Search

Global science is set to experience different times in the 2020s. China surpasses the USA in terms of the number of scientific papers in 2020 in most scientific databases. This scenario is expected to have implications not only in East Asia but also beyond the region. Against this backdrop, this paper investigates the scientific influence of the US-China competition on six major Muslim-majority science systems. Multiple data sources are used to collect data for the bibliometric analyses, which include the trend analysis of collaboration patterns, discipline-based collaborations, authorship patterns for responsibility in collaborations, and citation premium of collaborations with the USA versus China. All the analyses consistently demonstrate that the USA is losing its scientific influence on the selected Muslim-majority science systems to China. Analysis results indicate an astonishing increase in collaborations with China-based scientists in the last decade. Half of the selected Muslim-majority science systems collaborate more with China-based scientists, whereas the other half collaborate more with the USA in 2021, indicating a fifty-fifty split. The collaborations with China-based authors garner higher citation premiums for the selected Muslim-majority science systems than the collaborations with the USA.

This study explores the prevalence of postdoctoral fellows in fast-moving and competitive scientific research. We use the results of a new and original large-scale survey of scientists in Japan and the United States for the analyses. Descriptive statistics show that, in both Japan and the United States: (1) the mean citation time lag was shorter by about 2 years in the highly cited papers (top 1 %) compared to other normal papers; and (2) the perceived degree of competitive threat was also higher for the projects producing the highly cited papers compared to those for normal papers. We also found that the likelihood of participation of postdoctoral fellows is significantly higher in research with shorter mean time lag and higher competitive threat (while that of students is not), controlling for author size, suggesting that postdoctoral fellows are especially prevalent in research efforts in fast-moving and competitive scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There was clearly something afoot when one of the world''s most esteemed biometric scientists brought out and then threatened to put a paper bag on his head in front of hundreds of government and industry participants at a recent show in the USA. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A "crisis account" of shortages of well-qualified scientists, engineers, mathematicians and technologists has shaped education policy in the UK and the USA for decades. The apparent poor quality of school science education along with insufficient numbers of well-qualified teachers have been linked to skills shortages by government and other agencies since at least the time of the Second World War. There is, however, an alternative account that challenges the received view of a skills deficit and questions the evidence for sustained and long-term shortages across the sector. This paper provides an historical account of some of the main events that have characterised debates over the supply and demand of science and engineering professionals in the UK and the USA and the implications that this has had for science education policy. Starting from the end of the Second World War, the paper looks at the key challenges to the evidence that underpins the shortage debate and considers the consequences that more than seven decades of crisis accounts have had on the recruitment and retention of highly skilled scientists and engineers. The paper shows that while the shortage debate has a long history, it is one that is characterised by poor quality data as well as methodological and conceptual challenges. It argues that there is no consensus view about the existence of a skills deficit and that while there may have been short-lived shortfalls in specialist areas, there is little evidence in support of widespread and far reaching shortages as the rhetoric often claims.

The aim of the article was to investigate how the family life of highly creative individuals--mainly marriages or romantic relationships--is related to their sense of success and well-being. Previous studies have led to conflicting conclusions. The predominant finding has been that marriage and family constitute an obstacle to creative potential development. Other studies have demonstrated that, regardless of gender, creators lead satisfying family lives, which contributes to their well-being. The study presented in this paper is based on the grounded theory methodology and triangulates two sources: interviews with prominent creators from the USA conducted years ago (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, N = 91) and interviews with recognized contemporary Polish artists and scientists (N = 34). Based on interactions between the interviewees' perception of themselves as creators and their perception of gender and family roles, the authors identify and discuss five types of relationship between creators' family life and work. They also discuss the factors that hinder or facilitate creators' satisfactory functioning in both areas in each of the five types of relationship.

