Today, the term scientific community is widely used. For instance, when speaking on a disputed topic, such as climate change, it is usual to refer to the opinion of the scientific community.82 Nevertheless, the concept is not clearly defined and often it is used only metaphorically.83 Encyclopaedia Britannica does not have an entry for scientific community while Wikipedia defines it as consisting of the total body of sci-entists, their relationships and interactions. Its membership is generally, but not ex-clusively, based on education, employment status and institutional affiliation. Com-munication among members occurs by disseminating research work and hypotheses through articles in peer reviewed journals, by attending conferences or by via various informal methods.84 This chapter examines the development of the scientific com-munity, its manners and ethical codes as well as regularities and mechanisms which affect its structure.
The origins of the scientific community could be traced to Plato’s Academy or to the mediaeval universities, whose Latin name universitas referred to a collective of teachers and students.85 Though mediaeval universities were erudite communities, it would be misleading to consider them to have formed a scientific community, for actually, they did not practise science. Only the dawn of modern science in the Re-naissance academies ushered in the idea of a scientific community. It was to be called the Republic of Letters (Respublica literaria) – the concept embraces the humanities as well. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the term Republic of Letters was used increasingly in erudite letters and as a title of books and journals. It did not refer to any specific learned institution but manifested the idea of the community of scientists and scholars, separate from the rest of society. In this realm, the scholars were neither members of their estates, nor subject to the norms and values of the wider society.
The ideal was an essentially egalitarian community, where all members had equal
82 The Google search with these two terms yields over three million references.
83 Caelleigh 2003, p. 227.
84 Scientifi c Community. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia. http:��en.wikipedia.org�wiki�Sci- Scientific Community. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia. http:��en.wikipedia.org�wiki�Sci-entific�community (cited 21 December 2010).
85 Academy, n. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. http:��www.oed.com�view�En- Academy, n. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. http:��www.oed.com�view�En-try�891 (cited 2 September 2011); university, n. Third edition, November 2010; online version June 2011. http:��www.oed.com�view�Entry�214804 (cited 2 September 2011).
rights to criticise the work of others as well as their manners and conduct. Another crucial feature was ignoring the distinctions and rivalries concerning nationality and religion – a noteworthy attitude, especially in seventeenth century Europe, torn by the religious wars.86
In the seventeenth century, the citizens of the Republic did not consist only of academics. Actually, the majority had another position in society because a salary for scientific work was seldom offered at the time. Hence, they were clerics or monks, sometimes archivists or librarians. The craftspeople, merchants or noblemen inter-ested in science and letters were welcomed to the community as well. The membership was even open to those erudites who did not publish anything, the various collec-tors, for instance.87 The Republic was a network tied together by correspondence and mutual favours. Being its citizen meant a willingness to inform others on scientific news and gossips, to help them in buying books and journals, to extend academic hospitality, to introduce people to each other etc. The expectation of reciprocity re-garding the favours of this kind was the right of every citizen. The cohesion of the scholarly community presupposed not only willingness to help others but also an open and modest attitude.88
The Republic of Letters was a cultural construct developed by seventeenth and eighteenth century erudites. It was not restricted to a specific area, neither did it have a written constitution. The rules and manners of Republicans were expounded in letters, books, articles and obituaries, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly.
Probably due to the abundant and fragmentary material, the Republic of Letters has fascinated historians. Yet no unanimity has been reached, either on the timing or on the elements of the Republic.89 Even its mere existence has been impugned. W. Clark states that the whole Republic was just a plethora of provincial and other groups, the only really cosmopolitan group being the Jesuits, whose community was, neverthe-less, closed and hierarchical.90 S. Shapin, for his part, has challenged its cosmopolitan character by remarking that it excluded women and Jews.91 Other historians have seen the Republic in a more positive light, however, emphasising different aspects of it.
A. Goldgar positions the Republic in seventeenth and early eighteenth century Europe. For her, the nodes of the Republic were people. Crucial links among its citizens were shared values which were created by the interactions among erudites.92 D. Goodman sees the early history of the Republic similarly but argues that in the
86 Goldgar 1995, pp. 2-3; McClellan 1985, p. 5; Somsen 2008, p. 363; Daston 1991, pp. 375-379;
Goodman 1994, pp. 14-15; Shapin 1998, pp. 6-7. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/docs/
shapin-Science_and_Prejudice_1998-1999.pdf (cited 13 May 2011).
87 Goldgar 1995, p. 3; Brockliss 2002, pp. 10-12, 367; Res publica literaria. Wikipedia, Die freie Enzyklopädie. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica_literaria (cited 21 December 2010).
