Technology has a proprietary aspect and a public good aspect. The proprietary aspect makes it profitable for firms to invest in its advance. The public aspect enables the community as a whole to benefit from technological advance. In order for technical advance to proceed rapidly and for the gams to be widely shared, there must be an appropriate balance between the proprietary and public aspects. Recent policy discussions have emphasized the proprietary aspects of technology, calling for a tightening and broadening (...) of intellectual property rights. Universities have been encouraged to be more proprietary. We may be in danger of leaning too far in this direction. (shrink)

This article discusses the widespread belief that secrecy in science is increasing—and that secrecy in science is ethically problematic. To what extent should we worry about this alleged development? In an introduction it is observed that there is very little hard empirical evidence supporting the belief of increasing secrecy in science. Evidence seems mostly to be of the anecdotal kind. The “purist ideology” of science, in which openness of research figures prominently as normative basis, is revealed as one-sided with respect (...) to accepted practice. Issues of commercialization of science and patenting are discussed, and it is claimed that what is ethically problematic is less related to secrecy than to more general ethical issues regarding the social consequences of scientific knowledge. On the basis of a particular case, an area of scientific research is introduced for which it is claimed that secrecy does constitute a serious problem. This area has been characterized, by Funtowicz and Ravetz, as “postnormal science!’ It is claimed that postnormal science and regulatory science necessitate new institutional mechanisms inside science to tackle ethical dilemmas. (shrink)

RESUMEN: Este artículo argumenta a favor de la necesidad de mantener una distinción nítida entre ciencia y técnica en contra de ciertas tendencias interpretativas y socio-institucionales dominantes en algunos círculos de filósofos y sociólogos. Se presentan dos argumentos: el primero insiste en la conveniencia analitíca de describir direrencìadamente las actividades científicas y tecnológicas a partir de las nociones de "acto epistémico" y "acto material"; el segundo descubre en las reglas constitutivas de la aceptabilidad de resultados científicos y técnicos respectivamente un (...) modo de distinguir socio-institucionalmente ambas esferas de producción de conocimiento.ABSTRACT: This paper argues for the need to maintain a clear distinction between science and technology against some well-known interpretative tendencies within some dominant circles of philosophers and sociologists. Two arguments are presented: the first one insists on the analytical convenience to describe differently the scientific and the technological activities by introducing the notions of "epistemic act" and "material act"; the second one discovers in the constitutiverules for the acceptability of scientific and technological results a way to distinguish socioinstitutionally both spheres of knowledge production. (shrink)