This research study sought to identify prominent features of the nature of science (NOS) embedded in authentic scientific inquiry. Fourteen well-established scientists from different parts of the world, working in experimental or theoretical research, in both traditional fields such as astrophysics and rapidly growing research fields such as molecular biology, participated as the informants of the study. The descriptions of their practices revealed eight prominent categories of NOS features. In an earlier paper of ours, we have reported four categories under the two themes: (1) the methods of scientific investigation and (2) the role and status of scientific knowledge. In this paper, we focus on the remaining four categories under the theme: social dimensions of science. Scientists' descriptions of their practices have "put some flesh on the bones" of the assertion that science is socially and culturally embedded. These descriptions also have considerable potential for development into interesting case studies as teaching resources to enhance and enrich students' understanding of NOS. (Contains 1 table and 7 notes.)

The present era is characterized by scientists' high level of mobility, which is due to the characteristics of science work and its dynamic nature. Scientific activity knows no boundaries, and mobility is a vital factor of the mutual cultural and professional enrichment of scientific communities. The international migration of scientists is creating opportunities and challenges for societies that both lose and gain scientists. In this article, the author describes the types of scientists' social mobility and discusses the state regulation of the social mobility of scientists in Russia, Western Europe, and the United States. The author also identifies negative consequences of scientists' social mobility in these countries. The high level of scientists' international mobility has introduced serious changes in the mechanism of the reproduction of the scientific elite in Russia. Owing to the emigration character of mobility and the lack of an appropriate science policy, Russia is lagging behind the developed countries of Europe and the United States when it comes to indicators of its inclusion in the world science community. Here, the author argues that more attention needs to be given by the Russian government to the development of programs and organizations that would enable Russian science to be more competitive internationally.

The U.S. is no longer the universally preferred home for the global technology elite. Increasing numbers of scientists and engineers who were educated and have built successful careers there are returning to China, India, and other countries. Noting these trends, the policy and technology communities are sounding the alarm about an impending U.S. fall from scientific and technological dominance. Compounding the loss of international talent is the declining appeal of science and engineering for American students, even as the tide of engineers and scientists trained in China and India rises. Leading policy groups fear that this combination of a decline in science and engineering prowess and the rising strength of China and India will leave the United States a much-diminished technology power, one that will have to concede leadership to the emerging economies. Thus, in this article, the authors state that rather than compete with other countries on the numbers, the U.S. needs to educate the kinds of engineers and scientists who can work with their foreign counterparts to their mutual advantage. American policy makers should focus on crafting policies that support the development and work of this new breed.

Gender differences in science and engineering (S&E) have been studied in various countries. Most of these studies find that women are underrepresented in the S&E workforce and publish less than their male peers. The factors that contribute to gender differences in experience and performance in S&E careers can vary from one country to another, yet they remain underexplored. This paper is among the first to systematically compare gender differences in the publication productivity of academic scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees in the U.S. and China. Findings from negative binomial regressions show that women publish less than their male counterparts in science but not in engineering in the U.S. In China, women do not differ from men in publication productivity in science but publish more than their male counterparts in engineering. In addition, we find that some background variables affect men's and women's publication productivity differently. The findings are analyzed in the context of the different cultures of the two fields (science vs. engineering) and of the two countries (the U.S. and China). Limitations and policy implications are also discussed.

The Essential Science IndicatorsSM (ESI) database, Published by Thomson Scientific/ISI, presents an array of data that ranks scientists/health professionals, their individual papers, and that journals in which they are published, as well as countries and institutions that perform scientific research. By using this resource, it is possible to prepare ranked statistical lists. The resource covers 6,000 journals Published in both the United States and from international publishers. Users should note that ESI covers scientific information in the broadest possible scope, so this is not just limited to biomedical topics and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Includes "Higher-Level Skills in the UK" (Connor); "US and UK Labour Markets for New Grads" (Court); "Contribution of National Laboratories to the European Scientific Labour Market" (Smith); and "Recruitment of Nontraditional Scientists and Engineers in Europe" (Court, Jagger). (SK)

This article analyzes masculinity and experimental practices within three different physics communities. This work is premised on the understanding that the discipline of physics is not only dominated by men, but also is laden with masculine connotations on a symbolical level, and that this limited and limiting construction of physics has made it difficult for many women to find a place in the discipline. Consequently, we argue that in order to further the understanding of gender dynamics within physics communities and enrich the current understandings about the lack of women in physics, perspectives from masculinity studies are crucial. The article draws on three different ethnographic case studies dealing with undergraduate students, graduate students, and research scientists. [This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Gender in Physics.]