88 Goldgar 1995, pp. 12-19, 150-153; Goodman 1994, pp. 17-18; Brockliss 2002, pp. 107-108, 367.
89 The research concerning the Republic is well described in the Wikipedia entry The Republic of Letters. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_letters. (cited 21 December 2010). Only the recent research and research focusing on the scientific and schol-arly traditions of the Republic is discussed here.
90 Clark 2003, pp. 220, 234-235.
91 Shapin 1998, pp. 13-15. http:��www.fas.harvard.edu�~hsdept�bios�docs�shapin-Science�and�
Prejudice�1998-1999.pdf (cited 13 May 2011).
92 Goldgar 1995, pp. 4, 13.
eighteenth century the citizens withdrew from the old Latin erudite traditions and formed a new, more secular, more conversational and more national culture whose language was French. The new Republic saw its justification in its service to humanity rather than in a pure concept of knowledge.93 This new culture developed around the encyclopedists, their contributors and subscribers, but moved in the second half of the century to the literary salons which were to play a prominent role in the Repub-lic. Salons, hosted by enlightened ladies, brought together nobles and intellectuals, philosophes, in order to educate and cultivate them and create a common medium of cultural exchange. They brought order to the Republic which, at least in France, was torn by the duelling culture of the nobles and the disputational style of erudites educated at Jesuit colleges.94
L.W.B. Brockliss, who studied the correspondence networks of an eighteenth cen-tury Avignon physician, Esprit Calvet, disagrees with Goodman and Goldgar on timing and on the connections to the Enlightenment. He states that the Republic continued its existence in its traditional erudite form along with the Parisian salon culture. Contacts between these circles existed but they were sparse and usually spo-radic. However, both cultures were bearers of the Enlightenment – the philosophes in more radical and forward-looking way, the Republicans in their utilitarian tenden-cies towards the furtherance of human happiness and their belief in reason and the enlightenment. Though often religious characters and conservative supporters of the Ancien Régime, the Republicans could at least fashion an alternative society.95
The relation of the Republic to various institutions is also debatable. From the foundation of the Académie française in 1635, and the Royal Society in 1660, be-gan a period when the academies and societies spread from Central Europe all over the world, providing organised procedures and regular communication channels for scientific work. Goodman and Goldgar see the role of the academies at least partly contradictory to the spirit of the Republic. By settling in the academies, the Republic entered into the service of the state and in so doing was forced to relinquish its inde-pendence. Autonomy, deeply appreciated by the men of letters, could not be main-tained in these state-sponsored institutions.96 Brockliss and J. McClellan, instead, see the role of learned societies and academies as being the institutional outposts of the Republic. Although these institutions had more or less close connections with rulers, they represented the cosmopolitan spirit of the Republic, for instance, by networking internationally via corresponding members and by exchanging their publications.97 C.E. McClelland, for his part, states that in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Ger-many, universities were called the Republic of Letters since they maintained a liberal atmosphere, promoting friendships and contacts over regional, class and religious
93 Goodman 1994, pp. 21-24, 33. Goodman examines the Republic mainly from the French point of view.
94 Goodman pp. 1994, 5-11, 32, 41, 46, 52, 91-97. Goodman argues that the role of salons as the promoters of the Enlightenment has been underestimated because, unlike the societies and acad-emies, they were presided over by ladies.
95 Brockliss 2002, pp. 392-403.
96 Goldgar 1995, pp. 228, 237-240; Goodman 1994, pp. 21-27. Goodman speaks more of acad-Goodman speaks more of acad-emies than societies.
97 McClellan 1985, pp. 4-8; Brockliss 2002, pp. 9-10; Daston 1990, pp. 97-98.
distinctions. He does not analyse the concept of Republic very profoundly but his material indicates that the term was widely used.98
The Republic of Letters had its material base in surplus production and urban growth. Not only did urbanisation produce the economic and physical infrastructure like postal services which enabled scholarly activities to flourish, but it also created a demand for social activities.99 J.-P. Chaline and P. Clark, who have studied the history of associational life in France and in the United Kingdom, both note that the motives in joining various clubs, societies and associations lie simply in the human inclina-tion to socialize, which needed new forums in an urban environment. Belonging to a society meant knowing important people, increasing one’s reputation as an active and erudite member of a local community and perhaps even having financial aid in times of difficulty.100 However, that is not all, as P. Clark points out:
At such places, as we know, they would take part in the formal business and then sit around with friends, usually with a drink, to hear the latest news or scandal, to join in a song, to escape from the tedium of work and the family, in other words, to have a little fun.101
Chaline gives similar motive : ennui d’une petite ville, que l’on cherche à tromper.102 Goldgar explains the structure and unwritten rules of the Republic with utilitarian viewpoints as well but she emphasises rather scholarly than social benefits. In the seventeenth century, research libraries and archives were rare, travelling was laborious, the supply of booksellers did not meet the demand and postal services were expensive.
