MacLeod Christine
School of Humanities, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TB, United Kingdom.
Isis. 2012 Jun;103(2):328-39. doi: 10.1086/666359.
At a time when neoliberalism and financial austerity are together encouraging academic scientists to seek market alternatives to state funding, this essay investigates why, a century ago, their predecessors explicitly rejected private enterprise and the private ownership of ideas and inventions available to them through the patent system. The early twentieth century witnessed the success of a long campaign by British scientists to persuade the state to assume responsibility for the funding of basic research ("pure science"): their findings would enter the intellectual commons; their rewards would be primarily reputational (financial only secondarily, through consequent career advancement). The essay summarizes recent research in three separate fields of British techno-science--electricity, aviation, and agricultural botany--all of which were laying claim, at this time, to a heightened commercial or military importance that raised new questions about the ownership of scientific ideas. It suggests that each of the three established an idiosyncratic relationship with the patent system or with other forms of "intellectual property," which would both influence their emergent disciplines and affect the extent to which commercial enterprise could remain a viable funding strategy.
在新自由主义和财政紧缩共同促使学术科学家寻求国家资助的市场替代方案之际,本文探讨了为何一个世纪前,他们的前辈明确拒绝了私人企业以及通过专利制度可得的思想和发明的私有制。20世纪初见证了英国科学家长期努力的成功,他们说服国家承担基础研究(“纯科学”)的资助责任:他们的发现将进入知识公有领域;他们的回报主要是声誉上的(只有通过随之而来的职业晋升才会有次要的经济回报)。本文总结了英国技术科学三个不同领域——电力、航空和农业植物学——的近期研究,当时所有这些领域都声称具有日益增长的商业或军事重要性,这引发了关于科学思想所有权的新问题。它表明,这三个领域中的每一个都与专利制度或其他形式的“知识产权”建立了独特的关系,这既会影响它们新兴的学科,也会影响商业企业在多大程度上仍然是一种可行的资助策略。