“Beyond the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, U.S. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights. Jackson, J. E. 32(3):676. ![“Beyond the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, U.S. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex Research science intellectual property law has undergone tremendous change within the past two decades. In particular, from local to global. Historically, prior to Internet communication, science generally focused on solutions to problems impacting local, regional, or national populations. The scientific research (and, hence, the law governing intellectual property) similarly was largely circumscribed within the nation-state: professional research societies (science quality and ethics), state law (contractual and licensing agreements enforcement), and federal law governing copyright and patent. [\n] With the twenty-first century reliance on Internet communications, there was a marked shift in focus from local research science to global research science. The Internet opportunities to draw from worldwide scientific talent and diverse expertise in real-time became an irresistible siren’s song for research scientists to address global problems that only a few years ago were deemed unsolvable. Today, the typical modern research laboratory is virtual, via the Internet, and composed of all existing international scientific expertise considered necessary to tackle major problems facing world populations. Both undergraduate science education and university education are also embracing the virtual international laboratory research model. The result is that research science intellectual property law is struggling to keep abreast of the intertwined research science global network relationships. National intellectual property law is being rapidly subsumed within global intellectual property law, simply because the research science parties involved even in unitary research projects span the globe. [\n] Global research proceeds logically into global commerce and both exert tremendous leverage on nations to conform to international intellectual property norms. Absent the United States’ consensus to be bound by majority global intellectual property agreements and regulatory authority, U.S. scientists face material disadvantages in modern global scientific research. [Excerpt: Why research scientists’ professional activities directly depend on recognition of moral rights] A scientist’s professional activities directly depend on the recognition of moral rights because these rights are essential to ensure science validity (including transition into the marketplace for public benefit); to the integrity of the research process and profession; to prompt public research disclosure; and, to sustain the individual research scientist’s career. [\n] Research paternity (or right of attribution of the actual creator to be identified with his own work, contra plagiarism), research integrity (or right of respect, right to object to distortion, mutilation or unauthorized modification of his work), right of retraction (right to withdraw the work from circulation and public use based on, for example, later specific contrary findings), and right of disclosure (right to control first publication of the work) control research science in fact. The right to divulge and retract allows the author to decide when, where, and in what form the work will be disclosed (this is often equated with right of first publication). Moral rights are distinct from and legally distinguishable from economic rights in the intellectual products of research science. [\n] [...] [Conclusion] Modern research science faces new challenges with the shift from national to global research efforts, funding, and legal jurisdiction problems inherent to scientific work products developed multi-nationally. Current United States law and policy, which denies fundamental non-economic moral rights to research scientists – rights recognized in 157 nations overseas – has become an overwhelming disincentive to engage in scientific research in the U.S. Historic research science ethics standards, promulgated and enforced to ensure scientific research quality and professional accountability, of both research practice and reporting by the local institution or professional societies, have decreasing control of global research networks. As the American Law Institute aptly describes for new world intellectual property, relevant principles of law must be harmonized among jurisdictions, between and among nation-states, for the scientific research benefits to accrue efficiently to the public’s benefit. To that end, it is urged that the United States adopt intellectual property moral rights recognition for research science. The rejection, thereof, is increasingly isolating our nation, and hence our scientific professional community, from the mainstream global research community and to America’s innovative- and economic profound detriment. [\n] [...]
@article{jacksonScopeOrdinaryTraining2012,
title = {“{{Beyond}} the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, {{U}}.{{S}}. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights},
shorttitle = {“{{Beyond}} the {{Scope}} of {{Ordinary Training}} and {{Knowledge}}”},
author = {Jackson, Joan E.},
date = {2012-11-13},
journaltitle = {Pace Law Review},
volume = {32},
pages = {676},
issn = {0272-2410},
url = {https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss3/3},
abstract = {Research science intellectual property law has undergone tremendous change within the past two decades. In particular, from local to global. Historically, prior to Internet communication, science generally focused on solutions to problems impacting local, regional, or national populations. The scientific research (and, hence, the law governing intellectual property) similarly was largely circumscribed within the nation-state: professional research societies (science quality and ethics), state law (contractual and licensing agreements enforcement), and federal law governing copyright and patent.
