SOCI 30 Final Essay

Counter-norms in science are the inverse of the basic norms theorized by Robert Merton in his essay The Normative Structure of Science (1942). Merton believed that organized skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness could explain most actions and patterns seen throughout the scientific community. Ian Mitroff, however, would later argue that another set of norms is vital to creating a framework for understanding why scientists act as they do.

In Norms and Ideology in Science (1976), Michael J. Mulkay discusses both Mitroff's and Merton’s theories, comparing their definitions of the “standards” of scientific practice. Merton’s theory requires that scientists act only within the moral boundaries set by their community, thereby creating a perfect environment. In this hypothetical situation, all knowledge would be shared, contributions would be judged solely by their content rather than by their authors, persistent, unbiased peer review would confirm correct or incorrect conclusions, and scientists would work not for personal gain but for the betterment of society and their field. This theory creates a functioning community that promotes discovery, but there are some pressing issues. As we have seen throughout sociology, humans are imperfect by nature and rarely follow guidelines exactly as written. As Mulkay writes, “But to describe the ethos of science in terms of [Merton’s norms] alone is to produce an account of science that is grossly misleading” (Mulkay, 1976, 639-640). Here, he emphasizes that while many people believe scientists are morally upright and committed to improving society, this isn’t the case, and thus applying restrictions based on this assumption paints an inaccurate picture of science as a whole.

In contrast, Mitroff’s counter-norms seem to be the answer, as they fit much closer to how we expect humans to behave. Mitroff believed that Merton’s theory was too idealized and that the inverse of the norms he created (intense interest, secrecy, bias/judgment of authors, and closed-mindedness toward new theories) was a more precise way to define scientific action. His ideas align with themes of passion and personal gain, as scientists are motivated to win glory for their findings by being deeply interested in their work and by maintaining secrecy until it is complete. As Mulkay states in describing the results of Mitroff’s research, “Thus, many of the scientists studied by [Mitroff] said that strong, even ‘unreasonable,’ commitment to one’s ideas was necessary in science” (Mulkay, 1976, 639). In many cases, scientists were willing to ignore certain idealized standards if it meant achieving better results or making greater contributions. While parts of these norms seem pessimistic in assuming that scientists would act selfishly, it is more accurate in describing how incentives push scientists to discover and publish new ideas and theories.

Instead of arguing for the superiority of Merton's or Mitroff’s norms, Mulkay proposes an alternative that combines both ideas. Communalism is not universally adopted, nor is total confidentiality, and while some studies require limiting bias and maintaining disinterestedness to avoid incorrect conclusions, others necessitate commitment and motivation to complete extensive projects (Mulkay, 1976, 639-640). In this comparison, Mulkay makes it clear that the two sets of norms do not oppose or combat each other but instead cover different ends of the spectrum, meaning that neither group can account for all actions and that both are required. Since neither of them is truly institutionalized, meaning that there is some sort of incentive or reward system supporting them, they cannot alone be the defining theory. 

Comparing these alternative views has given me a new perspective on the complexity of scientists' motivations and inspirations. In Mitroff’s argument, he points out a fault in Merton’s research, as he studied only “‘highly select writings of the rare, great scientists’” (Mulkay, 1976, 641). Yet Mitroff’s work also fails this test, as his study covers only a limited number of scientists. To create a system that was truly universally accepted and followed would mean studying every scientist from every field and finding correlations between their practices, a study that is simply impractical. Thus, my viewpoint on science and the sociology of those who study it has not changed, as the works of Merton, Mitroff, and Mulkay demonstrate a widely accepted sociological perspective: humankind is unpredictable and often contradicts itself. I believe that each person has their own unique motivations for what, how, and why they study in their field of specialization. Any attempt to create global standards for scientific practice will likely encounter exceptions, as scientists' values vary widely even within the same field or discipline. For example, communalism may be practiced in studies that aim to help all of humanity, such as research into destructive diseases, such as Cancer or Alzheimer’s, but researchers may be less communicative if the field involves something that can be monetized or is meant for consumption by the general public, such as the latest advances in Virtual Reality technology. I believe that Merton’s rules would be ideal to incorporate into the scientific community, but they are simply impractical and fail to account for human flaws. Capitalism supports those who can make the newest discoveries and monetize them as quickly as possible, drowning out all competition, and until that motivation is removed from our society, a dream of free and open knowledge in science will never be possible. If we cannot control who shares information with whom, we can at least attempt to regulate what becomes publicly available to limit the spread of false information. A rigorous peer-review system is necessary to maintain the integrity of academic resources, especially on the internet, where headlines can fuel international wildfires regardless of their truthfulness. Furthermore, while I don’t believe any clear international principles guide every scientist or researcher in every field, guidelines such as those given by Merton and Mitroff each offer factors we can work towards to create perfect harmony in the scientific community and in our society.