China's remarkable gains in science over the past 25 years have been well documented but it is less well known that China and the United States have become each other's top collaborating country. Science and technology has been a primary vehicle for growing the bilateral relationship between China and the United States since the opening of relations between the two countries in the late 1970s. During the early 2000s, the scientific relationship between China and the United States--as measured in coauthored papers--showed significant growth (Jin et al. in "Journal of Shanxi University" 30(2):295-302, 2007). Chinese scientists claim first authorship much more frequently than U.S. counterparts by the end of the decade. The sustained rate of increase of collaboration with one other country is unprecedented on the U.S. side. Even growth in relations with eastern European nations does not match the growth in the relationship between China and the United States. Both countries can benefit from the relationship, but for the U.S., greater benefit would come from a more targeted strategy.

This paper examines how high-skilled immigrants contribute to knowledge diffusion using a rich data set of Russian scientists and US citations to Soviet-era publications. Analysis of a panel of US cities and scientific fields shows that citations to Soviet-era work increased significantly with the arrival of immigrants. A difference-in-differences analysis with matched paper pairs also shows that after Russian scientists moved to the United States, citations to their Soviet-era papers increased relative to control papers. Both strategies reveal scientific field-specific effects. Ideas in high-impact papers and papers previously accessible to US scientists were the most likely to "spill over" to natives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addresses the question of who should own scientific papers. Information on the 1976 Copyright Act of the United States; Views of scientists and authors on the issue.

Investigates the claim of scientists regarding the evidence for nuclear fusion in a breaker of organic solvent at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Consequences of the claim for nuclear proliferation and energy production; Contradiction of other scientists on the claim; Comparison between nuclear fission and fusion.

The article states that the U.S. National Library of Medicine has released a selection of papers written by molecular biologist and science administrator Harold Varmus. He was a former cancer researcher, National Institutes of Health Director, and Nobel laureate. Varmus helped develop the theory that cancer is caused by mutations in a person's own genes. The papers can be found at the web site http://www.profiles.nlm.nih.gov. The Library worked with the University of California, San Francisco to digitize Varmus' papers.

Citizen science, in which volunteers work with professional scientists to conduct research, is expanding due to large online datasets. To plan projects, it is important to understand volunteers' motivations for participating. This paper analyzes results from an online survey of nearly 11000 volunteers in Galaxy Zoo, an astronomy citizen science project. Results show that volunteers' primary motivation is a desire to contribute to scientific research. We encourage other citizen science projects to study the motivations of their volunteers, to see whether and how these results may be generalized to inform the field of citizen science. (Contains 11 tables and 6 figures.)

The article reports on a proposed bill that would require federally funded scientists to make their accepted papers freely available online for public within 6 months of publication. The bill, introduced last week by senators John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, would make mandatory a voluntary National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy and extend it to every major federal research agency, from the National Science Foundation to the Department of Defense. The House and Senate appropriations committees had asked NIH to develop such a policy after patient groups insisted they should have free access to biomedical studies. The request has been ignored by most NIH grantees. Meanwhile, an NIH advisory committee has recommended that the policy be mandatory and that the 12-month limit be reduced to 6 months for most journals. The Cornyn-Lieberman bill would require NIH to incorporate those changes. But the bill also would mandate a similar plan at any U.S. agency funding at least $100 million a year in extramural research. The manuscripts could be posted in existing archives, such as a university server or arXiv, the physics preprint server.