[\textbackslash n] With the twenty-first century reliance on Internet communications, there was a marked shift in focus from local research science to global research science. The Internet opportunities to draw from worldwide scientific talent and diverse expertise in real-time became an irresistible siren’s song for research scientists to address global problems that only a few years ago were deemed unsolvable. Today, the typical modern research laboratory is virtual, via the Internet, and composed of all existing international scientific expertise considered necessary to tackle major problems facing world populations. Both undergraduate science education and university education are also embracing the virtual international laboratory research model. The result is that research science intellectual property law is struggling to keep abreast of the intertwined research science global network relationships. National intellectual property law is being rapidly subsumed within global intellectual property law, simply because the research science parties involved even in unitary research projects span the globe.
[\textbackslash n] Global research proceeds logically into global commerce and both exert tremendous leverage on nations to conform to international intellectual property norms. Absent the United States’ consensus to be bound by majority global intellectual property agreements and regulatory authority, U.S. scientists face material disadvantages in modern global scientific research.
[Excerpt: Why research scientists’ professional activities directly depend on recognition of moral rights]
A scientist’s professional activities directly depend on the recognition of moral rights because these rights are essential to ensure science validity (including transition into the marketplace for public benefit); to the integrity of the research process and profession; to prompt public research disclosure; and, to sustain the individual research scientist’s career.
[\textbackslash n] Research paternity (or right of attribution of the actual creator to be identified with his own work, contra plagiarism), research integrity (or right of respect, right to object to distortion, mutilation or unauthorized modification of his work), right of retraction (right to withdraw the work from circulation and public use based on, for example, later specific contrary findings), and right of disclosure (right to control first publication of the work) control research science in fact. The right to divulge and retract allows the author to decide when, where, and in what form the work will be disclosed (this is often equated with right of first publication). Moral rights are distinct from and legally distinguishable from economic rights in the intellectual products of research science.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[Conclusion]
Modern research science faces new challenges with the shift from national to global research efforts, funding, and legal jurisdiction problems inherent to scientific work products developed multi-nationally. Current United States law and policy, which denies fundamental non-economic moral rights to research scientists -- rights recognized in 157 nations overseas -- has become an overwhelming disincentive to engage in scientific research in the U.S. Historic research science ethics standards, promulgated and enforced to ensure scientific research quality and professional accountability, of both research practice and reporting by the local institution or professional societies, have decreasing control of global research networks. As the American Law Institute aptly describes for new world intellectual property, relevant principles of law must be harmonized among jurisdictions, between and among nation-states, for the scientific research benefits to accrue efficiently to the public’s benefit. To that end, it is urged that the United States adopt intellectual property moral rights recognition for research science. The rejection, thereof, is increasingly isolating our nation, and hence our scientific professional community, from the mainstream global research community and to America’s
innovative- and economic profound detriment.
