“According to the definition of intellectual property,” Mario Biagioli notes, “a scientist is literally a non‐author.”
V. Marchesi · The FASEB Journal · 1998
In the lead article in this month's Life Sciences Forum, Biagioli probes the deeper implications that underlie scientific authorship. He explores the practice of assigning credit to scientists on the basis of their scientific publications, pointing out that responsibility, rather than credit, needs to be attributed to a scientist's name, and explains why the trend in biomedicine toward “big science” and “multi-authorship” are potential complications that need serious analysis. Biagioli also tries to put into perspective what appears to be an increase in scientific fraud and why scientific fraud has such an ominous effect on the scientific enterprise. In discussing the reward system of science, Biagioli uses as his frame of reference what he refers to as the liberal economy, or the free market. He points out that the liberal economy and the reward system of science are not independent but complementary, and “are joined at the hips so to speak, by the hazy category of the public domain.” The reward system of science, Biagioli concludes, lacks the tools and flexibility of the free market, since, unlike the market that can and has adjusted historically to change, the logic of science is still tied to an “absolute concept of truth and responsibility.” It would be unwise, if not counterproductive, Biagioli believes, to move toward more corporate, market-based notions of scientific authorship. Obviously, this provocative thesis needs reading firsthand.