In this paper I will summarize Merton’s description of the rewards system of science. I will be exploring the unasked question, “What should a good rewards system look like?” I make a normative proposition, based on utility, that we ought to completely separate the laboratories and businesses that provide the tools for scientists from the scientists themselves. I envision a style of science that allows individuals and teams of scientists to engage in open-source science that allows them to contract out their skills to particular institutions and groups that need a scientific service.
I ask not what is good for science, but what is good for scientists? Feyerabend was right to point out the fact that Kuhn might be ignoring individual scientists in his pursuit for a structure of science. While Feyerabend was concerned with what happens to the morals of scientists and Kuhn was concerned with the general structure, I want to explore what will have the most utility for both science and scientists. This will be a restructuring of the rewards system.
Merton claimed that the basic currency for scientific reward is recognition (Godfrey-Smith 123). He argues that the best reward is being the first person to come up with an idea. Merton also claims that this is the only property right in science. The best case scenario is having an idea named after one’s self; i.e. Darwinism, Planck’s Constant, and Boyle’s Law. Merton gives examples that give credence to his idea of a rewards system. He discusses the altercations between Newton and Hooke, and Newton and Leibniz.
Merton suggests that the current system is mostly good in that it encourages original thinking, but that it can misfire when the desire for reward overcomes everything else. Fraud, ...
... middle of paper ...
... Furthermore, there is an indirect incentive for scientists to avoid excessive jargon and technical speech if they want to attract the general population to certain projects. I believe that if scientists have a financial interest in the education of the general population, and if the general population feels more involved, then we could get many scientific projects that are seen as unprofitable by businesses put into practice. Shelved products, old patents, and very long term projects might find a home in this type of structure. The public finds going to Mars exciting and businesses don't see much potential for financial gains. The potentials impacts of OS on the world are many, far-reaching, and outside the scope of this paper. But if the money raised for Restore the Shore is any indication, then perhaps the public would very much get behind these types of projects.
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
At times, regardless of the setbacks, rivalry can be advantageous by giving people the inspiration to continue. Debating on whether to give up the race, Watson realizes the full implications this scientific competition has: “But if I went back to pure biology, the advantage of our small head start over Linus (Pauling) might suddenly vanish,” (Watson 144). The grand quest for finding the structure of DNA is too great for Watson to pass up. Not only does this head start inspire Watson to continue studying DNA, but it convinces him to work even harder. While the desire to quickly find a solution can be too daunting to appease, even the notion of being in the lead can be enough incentive to strive for the goal which is a definite positive effect for Watson. But for every positive advantage, there is a negative setback that other competitors may impose.
Mujtaba, B. G., & Shuaib, S. (2010). An Equitable Total Rewards Approach to Pay for Performance Management. Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. II (4), 111-121.
Things like “accurate Lasik surgery, scratch resistant lenses, cordless power tools, Tempurfoam” and the list goes on and on (paragraph 8.) In the Apollo era the government didn’t need to fund any programs to encourage people to be interested in science. Everyone “embraced what those fields meant to the collective national future.” Not everyone needs to be a scientist or a technologist but it is important that all people acknowledge and embrace the importance of what science and technology can do for the future of humanity.
Henry, John. (2001). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Publishing
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
2. Scientists deserve recognition, and therefore should be allowed to sell his or her creation or own the rights to it for a number of years in order for their hard work to be seen and pay
Atwood takes many of today’s potential scientific developments and illustrates the worst possible outcome of what may happen if we continue the unregulated pursuit of knowledge. In reality, the scientific advances of today will yield a higher standard of living for the majority of the world tomorrow. We will continue to push for the best in everything including science, medicine, and technology; we will not allow any single person to make the sole decision to develop an idea. Scientific progression will save many lives; therefore, it should and will always be there for us.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers
In “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Research” it says, “they are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time.” These new discoveries can lead then to advancements and as a result can lead them to build a better society. Human beings will be able to reconstruct a better institutional framework which will bring them a prosperous and happy
The appropriation of ideas from oppositions, neighbors, friends, experimentation and the environment as far back as we can remember to modern day has placed patents on these ideas in order to protect and credit the individual’s achievements and accomplishments. In order to identify these ideas for its originality and credibility, authors express them in different types of literature. From the literature, future generations can contribute to the knowledge of the world and improve the work of the past. The information from the literature can progress to new profound discoveries. Proper citation allows us to recognize individual input and hard work. Consequently, if we take possession of someone without consent, we would be called a
This essay will discuss the relevance of Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management to organisations today. Taylor’s theory of Scientific Management is based around how efficiently a member of staff works in order to improve their productivity, the theory was introduced in 1911 and has four principles which were tested to determine optimal work methods, and are still seen in organisations today such as fast-food restaurants. Taylor believed that workers left to their own devices would restrict their output and not progress with the task, this was called ‘soldiering’ and it was described in two forms; natural
Most people think that the costly downside to funding space exploration is a reason to avoid spending money on sciences and instead spend it on problems here on earth, but such funding for space exploration actually promotes economical as well as scientific benefits. Space exploration is an important expenditure for the high cost because of the potential for numerous benefits such as the possibility to find useful resources to cultivate, space exploration and satellites produce many thousands of jobs in our economy, and it creates and discovers newer and better technologies through research and development.
Taylor, who firstly brought up a new topic, Scientific Management, which is considered the strongest and only economical motive by both workman and entrepreneur in the early 20th centuries. It includes three parts: a)
Each of us lives with a modern paradox; how can we continue to enjoy the benefits of science and avoid the threat of its misuse or abuse to endanger life and nature? Responses to this paradox have been many, but seldom anything but emotional and impotent in making any useful changes. Among the strongest feeling brought forth by our increasing awareness of the negative side effects of technology has been the feeling of alienation - that we in society have little or no control over the impacts of science and technology on those of us who are supposed to be their beneficiaries.