[\textbackslash n] [...]},
keywords = {~INRMM-MiD:z-A7Z6UC35,authorship,epistemology,moral-rights,review,science-ethics,scientific-method,united-states},
number = {3}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"DhsCErnK9KDM7gxSa","bibbaseid":"jackson-beyondthescopeofordinarytrainingandknowledgetheargumentfordroitmoralusresearchscienceintellectualpropertymoralrights","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Jackson, J. E."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"“Beyond the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, U.S. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights","shorttitle":"“Beyond the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jackson"],"firstnames":["Joan","E."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2012-11-13","journaltitle":"Pace Law Review","volume":"32","pages":"676","issn":"0272-2410","url":"https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss3/3","abstract":"Research science intellectual property law has undergone tremendous change within the past two decades. In particular, from local to global. Historically, prior to Internet communication, science generally focused on solutions to problems impacting local, regional, or national populations. The scientific research (and, hence, the law governing intellectual property) similarly was largely circumscribed within the nation-state: professional research societies (science quality and ethics), state law (contractual and licensing agreements enforcement), and federal law governing copyright and patent. [\\n] With the twenty-first century reliance on Internet communications, there was a marked shift in focus from local research science to global research science. The Internet opportunities to draw from worldwide scientific talent and diverse expertise in real-time became an irresistible siren’s song for research scientists to address global problems that only a few years ago were deemed unsolvable. Today, the typical modern research laboratory is virtual, via the Internet, and composed of all existing international scientific expertise considered necessary to tackle major problems facing world populations. Both undergraduate science education and university education are also embracing the virtual international laboratory research model. The result is that research science intellectual property law is struggling to keep abreast of the intertwined research science global network relationships. National intellectual property law is being rapidly subsumed within global intellectual property law, simply because the research science parties involved even in unitary research projects span the globe. [\\n] Global research proceeds logically into global commerce and both exert tremendous leverage on nations to conform to international intellectual property norms. Absent the United States’ consensus to be bound by majority global intellectual property agreements and regulatory authority, U.S. scientists face material disadvantages in modern global scientific research. [Excerpt: Why research scientists’ professional activities directly depend on recognition of moral rights] A scientist’s professional activities directly depend on the recognition of moral rights because these rights are essential to ensure science validity (including transition into the marketplace for public benefit); to the integrity of the research process and profession; to prompt public research disclosure; and, to sustain the individual research scientist’s career. [\\n] Research paternity (or right of attribution of the actual creator to be identified with his own work, contra plagiarism), research integrity (or right of respect, right to object to distortion, mutilation or unauthorized modification of his work), right of retraction (right to withdraw the work from circulation and public use based on, for example, later specific contrary findings), and right of disclosure (right to control first publication of the work) control research science in fact. The right to divulge and retract allows the author to decide when, where, and in what form the work will be disclosed (this is often equated with right of first publication). Moral rights are distinct from and legally distinguishable from economic rights in the intellectual products of research science. [\\n] [...] [Conclusion] Modern research science faces new challenges with the shift from national to global research efforts, funding, and legal jurisdiction problems inherent to scientific work products developed multi-nationally. Current United States law and policy, which denies fundamental non-economic moral rights to research scientists – rights recognized in 157 nations overseas – has become an overwhelming disincentive to engage in scientific research in the U.S. Historic research science ethics standards, promulgated and enforced to ensure scientific research quality and professional accountability, of both research practice and reporting by the local institution or professional societies, have decreasing control of global research networks. As the American Law Institute aptly describes for new world intellectual property, relevant principles of law must be harmonized among jurisdictions, between and among nation-states, for the scientific research benefits to accrue efficiently to the public’s benefit. To that end, it is urged that the United States adopt intellectual property moral rights recognition for research science. The rejection, thereof, is increasingly isolating our nation, and hence our scientific professional community, from the mainstream global research community and to America’s innovative- and economic profound detriment. [\\n] [...]","keywords":"~INRMM-MiD:z-A7Z6UC35,authorship,epistemology,moral-rights,review,science-ethics,scientific-method,united-states","number":"3","bibtex":"@article{jacksonScopeOrdinaryTraining2012,\n title = {“{{Beyond}} the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, {{U}}.{{S}}. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights},\n shorttitle = {“{{Beyond}} the {{Scope}} of {{Ordinary Training}} and {{Knowledge}}”},\n author = {Jackson, Joan E.