' (communitarian), why not make it something like 'open source', where everyone will be able to gain access to that information for free and without the hassle of observing patent and copyright rules? By the way, who created those rules in the first place?

    Scientists obviously are constantly producing innovations/scientific breakthroughs to make a name for themselves and gain incentives in return for their efforts which have lasted for years. This could come in the form of material benefits, or merely just to receive accolades and acceptance within the scientific community. Hence I believe that humans are egoistic in many different ways, and often expect something in return. Is it ethical to blame them for being like that? Wanting IP rights?

    Lastly, I have a question regarding the Nobel Prize. How are winners determined? How is the committee formed? Those are the people having the authority of determining which is 'valuable', 'better' and of 'worth'. These in fact reflect the dominant discourse of what is considered 'good' within their own ideological frameworks. Is it then ethical for the Nobel Prize to even exist when power structures are at play and may inhibit certain works that are of 'true worth'?

    I'm kinda lost in the murkiness of everything. =P
  • Jude John
    #5 Jude John on 25 Aug 09
     
    Thanks for your comments. I may have appeared to be contradictory, but what I really meant was that ownership of IP should not be a motivating factor to innovate. I realise that in our capitalistic context this is not practicable, as a value is always ascribed to anything (the monetary effects of ownership of IP in this case).

    However, consider that the capitalist model is the most ethical way to innovation? It is a reinforcing of desirable behaviour for the betterment of society. In my opinon the ownership model in managing IP is unethical, as others are held ransom to the demands of the IP owner. Also, it serves to boost the egos of researchers (due to the fame generated by their discoveries). Research is egotistic, and researchers want to be the only one who can say "I have found this". Curiosity might have been the root of research, but in the end, it's all about the researcher as he/she tires to get published and obtain tenure.

    This is surely at odds with Alfred Nobel's vision for the Nobel prize, which is (was?) human betterment.


    Weiye Loh wrote:
    > Why are you contradicting yourself Jude?
    >
    > First you say that if there's no ownership of IP, there will be no "push" factor for people to innovate.
    >
    > And then you say that "researchers are not in it for the money but rather to (try to) quench their eternal thirst for knowledge". So I'm assuming that thirst for knowledge is not enough of a push. And that the ownership of knowledge requires an external party to officiates that ownership. But really, underlying all these is but the capitalist ideology of production for you do not own (produce) or claim to own (produce) unless that ownership is objectified.
    >
    > To answer your question, my answer will be a frank yes in this capitalistic society. At the risk of being a romantic, the ideals of the prize was already lost the moment capitalist ideology took over. The same goes for the Olympics - it has become a mere spectacle to encourage capitalistic production and consumption. The ideology underlying human betterment becomes perhaps, nothing more than functions of capitalistic growth or potential.
    >
    > If the Nobel committee should not be offering cash prize based on the argument that it the prize is not a tool to massage the researchers' egos, then they should not offering the prize at all in the first place.
    >
    > But as the enlightened west has come to realize, it is 'safer' to assume that human beings are inherently selfish (true altruism does not exist in economics) and motivated by cost vis-a-vis benefit, we have decidedly adopted the capitalist ideals and deemed the communist values dangerous. The danger that arises from communism is perhaps the naive opposite assumption that human beings are inherently selfless.
    >
    > Hence, the ethical answer is to seek a balance between the two. Like that Taoist cosmic symbol of Yin and Yang. =)
    >
    >
    > Jude John wrote:
    > > Hmmm food for thought. But if, as you suggest that ownership of certain IP is unethical would there still exist innovation? Because then there would be no "push" factor for people to translate ideas beyond scribbles on napkins.
    > >
    > > I would think that with regard to recognition of contribution perhaps the most ethically practical way to go about it would be to recognise the contributions of others who have significantly impacted upon the "final" (for the moment) product. That way even though the Nobel prize committee tends not to award more then three persons a prize, these other people can take satisfaction in the acknowledgement of their past efforts.
    > >
    > > A question for Weiye: Should the Nobel committee even be offering a cash prize? Surely researchers are not in it for the money but rather to (try to) quench their eternal thirst for knowledge? (I assume that money and fame are powerful corrupting agents, and the ten million kroner in prize money, along with worldwide fame devalues the effort of these researchers) After all, the Nobel prize is awarded to those who enable human betterment, not a tool to massage researchers' egos.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group