No abstract

The culturally-dominant view of the popularization of science rests on a two-stage model: first, scientists develop genuine knowledge; second, popularizers spread streamlined versions to the public. At best, popularization is seen as a low-status educational task of `appropriate simplification'. At worst, it is `pollution' — the distortion of science by outsiders. This paper shows that the dominant view suffers from conceptual problems, and greatly oversimplifies the process. But, despite these weaknesses, the dominant view serves scientists (and others who derive their authority from technical expertise) as a resource in public discourse, providing a repertoire of rhetorical devices for interpreting science for outsiders, and a powerful tool for sustaining the social hierarchy of expertise.

Data withholding occurs in academic genetics and it affects essential scientific activities such as the ability to confirm published results. Lack of resources and issues of scientific priority may play an important role in scientists' decisions to withhold data, materials, and information from other academic geneticists.

Data withholding is common in biomedical science, takes multiple forms, is influenced by a variety of characteristics of investigators and their training, and varies by field of science. Encouraging openness during the formative experiences of young investigators may be critical to increased data sharing, but the effects of formal training do not appear straightforward.