},\n date = {2012-11-13},\n journaltitle = {Pace Law Review},\n volume = {32},\n pages = {676},\n issn = {0272-2410},\n url = {https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss3/3},\n abstract = {Research science intellectual property law has undergone tremendous change within the past two decades. In particular, from local to global. Historically, prior to Internet communication, science generally focused on solutions to problems impacting local, regional, or national populations. The scientific research (and, hence, the law governing intellectual property) similarly was largely circumscribed within the nation-state: professional research societies (science quality and ethics), state law (contractual and licensing agreements enforcement), and federal law governing copyright and patent.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] With the twenty-first century reliance on Internet communications, there was a marked shift in focus from local research science to global research science. The Internet opportunities to draw from worldwide scientific talent and diverse expertise in real-time became an irresistible siren’s song for research scientists to address global problems that only a few years ago were deemed unsolvable. Today, the typical modern research laboratory is virtual, via the Internet, and composed of all existing international scientific expertise considered necessary to tackle major problems facing world populations. Both undergraduate science education and university education are also embracing the virtual international laboratory research model. The result is that research science intellectual property law is struggling to keep abreast of the intertwined research science global network relationships. National intellectual property law is being rapidly subsumed within global intellectual property law, simply because the research science parties involved even in unitary research projects span the globe.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Global research proceeds logically into global commerce and both exert tremendous leverage on nations to conform to international intellectual property norms. Absent the United States’ consensus to be bound by majority global intellectual property agreements and regulatory authority, U.S. scientists face material disadvantages in modern global scientific research.\n\n[Excerpt: Why research scientists’ professional activities directly depend on recognition of moral rights]\nA scientist’s professional activities directly depend on the recognition of moral rights because these rights are essential to ensure science validity (including transition into the marketplace for public benefit); to the integrity of the research process and profession; to prompt public research disclosure; and, to sustain the individual research scientist’s career.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Research paternity (or right of attribution of the actual creator to be identified with his own work, contra plagiarism), research integrity (or right of respect, right to object to distortion, mutilation or unauthorized modification of his work), right of retraction (right to withdraw the work from circulation and public use based on, for example, later specific contrary findings), and right of disclosure (right to control first publication of the work) control research science in fact. The right to divulge and retract allows the author to decide when, where, and in what form the work will be disclosed (this is often equated with right of first publication). Moral rights are distinct from and legally distinguishable from economic rights in the intellectual products of research science.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[Conclusion]\nModern research science faces new challenges with the shift from national to global research efforts, funding, and legal jurisdiction problems inherent to scientific work products developed multi-nationally. Current United States law and policy, which denies fundamental non-economic moral rights to research scientists -- rights recognized in 157 nations overseas -- has become an overwhelming disincentive to engage in scientific research in the U.S. Historic research science ethics standards, promulgated and enforced to ensure scientific research quality and professional accountability, of both research practice and reporting by the local institution or professional societies, have decreasing control of global research networks. As the American Law Institute aptly describes for new world intellectual property, relevant principles of law must be harmonized among jurisdictions, between and among nation-states, for the scientific research benefits to accrue efficiently to the public’s benefit. To that end, it is urged that the United States adopt intellectual property moral rights recognition for research science. The rejection, thereof, is increasingly isolating our nation, and hence our scientific professional community, from the mainstream global research community and to America’s\ninnovative- and economic profound detriment. \n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]},\n keywords = {~INRMM-MiD:z-A7Z6UC35,authorship,epistemology,moral-rights,review,science-ethics,scientific-method,united-states},\n number = {3}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Jackson, J. E."],"key":"jacksonScopeOrdinaryTraining2012","id":"jacksonScopeOrdinaryTraining2012","bibbaseid":"jackson-beyondthescopeofordinarytrainingandknowledgetheargumentfordroitmoralusresearchscienceintellectualpropertymoralrights","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss3/3"},"keyword":["~INRMM-MiD:z-A7Z6UC35","authorship","epistemology","moral-rights","review","science-ethics","scientific-method","united-states"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:10.108Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["~inrmm-mid:z-a7z6uc35","authorship","epistemology","moral-rights","review","science-ethics","scientific-method","united-states"],"search_terms":["beyond","scope","ordinary","training","knowledge","argument","droit","moral","research","science","intellectual","property","moral","rights","jackson"],"title":"“Beyond the Scope of Ordinary Training and Knowledge”: The Argument for Droit Moral, U.S. Research Science Intellectual Property Moral Rights","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}