The article informs that lawmakers in the U.S. are expected this year to consider whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should require researchers to send their accepted manuscripts to a free full-text archive. The voluntary policy, in effect since May, is meant to make freely available the results of NIH-funded studies and guide the NIH management. An NIH advisory panel recently recommended that the NIH make submission mandatory and post papers 6 months after publication in journals. The current guideline is 12 months.

This paper articulates a citation-based approach to science policy evaluation and employs that approach to investigate the impact of the United States' 2001 policy regarding the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. We evaluate the impact of the policy on the level of U.S. hESC research, the U.S. position at the knowledge frontier, and the strategic response of U.S. scientists. Consistent with recent research on the science of science and innovation policy, we employ a difference-in-differences approach using bibliometric data with the aim of analyzing the causal impact of the policy on cumulative research. Our estimates suggest that in the aftermath of the 2001 policy, U.S. production of hESC research lagged 35 to 40 percent behind anticipated levels. However, this relative decline was largely concentrated in the years 2001 to 2003 and ameliorated over time. The rebound in U.S. hESC research after 2003 was driven by contributions by researchers at elite U.S. institutions and U.S. researchers who collaborated with international partners. The results suggest that scientists respond strategically to research funding restrictions and that modest science policy shifts can have a significant influence on the within-country composition of research and the pattern of global research collaboration. (Contains 21 footnotes, 6 tables, and 5 figures.)

The paper presents the dynamic development of nanotechnologies in the world and--on this basis--the educational demand for scientists, engineers and didactic staff. Proposed and created forms of education and development related to nanotechnology in theoretical and practical aspect are shown as well. The potential and educational possibilities within nanotechnology are presented with regard to the university studies, postgraduate studies, doctoral studies and training courses in the selected countries. Special attention is paid to characteristic educational systems, both with regard to the organizational and methodological aspects related to nanotechnology in the United States, Japan and EU countries. Compared to these countries, the situation in Poland within education and training in the field of nanotechnology is characterised. (Contains 9 figures and 1 footnote.)

Today, there is increasing concern about the health of "basic research", yet considerable disagreement about its definition. This paper examines the way in which the term is used in everyday practice. Drawing upon interviews with British and American scientists and policy-makers, we identify six different definitions currently in use. Given the utility and flexibility of the concept, it is useful to ask what function it serves, and whether we should develop new terminology.

The Nuffield "0"-level physics course (United Kingdom) and the Physical Sciences Study Committee course (United States) stressed preparation of professional scientists rather than "physics for all." Although they were important curriculum developments, the courses have done harm to the development of an entirely new style of physics course. (MM)

After World War II, Allied policy toward German science became entangled with issues of reparations and programs at home instead of contributing to the positive reconstruction of Germany. The Americans, the British, and the Russians dealt with German scientists and research institutions in very different ways. (AM)

