|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 89
Appendixes
OCR for page 90
OCR for page 91
Appendix A
Scientific Practices
To examine how any change in data policy or database legislation
might affect research in environmental science it is important to
understand how the scientific research community uses data.
The basic principles that govern this aspect of modern scientific
research have evolved so as to promote and reward creativity among
individual researchers in a context of a professional ethics code aimed at
preserving the credibility and integrity of the scientific process. Two
essential mechanisms are employed to achieve this goal: (~) publication
of data and results, including all reasoning and data processing steps; and
(2) peer review of all information published, in a way that mitigates
potential conflicts of interest, and fosters open debate of issues on which
consensus has yet to be reached. These mechanisms have been
recognized as key elements in the extraordinary advances of the
scientific endeavor over the past half-century.) As we shall see, this has a
profound impact on the use of data and databases in the sciences, and
especially in the environmental sciences.
The creativity of individual researchers is the wellspring from which
the whole scientific enterprise flows. Donald E. Stokes observed that "it
was the American research universities . . . that converted original
scientific research into an economically viable professional career." Yet,
most academic scientists choose to work in university research
environments not for the salary (they can often make far more in the
private sector) but for the intellectual stimulation that comes from
scientific analysis, interactions with students and peers, and the freedom
to work on problems of their own choosing. Various traditions have
sprung up to foster and reward such creativity. Professional recognition
ODE. Stokes, 1997, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological
Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 180 pp.
91
OCR for page 92
92
The Privatization of Environmental Data
and rewards for scientists (e.g., promotion and tenure in academia, salary
increases, continued research support, and professional medals and
honors) all derive ultimately from the reputation of the individual
scientist among peers. That reputation is based primarily on the evidence
contained in published work. Publication—in the etymological sense of
"making open to the public" is the primary means by which the
evidence is established and the reputation of a scientist is thereby
created. Of special value is the initial publication of any important
contribution to knowledge, be it in the form of newly acquired data, fresh
analysis and interpretation of such data, or innovative theory suggested
by the observations. Scholarship is also recognized in other works, such
as summaries of existing knowledge in a form that makes it more
accessible to one's peers.
To achieve peer recognition scientists want their work to be read to
the point where they are commonly willing not only to defray the cost of
publication through page charges but also to sign over intellectual
property rights (and potential profits) to publishers. It is in the interest of
scientific authors to facilitate use and re-use of their data and results by
peers and to contribute this material to community databases if doing so
results in increased recognition.2 Scientific progress depends critically on
such practices, because rarely if ever does a major scientific advance
proceed from a sudden flash of insight ("Eureka!"), even if that may on
occasion appear to be the case. in truth the insight usually derives Tom
an entire body of knowledge and a vast catalog of facts that has been
assimilated by scientists. This is particularly true of the environmental
sciences, in which the object of study is typically complex in the modern
mathematical sense and advances proceed through patient analysis and
re-analysis of growing volumes of observations, resulting in increasingly
reliable models that are ever closer to the observable reality.
Because the publication process is so important to science as it is to
most creative activities it must be afforded some degree of protection.
Good science requires an intellectual property regime that balances
individual rights of ownership against public rights of access to and reuse
of fundamental data. In science, intellectual property protection is
typically provided through copyright, as well as through a strong code of
professional ethics, that incorporates the following broad elements:
20f course, in some instances the advancement of science takes precedence
over personal recognition.
.
OCR for page 93
Appendix A
.
93
Respect copyright protection by adhering to the limits dictated
by the fair use exception (see Appendix B) and by avoiding plagiarism.
· Acknowledge and document relevant sources of information and
prior published work.
Adhere carefully and honestly to accepted standards of record
keeping and reporting of results.
The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on several levels of
enforcement:
. The implicit social contract between scientists and publishers is
enforceable through legal means, primarily by application of copyright
law and the fair use doctrine.
. Peer pressure exercised in the course of peer review of proposals
or articles leads to a loss of professional reputation and associated
professional rewards (e.g., for improper attribution of previous results).
· Egregious misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data falsification) will
normally trigger an investigation by the parent institution or a
professional society.
Overall, the system appears to operate well, providing both scientists
and publishers with adequate protection of their intellectual property
rights.
The credibility of the scientific process and the knowledge that is
ultimately derived is assured by a number of mutually reinforcing
activities:
.
use of accepted standards of evidence and methods of inference
based upon established knowledge;
peer review prior to publication;
independent replication of results;
critical examination of published work to distinguish established
fact from controversial hypotheses and to expose inconsistencies or
ambiguities in current theory or evidence; and
· the exercise of integrity and good judgment by participating
scientists.
OCR for page 94
94
The Privatization of Environmental Data
The infrastructure of scientific publication and community criticism
is particularly important in scientific assessments of the state of
knowledge in particular areas. An example is the assessment of global
warming, which is carried out every five years by hundreds of scientists
from around the world under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Such assessments require that participating scientists
(and reviewers) obtain data from a variety of sources, integrate them with
other types of data, and use them in ways that were not envisioned when
they were collected. The credibility of the results depends on adherence
to established scientific practices. Scientists are trained to be skeptical of
established dogma, and complete unanimity is thus unlikely. Never-
theless, ongoing review of the results and of subsequent work helps
establish when a broad consensus exists, when competing theories
remain controversial, and when evidence is speculative.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
individual researchers
