genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) (05/22/89)
In my Development of Scientific Thought class I have to do a debate on an assigned topic. The topic that was given to me was Secrecy and Science. I need to know the arguments for and against the statement that "Science is public knowlege" so I can effectively make my argument for this statement. The only recent example that I can think of is the controversy over Pons & Flieshman <sp?> in which they withold the secrete to their experiment. I would appreciate it if you could point me to some publications which deal with the topic or even hear from you with your own opinions on the topic which is detailed below. Please respond, via e-mail since I do not read these newsgroups on a regular basis. Sorry if I posted to the wrong group. Here is the statement to argue: Science is public knowledge. To claim that knowledge is scientific, one must publish it so that one's peers can scrutinize it. In the twentieth- century; however, the openess of science has been repeatedly violated by nations and corporations interested in controlling the uses to which scientific knowlege it put. Has this "turn of secrecy" so altered one of the central features of science that its future is in doubt? Has it transformed a "democratic" science into an "authoritarian" science? I am to prove that open publication and communication is essential to the progress of science and that science cannot flourish if it is forced to operate under a viel of secrecy. Thanks in advance for any help that you may give me. / Jan Genemans, Consultant USENET: Jan.Genemans@Dartmouth.edu \ / Post Office Box 756 UUCP: dartvax!mac.dartmouth.edu!Jan.Genemans \ \ U.S. Merchant Marine Academy / \ Kings Point, NY 11024-1699 "Live long and prosper" -Spock /
travis@douglass.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (05/23/89)
In article <13582@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan Genemans) writes: > [give me some references so that I can ] > ... prove that open publication and communication is essential to the >progress of science and that science cannot flourish if it is forced to >operate under a veil of secrecy. try "Secrets" by Sissela Bok. She is a well-known writer on moral issues. Her book covers many aspects of keeping secrets, including the areas you describe. Her discussion will probably not be in the amount of detail you want, but she will cover all the primary issues and give references. you were looking for other examples where openness of science was an issue. the following should be easy enough to find. - lysenko's discredited genetic theories of inheritance in Stalin's USSR. - abortive actions under Reagan administration taken to limit or monitor access to publically available databases. - similar actions by the FBI and CIA to limit or monitor the activies of foreign-born students. - allegedly incomplete testing of DoD equipment, e.g., Aegis system, Stealth bomber, Sgt. York. - attempts by the NSA to classify publically described encryption algoritms, e.g. the RSA (Ravest-Shamir-Adleman) public-key algorithm. t Arpa: travis@mojo.cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis