Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:20:42.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Disputes over Priority Tell Us Anything about Science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Alan G. Gross
Alan G. Gross
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conflicts between scientists over credit for their discoveries are conflicts, not merely in, but of science because discovery is not a historical event, but a retrospective social judgment. There is no objective moment of discovery; rather, discovery is established by means of a hermeneutics, a way of reading scientific articles. The priority conflict between Roger Guillemin and Andrew Schally over the discovery of the brain hormone, TRF, serves as an example. The work of Robert Merton, Thomas Kuhn, Augustine Brannigan, and Grygory Markus shows that scientists read scientific articles by means of the application of a set of pragmatic rules that subtend the normative requirements of what counts as a scientific discovery. In other words, there is a hermeneutics of science, but it is internal to that form of life. Recategorization of priority conflicts has an impact on our view of scientific controversy generally. The impact is the revision of the boundary lines of scientific controversy and the further specification of its fine-structure.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 161 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bøler, Jan, Enzman, Franz, Folkers, K., Bowers, C. Y. and Schally, A. V.. 1969. “The Identity of Chemical and Hormonal Properties of the Thyrotropin Releasing Hormone and Pyroglutamyl-Histidyl-Proline Amide.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 37:705–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, Peter, and Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol and Huckin, Thomas N.. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brannigan, Augustine. 1981. The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burgus, Roger, Dunne, Thomas F., Ward, Darrell N., Wylie, Vale, Max, Amoss, and Roger, Guillemin. 1969a. “Dérivés polypeptidiques de synthèse douée d'activité hypophysiotrope TRF.” Comptes Rendus (21 April) 268:2116–2118.Google Scholar
Burgus, Roger, Thomas, Dunn. Dominic, Desiderio, Wylie, Vale, and Roger, Guillemin. 1969b. “Dérivés polypeptidiques doués d'activité hypophysiotrope TRF. Nouvelles observations.” Comptes Rendus (16 July) 269:226–228.Google Scholar
Burgus, Roger, Thomas, F. Dunn, Dominic, Desiderio, and Roger, Guillemin. 1969c. “Structure Moléculaire du facteur hypothalamique hypophysiotrope TRF d'origine ovine: mis en évidence par spectrométrie de masse de la séquence PCA-His-Pro-NH2.” Comptes Rendus (12 November) 269:1870–1873.Google Scholar
Charney, Davida. 1993. “A Study in Rhetorical Reading: How Evolutionists Read ‘The Spandrels of San Marco’.” Understanding Scientific Prose, edited by Selzer, Jack, 203–31. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Cremaschi, Sergio and Marcelo, Dascal. n.d. “Methodology and Rhetoric in the Malthus-Ricardo Controversy.” MS. 84 pages.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. n.d. “Epistemology, Controversies, and Pragmatics.” MS. 33 pages.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, , Tristram, H. Jr and Arthur, Caplan, eds. 1987. Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1986. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Folkers, K., Enzman, F., Bøler, J., Bowers, C. Y., and Schally, A. V.. 1969. “Discovery of Modification of the Synthetic Tripeptide-Sequence of the Thyrotropin Releasing Hormone Having Activity.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 37:123–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freud, Sigmund. 1900. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G. 1996. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guillemin, Roger. 1962. “Sur la Nature des Substances Hypothalamiques qui contrôlent la sécrétion des Hormones Antéhypophysaires.” Journal de Physiologie 55:7–44.Google Scholar
Guillemin, Roger and Roger, Burgus. 1972. “Hormones of the Hypothalamus.” Scientific American 227:23–33, 134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, A. Rupert. 1980. Philosophers at War: The Quarrel Between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Norbert. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Steve, Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Gyorgy. 1987. “Why is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences? Some Preliminary Theses.” Science in Context 1:5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1977. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited by Storer, Norman W., 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery.” In Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited by Storer, Norman W., 286–324. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1987.“Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials.” Annual Review of Sociology 13:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, Thomas. 1985. “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate.” Philosophy of Science 52:177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Rocke, Alan J. 1993. The Quiet Revolution: Hermann Kolbe and the Science of Organic Chemistry. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schally, Andrew V., Cyril, Y. Bowers, Tommie, W. Redding, and John, F. Barrett. 1966. “Isolation of Thyrotrpin Releasing Factor (TRF) from Porcine Hypothalmus.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 25:165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secord, James A. 1990. Controversies in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick, ed. 1977. The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Wade, Nicholas. 1981. The Nobel Wars: Two Scientists'21-Year Race to Win the World's Most Coveted Research Prize. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. 1968. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York: Athenaum.Google Scholar