Some cities had excellent scholars while others had flourishing bookshops. Therefore, networking was necessary for those who needed research material and liked to know what was going on in the world of learning. Correspondence and mutual favours gradually evolved from a means to an end.103 Brockliss also emphasises the practical benefits the members of the Republic expected. His subject, Esprit Calvet, soon lost interest in correspondents who could offer him nothing useful. Steady contacts were maintained with those men who could help this amateur antiquarian to develop his collections or scientists outstanding enough for their friendship to give him prestige etc. If the correspondents were expected to be of service, they, for their part, could ask similar favours.104
The Republic of Letters faded away in the course of time. Goldgar, who dated the disappearance of the Republic to the early eighteenth century, saw the reason partly in the institutionalised communication channels created by societies, academies and the learned journals, partly in the new culture of the Enlightenment where the old Republic with its purely erudite aims became outmoded and conservative in the eyes of mondial philosophes.105 For Goodman, the grounds for its decline were in the growth
98 McClelland 1980, pp. 3, 136, 154, 292.
99 Clark P. 2000, pp. 141-144; McClellan 1985, p. 8; Chaline 1998, p. 83; Goodman 1994, pp. 12-15, 23-24.
100 Clark P. 2000, pp. 151-155; Chaline 1998, pp. 233-235.
101 Clark P. 2000, p. 491.
102 Chaline 1998, p. 233.
103 Goldgar 1995, pp. 15-19, 226-227.
104 Brockliss 2002, pp. 43, 88-89, 92-93.
105 Goldgar 1995, pp. 226-227, 239.
of a new masculine and disputative culture. At the end of the eighteenth century, the philosophes became increasingly engaged with public matters and with the public itself through the medium of print. The new culture meant open disputes in the printed media and the emergence of more hierarchical institutions which excluded ladies.106 According to Brockliss, the Republic was reorganised in France soon after the havoc of the Revolution. The Napoleonic era meant better prospects for science as well as for antiquarian research. Even the aged physician Esprit Calvet was at the turn of the century again exchanging letters with those members of his network who had survived the Terror. The ethical norms of the Republic were still valued but the new cultural bureaucracy and growing nationalism diminished their importance.
Although French scholars continued to use the language of internationalism, they tended to stress that they worked for the glory of France. Napoleon’s efforts in binding scholars to the service of the nation by rewarding them with medals, aristocratic titles and other symbolic gestures were successful. Furthermore, the Paris-centred network of cultural institutions offered researchers new salaried posts. The increasing number of provincial societies began to receive funding for publishing, but simultaneously, they were brought under the control of local prefects, i. e. Napoleon’s officials and their members were expected to present papers and publish them. Scholarship was no longer a private affair.107
The national tone of the French Republicans was at first disapproved of by other European scholars but in the course of the nineteenth century, internationalism faded in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and in many other countries. A nineteenth century scientist was supposed to glorify his own nation, not the interna-tional scholarly community, albeit his success was still assessed in the internainterna-tional arena. The strengthening nationalism opened the gates of the Republic for politics.
The dictum of Edward Jenner The sciences are never at war was replaced by another stated by one of the developers of chlorine gas, Fritz Haber: In wartime, the scholar belongs to his nation, in peacetime to mankind.108
The structure of the scholarly organisations changed in the nineteenth century.
The old learned societies declined in relative importance. With a few exceptions, the national academies became more honorary organisations recognising scientific accomplishment achieved elsewhere. Discipline-oriented organisations with their spe-cialised journals came increasingly to supplant the old umbrella societies. The dis-tinctively professional organisations for science, such as the Deutsche Naturforscher Versammlung and the British Association for the Advancement of Science represented a new mode for organised science. The German universities were forerunners of the new academic culture with their modern laboratories and professionally qualified scientists. Paid posts for professional scientists were founded not only in universities but also in new research institutes such as geological surveys. Nevertheless, in the nineteenth century, gentlemen devoted to science as a lifetime’s choice still had a remarkable role in science-making.109
