Open Information and Secrecy in Research

OPEN INFORMATION AND SECRECY IN RESEARCH A. C. FABERGÉ* To what extent do scientists communicate with one another within their own field? Any individual is usually aware ofusage in this respect in his own science; he is normally unaware of what happens in other sciences but assumes it is probably not different from his own. It is only on rare occasions, such as when scientists switch fields, that they became aware of differences, which they may then find most astonishing— differences which are so great as to determine the very structure ofsome sciences. There have, of course, been a number of sociological studies of communication in science [e.g., 1-3]. Usually confined to some one branch, they deal with relatively minute differences in information exchange . In most studies we have seen, there is no suggestion that information may be deliberately withheld, that disinformation may be passed out, or that theft occurs. Yet it is these practices that make the real difference. Hagstrom [3] does discuss this at some length and devotes a section [3, p. 87-98] to secrecy. Such activities are not measurable and are not normally reported, and one has to rely on anecdote and hearsay. A survey ofany substantial proportion ofall sciences is also very difficult, and we shall not attempt it. We shall confine ourselves to some general remarks and end with a discussion of the special case of genetics because we are familiar with this field and because it can be taken as a type-example of the most open kind of science. It seems obvious that communication is crucial to scientific progress and that this is becoming more so, there being very few fields left in which an individual can still make significant progress in the absence of contact with his fellows. One can distinguish two very different levels in this communication: the publication and reading of papers, on the one Many of the thoughts expressed here are the result of discussions with colleagues over several years. Among those who generously gave of their time and who should be cited are J. R. Ellison, S. P. Ellison, David S. Evans, Hans Grüneberg, Hans Kalmus, E. L. Lundelius, E. Novitski, the late W. Albert Noyes, Clarence P. Oliver, D. R. Parker, E. L. Powers, and Orville Wyss. However, they cannot be held responsible if their views have perhaps been misrepresented or misunderstood: The author takes full responsibility. ?Department of Zoology, University of Texas at Austin, Texas 78712.© 1982 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved 003 1 -5982/82/2502-0269$0 1 .00 Perspectives in Biohgy and Medicine, 25, 2 ¦ Winter 1982 | 263 hand, and personal letters or verbal contacts, on the other. The first, papers, is firmly regulated by established customs and is, of course, very slow. Therefore, publication need not concern us here, but the second process, informal conversation and letters, deserves, on the contrary, special attention. It is in such personal communication that the greatest discrepancies in behavior can occur, and because it is so much faster than publication, it can be said to determine the rate of progress. We shall consider only what may be called the internal ethics of science, in which the criterion will be progress of science, not whether that progress is beneficial or harmful. The fact that some individual scientist or laboratory rather than another wishes to be credited with a specific advance is a secondary consideration or surely ought to be. One major difference between the ethics of business and those of science is at once apparent here. Business could not operate with incentives turned in this way. The success of a business unit has priority, and the progress of an entire industry, say on a national or international scale, must be viewed as a consequence of the success of units. An individual business aims only at its own success, though a government can adopt a wider view in devising regulations for business. This is one reason that the issue of secrecy versus openness takes a very different form in science than it does in business and the moral values are quite different. In business certain types of information are normally kept...