Science for the Few

          In 1969 Professor George Miller, former president, addressed the American Psychological Association, saying that the greatest challenge to the next generation of scientists is, “to consider how to best give science away.” Now forty-four years later what have we accomplished? Unfortunately science, specifically scientific means and scientific knowledge, is becoming increasingly difficult to access because of its increasing privatization. Privatization, in this sense, is scientific knowledge information being owned by an individual, group, or corporation. Access to this material is usually only given with consent of those whom own the content, often through monetary mechanisms. Science should always be “given away,” and when withheld is denying the common good.  

          “Safe and effective” was plastered on every newspaper, television, and face on April 12^th, 1955 when Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was declared a success. The next step for Salk was mass vaccination for 440,000 children in the United States, Canada, and Finland. Jonas Salk, contrary to what is popular today, did not patent the vaccine. A patent is a form of intellectual property which consists of the government granting exclusive rights to the inventor in exchange for public disclosure¹. The incentive for the inventor is in the economic exchange. Forbes magazine estimated that Jonas Salk forfeited nearly 7 billion dollars when he distributed his vaccine worldwide². Without a patent, countries were able to maintain a low cost for the vaccine allowing individuals from all economic classes to have access to the vaccine. Jonas Salk’s choice was to the benefit of the common good.

          Patents were intended to benefit the common good through the distribution of discovery and invention. Unfortunately patents have come at the expense of millions of lives. Lisset Ferreira, of Fordham Law Review, argued that allowing individuals or organizations to have exclusive rights gives pharmaceutical companies control of that market in which no other companies can compete³. Competition allows for a decrease in price and therefore available to a larger population. The notion of affordable science can be seen in developing third world countries that have little to no access to HIV/AIDS drug treatments. We must ask is science for the common good or for the good of those who can afford it? How can we deny people treatment for the gain of the corporation? These questions challenge what we understand science to be. I show yet again that social factors are deeply intertwined in science.   

          Science writers should not be responsible for “giving away” science. The job of the science writer is to translate. Scientists have an obligation to the common good to “give away” science. Jonas Salk was not the prime benefactor from the polio vaccine but world population was. If by January 13, 2014 Indian physicians do not find another case of polio the nation will be declared polio⁴. Salk’s ability to see past his self interest calmed the international fear. Contrary to Salk, corporations, such as Pfizer, control those who will be able to utilize science and medical breakthroughs, through patents that limit competition and reproduction. Simply, those who can afford their life will likely survive. Science is not for the few, it is for the common good. 

 1.http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#protection

2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/08/09/how-much-money-did-jonas-salk-potentially-forfeit-by-not-patenting-the-polio-vaccine/

3. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3874&context=flr&sei-redir=1&

4.http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/13/what-two-years-without-polio-mean-for-india/