106 Goodman 1994, pp. 183-185, 233-234, 250-251.
107 Brockliss 2002, pp. 363-376. See also Daston 1990, pp. 109-110.
108 Somsen 2008, pp. 364-367; Daston 1990, pp. 99-101; Crawford 1990, pp. 252.
109 McClellan 1985, pp. 253-259; McClellan 2003, pp. 105-106; Morrell 1990, pp. 51-53.
What then, remains of the Republic? Did it vanish or did it remain as a distant ideal of scholarly co-operation? Can it still be seen in manners and phrases? At least as a rhetorical concept, the Republic survived into the twentieth century. In the 1930s, it appeared in a series of open letters launched by the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, where it was used by no less than Albert Einstein and Sig-mund Freud.110 Republican ideas are also discernible in the norms of science defined by the sociologist R. Merton in the 1930s and 1940s.111 Merton, however, considered seventeenth century Puritanism a background of his normative structure of science, having no interest in the concept of the Republic of Letters.112
The first of Merton’s norms is universalism, which manifests the principle that sci-entific claims must be judged exclusively by scisci-entific criteria. The nationality, race, family or other personal attributes of the scientist must be ignored when his or her work is judged.113 A similar idea was obvious in the Republic, where Catholic and Prot-estant scholars dismissed religious questions in scholarly discourse. Military rivalries were ignored when the learned societies organised common projects of observation of the transit of Venus in 1761.114 The second norm, communism or communalism, refers to the communal character of science and learning. According to Merton, the substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and, hence, as-signed to the scholarly community. They constitute a common heritage where the property rights of their individual producers are severely limited. The results of re-search should be published and made available to all.115 Again, this spirit seems to be inherited from the Republic. The virtues of a scholar included not only openness with information but also assistance in research, instructive conversation etc. Science was a common endeavour.116 The third norm, disinterestedness, mirrors the moral attitudes which prevent a scientist from trying to gain benefit, for instance, by using fraud or stealing others’ results. This norm does not have an obvious counterpart in the Republic unless the admiration of an ascetic lifestyle is considered as such. However, in his later article Merton introduced an additional norm, humility, which assumes the scientist will acknowledge his indebtedness to his predecessors and to admit his personal limitations.117 The humble behaviour was deeply rooted in the etiquette of the Republic where pride was an unforgivable sin, no matter how talented a scholar was.118 The fourth norm, organised scepticism, can, again, be traced to the Republic.
The right to open criticism being one of the keystones of the Republic, it was obvious that the practice was adopted in scientific papers which, from the very beginning, were subjected to the scrutiny of peers.119
110 Sörlin 1994, p. 17. The concept Gelehrtenrepublik was also used to describe the system of inter-national exchanges by Hans Lutz in a library meeting, in 1930. See Lutz 1932, p. 284.
111 Shapin 1998, pp. 9-10. http:��www.fas.harvard.edu�~hsdept�bios�docs�shapin-Science�and�
Prejudice�1998-1999.pdf (cited 13 May 2011).
112 Merton (1938) 1973, pp. 228-253. See also the prefatory note by Norman W. Storer, p. 226.
113 Merton (1942) 1973, pp. 270-273.
114 Goldgar 1995, pp. 182-188; Crosland (2005) 2007, p. 30; Daston 1991, pp. 375-377.
115 Merton (1942) 1973, pp. 273-275.
116 Goldgar 1995, pp. 90-91, 153-154.
117 Merton (1942) 1973, pp. 275-277; Merton (1957) 1973, pp. 303-305; Goldgar 1995, p. 154; Brock-liss 2002, p. 38.
118 Goldgar, 1995, pp. 158-160.
119 Merton (1942) 1973, pp. 277-278; Goldgar 1995, pp.2-3; Katzen 1980, pp. 184-185.
According to Merton, these norms, which express the values of scholars, form the ethos of science. Like the manners of the Republic, the moral consensus of scientists is not a formal written law, but is expressed in use and wont, in writing on scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed at contraventions.120 Merton’s student and collaborator, S. Cole, argued that for Merton, the normative structure was not stat-ing what science actually is but the norms were ideals towards which scientists were ambivalent.121 This ambivalence has subsequently been emphasised by I. Mitroff and M. Mulkay among others. J. Ziman, for his part, thought that the Mertonian system
According to Merton, these norms, which express the values of scholars, form the ethos of science. Like the manners of the Republic, the moral consensus of scientists is not a formal written law, but is expressed in use and wont, in writing on scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed at contraventions.120 Merton’s student and collaborator, S. Cole, argued that for Merton, the normative structure was not stat-ing what science actually is but the norms were ideals towards which scientists were ambivalent.121 This ambivalence has subsequently been emphasised by I. Mitroff and M. Mulkay among others. J. Ziman, for his part, thought that the Mertonian system