The emigration of scientists facilitates the formation of international networks. However, are ties in such networks maintained after the scientists return to their respective home countries? Using data from the Web of Science, this paper analyzes whether Japanese migrant scientists returning from the US maintain the collaborative research network ties that they formed during their stay in the US and, if so, what features of these ties contribute to maintaining these relationships. The geographical distance between the US and Japan can impede the transfer of knowledge that is transmitted most effectively through face-to-face interactions. However, social proximity may compensate for geographical distance. Accordingly, the ties that Japanese scientists have formed with other Japanese scientists living in the US are more likely to be maintained than the ties that they have formed with scientists of different ethnicities. Social proximity was also measured by past experiences in collaborative research. The ties to scientists with whom Japanese scientists collaborated more frequently or co-produced papers with higher citation counts are more likely to be maintained after the scientists return to Japan. When collaborative research of American and Japanese scientists is worthwhile, they obtain mutual benefits through a 'give and take' in which they compensate for one partner's lack of knowledge by the other partner's knowledge. In a research field with which the developmental gap between the US and Japan is great, ties are less likely to be maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in N ature, S cience, and the P roceedings of the N ational A cademy of S ciences of the U nited S tates of A merica ( PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in N ature and S cience do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PhD graduate from a US research academic institution who has worked 5-7 years to solve a combination of laboratory and computational problems after an in-depth classroom experience is likely superbly trained in at least a subset of the life sciences and the underlying methodology and thought processes required to perform high level research. What is less uniform are the requirements to develop written and verbal communication skills--necessary for either an academic or industry career. Even greater variability exists in the extent to which PhD students understand the processes, strategies, and challenges (either technical, financial, or regulatory) of the life sciences industry. However, what is shocking is the degree to which US PhD students and postdoctorals lack even a primitive understanding of the roles they might play as scientists in the industry that are not research. Students are smart and can work hard and learn. Educators are the ones who must fix this problem. This will not be achieved by pawning off responsibility and creating an occasional seminar or other "business light" cocktail hour and thinking they have done their jobs. With a proper appreciation that learning business skills requires in-depth and focused programs requiring significant time and commitment, the various business schools can work with science faculty to create curricula and cocurricular activities that are appropriate and effective for PhDs and postdoctorals. The author contends that the bigger challenge is in faculty attitude. These new educational programs will become relegated to the fringes of academic enterprise unless life sciences faculty begin to appreciate the role of industry as scientifically valid, high quality and essential to the process of translating basic science for the benefit of society. There are numerous exciting, important and fulfilling opportunities for life sciences PhDs in industry--with the vast majority not in research--that should be sought by students. Being part of the process that delivers a cure or effective treatment is exciting and challenging both scientifically and commercially. Educators as scientists are part of that process, and it is time that they recognize the critical contributions of the other essential components, and their roles in educating and encouraging those who move technology forward.

Aim: To evaluate the output of scientific publications in obstetrics and gynecology journals from Mainland China and six other countries, to compare the difference of research situation between Mainland China and the developed countries in order to measure the trend of number of publication in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Methods: Information on article amounts, impact factors (IF), citation and publication in high‐impact obstetrics and gynecology journals by seven top‐ranking countries between January 1, 2007 and August 31, 2017, was extracted from Web of Science databases. Results: A total of 137 661 articles were published between 2007 and 2017 in the 98 obstetrics and gynecology journals. The cumulative IF and citations of articles from USA were the highest. The highest average citation was France and Mainland China ranked fourth. There were 52 631 papers published in the top 10 obstetrics and gynecology journals and the USA accounted for the majority of these papers (33 978, 64.6%), followed by England (8347, 15.9%). Articles from the USA were most often published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (10658) and those from Mainland China were mostly published in Fertility and Sterility (809). Conclusion: The USA published the most articles having high IF, making the greatest contribution to the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Although the number of scientific publications from Mainland China has rapidly increased from 2007 to 2017, the quality of these publications has not been as satisfactory. It implys that Chinese current academic evaluation system should pay special attention to the quality of academic papers, instead of the number of papers published by scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists, public servants, and patient advocates alike increasingly question the validity of published scientific results, endangering the public’s acceptance of science. Here, I argue that emerging flaws in the integrity of the peer review system are largely responsible. Distortions in peer review are driven by economic forces and enabled by a lack of accountability of journals, editors, and authors. One approach to restoring trust in the validity of published results may be to establish basic rules that render peer review more transparent, such as publishing the reviews (a practice already embraced by some journals) and monitoring not only the track records of authors but also of editors and journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In August 2016, scientists from the United States and Mexico assembled at Highlands, North Carolina, a temperate-zone hot spot of salamander biodiversity, to participate in the Special Highlands Conference on Plethodontid Salamander Biology. Hosted by the Highlands Biological Station (HBS), the conference celebrated the 90th year of the HBS, and especially the productive collaboration at Highlands of Drs. Lynne Houck, Steve Arnold, and Rick and Pam Feldhoff. The conference showcased the increasing value of plethodontids as research models, exemplified by eight papers in this special issue of Herpetologica stemming from invited minireviews presented at the 2016 Special Conference. The papers contribute to the dramatic rise in journal articles that use plethodontids to address diverse questions of broad relevance to modern biology. We hope that this special issue of Herpetologica sparks new research on these fascinating salamanders, and we look forward to future conferences on plethodontid salamander biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information about U.S. Patent Rights for scientists. Topics discussed include grant applications for accessibility of scientific process under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); using of own granted application of scientists considered by Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); and inventor's submission of an advanced proof to symposium obtained from U.S. is also considered by UPSTO.

