Secrecy is increasing in step with competition

[Wise Young]

While I know that scientists are becoming more and more secretive, I did not realize the extent of this in experimental biology where, according to this letter to Nature, a survey in 1966 indicated that 50% of scientists are willing to talking to others about their current research by a similar survey in 1998 suggests that only 26% are willing to talk about their current research. Experimental biologists are the worst with only 14% willing to share their current research. I don't think that it is this bad in spinal cord injury research although a poll of our scientists would be of interest.


Source (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v422/n6934/full/422801c_fs.html)
24 April 2003
Nature 422, 801 - 802 (2003) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Secrecy is increasing in step with competition

Sir - Various authors and reports have recently claimed (for example, refs 1-3) that the increasing commercialization of academic science has led to an increase in secrecy. However, our comparison of two surveys of experimental biologists, mathematicians and physicists, conducted about 30 years apart, suggests a more complicated and interesting picture.

As feared, secrecy (measured as unwillingness to discuss ongoing research with those outside the research group) has increased.

In 1966 (ref. 4), 50% of 1,042 respondents reported feeling safe in talking with all others about their current research, but by 1998, when we surveyed 202 scientists from the same three fields (details of methods and results available from J.W.), the equivalent number was 26%. Experimental biologists have become particularly secretive, with only 14% willing to talk openly about their current research in 1998. Secrecy is strongly predicted by scientific competition (measured as concern over having one's research results anticipated). The effects of commercial activity, on the other hand, are quite mixed. Patenting has no effect; industry funding is associated with greater secrecy; but having industry collaborators is associated with less secrecy.

These university-industry collaborations can be viewed as part of a strategy to share findings and expertise with the wider scientific and technical community. For companies, timeliness and customization of information are often more important than exclusivity, so they are willing to tolerate, even encourage, their academic collaborators' participation in the shared conversation of a scientific field, thereby giving the company access to the whole community's expertise. In contrast to these collaborations, industry funding alone is often associated with a university laboratory acting as a subcontractor to a company's R&D project, and may produce associated secretive behaviour.

Thus, there is reason to believe that secrecy has increased among academic scientists, but that the focus on commercialization as the cause may be misplaced. Although commercial activity may reduce formal activities such as publication or sharing of materials, it may have fewer negative effects on informal communication among researchers. As this informal communication is significant in transferring information to companies5 and is at least as important as publication for distributing information among scientists, this is encouraging news.

Although it is right to raise concerns about the negative effects of publication restrictions associated with industry funding, we should not conclude that university-industry linkages per se produce unhealthy levels of secretiveness among academic scientists. Instead, it may be better to focus on alleviating some of the negative consequences of scientific competition.

Recent increases in US government funding for science, if they are sustained, may help to lower the intensity of competition, as well as the dependence on industry funding, and thereby reduce secrecy. Furthermore, although we need to be wary of the strings attached to industry funding, university-industry collaborative research should be encouraged.

We thank Lowell Hargens for providing field-level data from ref. 4.

John P. Walsh
Research Center for Advanced Economic Engineering, University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan
Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7140 USA
walsh@aee.u-tokyo.ac.jp.

Wei Hong
Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7140 USA

[Wise Young]

Sorry, I did not explain why I put this in the computer section... It is because we are organizing a database for spinal cord injury scientists to put their data into. Wise.

[Acid]

But maybe once patents are done, or others found out, too, so there is not that much point to secrecy anymore, there might be then less secrecy and more free exchange.

With the persecuted branches, like LSD, to get at data from others, can be blocked far more hinderingly, than just some not being out for sharing all they know about this or that with just anyone.

Maybe be glad in your branch you just got the problem of internal blocking.
And not such of external blocking attempts added on top of various internal blocking.

If I wanted to know what the current standard acidhead research levels are for example on anterior cingulate research, I can't just pick up a branch journal with contact addresses.
I might learn private, soandso programmed transcingulate into frontal cortex.
Etc., ...

But not like publishings & contact addresses on every corner.

So with all complaining you might still have quite some advantages there.

At least not most of your branch and research has gone sort of alike underground.

That is one of the advantages of not being of a persecuted branch.
So maybe be glad you just got the problems you have there when it comes to data access.
I regard Westie science brain systems research data to be generalized far easier accessible still than LSD data.

If I wanted for example anterior cingulate gyrus research data from Westie science, no biggie, alone on the net might be more pages than I can read in a lifetime, often with contact addresses if out for more data, along with birth given names.

If for comparison I wanted that transcingulate programming data, bad luck.
I think it was Wiz who had it, and seemed to have changed the e-mail address. No birth given name, probably no web site.
No data access available.

In my branch that is common.
External persecution blocking exchange.

Excuse me, but some of your problems there to me seem cute in comparison.

[Acid]

Introduction to the Flexible Output Cork Principle:

If I didn't wish Westie science to have access to some data, one way might seem to not give any of them access to it.
Nor people a lot to do with them.

However why should I not tell a friend who's a carpenter or an art student. Even if he tells another carpenter or art student, so what.
There seems no connection from them to Westie science. So it seems comparatively safe there.


Not sure if not some scientists into research might tell their living partners and some of their friends what they are into to an extent.
Also applying the flexible output cork system.
Maybe some friend of theirs is into gardening, and asks alike "an olygowhatocyte?"
Why not tell him a bit about what one researches. This one does not sound like understanding much, nor maybe caring for serious much, and three beer later might have half-forgotten again.
If ever having understood much about it in the first place.

With a Westie scientists, who is also not a reliable pal to shut up about what the researcher or the company he works for do not wish to spread, why tell that one.
This one might understand quite well the words, and know lots of other scientists.
Who again know other scientists.

Anyway, the Flexible Output Cork Principle might have to do with personal relations to a person, and likeliness it does not go from there where one does not wish data to go.

And when it is there, might be also manipulated. To get at data.


Might be the question what for. Just you?
Or from you to who knows whom in science?

(Anyway, some personal curiosities about data might still be fed off, even if there are some corks, if the corks do not really in design apply to oneself.)

[Acid]

Just laughingly thought, and with various with you, "Wise", one might not even need an output cork, as you are an input cork.

[Acid]

there are cultures where universities tend to be state funded.
Though the research money might be low, there is not seeming to be such a data restriction.

The university folks might be proud that THEIR university is researching THIS.

If having suited connections with people making decisions about what is to be on the research program, one might steer research to an extent also that way preferred directions.

Laws might influence research in a country, like with stem cells.
So if thinking about, if giving a Ukrainian, German, Indian or other university steering attempts into a certain research direction, this might have to be considered.
Also that precision what exactly one would like to be more researched, might influence.


(For example if specifying down to specific DNA sequences, certain RNA sorts, TF II "x" transcription factors, or other quite differing cell aspects, what where would be found interesting to be researched towards what.
Or making specific questions, like about advantages and disadvantages if from a died old donating relative a spinal transplant were made. IF this can be made; I don't know.


I more meant, not just vague stuff, like you seeming to find embryonal stem cells interesting, but setting thinking of people deciding research projects on specific tracks.)

Hm, seems R. wants his computer eventually back.