The third manuscript
The third manuscript
Rules of conduct and the fact–value distinction in mid-twentieth-century biochemistry
This chapter investigates a case of purported scientific misconduct in twentieth-century biochemistry involving researchers and laboratory directors at Uppsala, Cambridge UK, and Berkeley CA. In the mid-1950s a junior researcher at Cambridge accused the director of Berkeley’s Hormone Research Laboratory, Choh Hao Li, of having inappropriately used data from a collaboration between Uppsala and Cambridge in a paper on the purification and structure of the pituitary gland hormone MSH. Frank Young and Frederick Sanger at Cambridge put their scientific weight behind the accusations, as did Arne Tiselius at Uppsala. A prolonged semi-judicial process among scientific peers followed, which seems to have resulted neither in the acquittal nor the conviction of Li. The chapter analyses the conflict from the perspective of scientific norms and values, here interpreted as ‘rules of conduct’ (using the perspective of Elinor Ostrom’s conceptualization of ‘collective action’).
Keywords: scientific values, scientific norms, scientific priority, intellectual property, rules of conduct, collective action, history of biochemistry, Choh Hao Li
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