The article reports on the efforts of U.S. government to make scientific research available for all. It reports that the accessibility offered by the Internet has transformed science publishing over the past decade. The government of the U.S. is making efforts to make all federally funded research available for free. The new system will make huge numbers of scientific articles publicly available for all. It reports that such archives will basically contain the final versions of the manuscripts written by the authors. There was an increase in public access in late 2007 when the U.S. Congress passed a bill and made it compulsory for scientists funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to deposit their papers within 12 months of publication.

This study uses the Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002 (ELS:2002) to examine how varying levels of intention (planning) and action (choice) in pursuing a science-based major affect American college students' degree attainment in Science and Engineering (S&E) fields by age 26. The study is guided by the Social Cognitive Career Theory's performance model that is appropriate to examine educational attainment. A key element of the theory consists in personal goals to engage in STEM education in college. In this paper, we view students' intention to pursue specific college majors and/or actual action to enrol in a specific major as an expression of aspirational goals associated with degree attainment, so closer the intention-action gap, more likely to attain the goal. The proposed aspiring-scientist typology appears to be the main determinant of S&E degree attainment by age 26, when controlling for socio-demographic, pre-college, and postsecondary factors. Students with high level of science aspirations have greater chance to complete an S&E degree. Medium-aspiration students are more likely to complete non-S&E degrees, after starting in science-based majors. Low-aspiration students are more likely to attain certificate/associate degrees in any field or be non-completers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients’ publication careers has changed. This is achieved by matching 1951–2010 doctorate recipients with rare names in astrophysics, chemistry, economics, genetics and psychology in the dissertation database ProQuest to their publications in the publication database Web of Science. Our study shows that pre-PhD publication careers have changed: the median year of first publication has shifted from after the PhD to several years before PhD in most of the studied fields. In contrast, post-PhD publication career spans have not changed much in most fields. The share of doctorate recipients who have published for more than twenty years has remained stable over time; the shares of doctorate recipients publishing for shorter periods also remained almost unchanged. Thus, though there have been changes in pre-PhD publication careers, post-PhD career spans remained quite stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study's authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists' selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited "burial" upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between "pure science" and "social advocacy" models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their "responsibility". Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study looks at the United States biotechnology industry as a community of practice caught between two evolutionary logics by which valuable scientific knowledge and valuable innovations are selected. We analyze the publications and patents of 116 biotechnology firms during the period 1988-1995. In models that link scientific capabilities to patent citations, we show that scientific ideas are not simply inputs into inventions; important scientific ideas and influential patents follow different and conflicting selection logics. Publication, collaboration, and science intensity are associated with patented innovations; however, important scientific papers are negatively associated with high-impact innovations. These results point to conflicting logics between science and innovation, and scientists must contribute to both while inhabiting a single epistemic community. We identify individuals listed on patents and scientific papers and find they effectively integrate science with innovation, leading to more successful innovations. Our findings suggest that the role of the small, research-intensive firm is to create a repository of knowledge; to act as an organizational mechanism to combine the capabilities of versatile scientists within and outside the boundaries of the firm; and to manage the selection of scientific ideas to produce valuable technical innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]