---
title: "Mertonian norms"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:44:18.741729+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

Secondly, to restrict scientific careers for any reason other than incompetence was to "prejudice the furtherance of knowledge". Merton again noted how the ethos of science may be inconsistent with that of society, but insists that "however inadequately it may be put into practice, the ethos of democracy includes universalism as a dominant guiding principle". He predicted that this inadequacy of laissez-faire democratic processes would lead ultimately to false differential accumulation and  increasing regulation of science under political authority, which must be counteracted through "new technical forms of organization" towards equality of opportunity.

=== Disinterestedness ===
Distinct from altruism, scientists should act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise rather than for specific outcomes. Merton reasoned that an individual's scientific motivation may be easily influenced and without institutional enforcement of disinterestedness, and the "seeming virtual absence of fraud" could not be explained by unusually high moral integrity of individuals alone.
Merton observed a low rate of fraud in science ("virtual absence … which appears exceptional"), which he believed stemmed from the  intrinsic need for "verifiability" in science and expert scrutiny by peers ("rigorous policing, to a degree perhaps unparalleled in any other field of activity") as well as the "public and testable character" of science.
Self-interest (in the form of self-aggrandisement and/or exploitation of "the credulity, ignorance, and dependence of the layman") is the logical opposite of disinterestedness and may be appropriated by authority "for interested purposes." Merton points to "totalitarian spokesmen on race or economy or history" as examples and describes science as enabling such "new mysticisms" that "borrow prestige."

=== Organized skepticism ===
Skepticism (i.e. "temporary suspension of judgement", and 'detached' critical scrutiny) is central to both scientific methodology and institutions.

== Later variants ==
Later work has added "originality", and shortened 'organized scepticism' to 'scepticism', producing the acronym 'CUDOS' (sometimes these 5 concepts are misleadingly named 'Mertonian norms'). Other works additionally replace 'communism' with 'communalism' (e.g. Ziman 2000)  or 'Communality' (e.g. Anderson et al., 2010).

=== Counter norms ===
Ian Mitroff, in a study of  the Apollo moon scientists, provided evidence  for the influence of what he called "counternorms". These counter norms are a one to one opposition of Mertonian norms.

Communality (originally called communism) is countered by "Secrecy": "Scientists protect their newest findings to ensure priority in publishing, patenting, or applications."
Universalism is countered by "Particularism": "Scientists assess new knowledge and its applications based on the reputation and past productivity of the individual or research group."
Disinterestedness is countered by "Self-interestedness": "Scientists compete with others in the same field for funding and recognition of their achievements."
Organized skepticism is countered by "Organized dogmatism": "Scientists invest their careers in promoting their own most important findings, theories, or innovations."

== See also ==
Open science data
Philosophy of science
Research § Research ethics
Scientific consensus
Scientific method

== Notes ==

== References ==
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003), Theory and Reality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7
Merton, Robert K. (1973) [1942], "The Normative Structure of Science", in Merton, Robert K. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278, ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754
Mitroff, Ian I. (1974), "Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists", American Sociological Review, 39 (4): 579–595, doi:10.2307/2094423, JSTOR 2094423
Ziman, John (2000), Real Science: what it is, and what it means, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-77229-7, OCLC 41834678