The foremost aim of a scientist, as of
any man who seeks to behave with objective
morality, should be to seek his own gain and
advancement via the discovery of truth.
Since it is that particular scientist's mind
that gains perception of natural phenomena
before the minds of any others, that
particular scientist deserves ample rewards
for his ingenuity, deliberation, and
integration, and/or experimentation. To give
this knowledge away without demanding one's
rightful recognition and reward is to
subordinate this wonderful capacity to a
parasitic humanity that would not have
discovered this truth on its own but would
nevertheless seek to own it.
Science and truth should not be pursued for
their own sake as they, like everything
else, do not have intrinsic value. Their
pursuit should be undertaken solely for
their contribution to the objective survival
and prosperity interests of man, and most
importantly the interests of the
discoverers. To renounce this precept and
gratuitously give away one's knowledge
classifies as pursuit of science for
science's sake and thus subverts the genuine
purpose of science.
Payment for one's discovery, of course, can
proceed in a myriad of ways, and should be
left to the individual scientists to define
in relevant situations. Monetary gains may
be preferable for some, while sheer
association of one's name with a discovery
may suffice for others.
Hence, before their research is completed,
scientists possess the prerogative of
maintaining any degree of secrecy that they
deem necessary for the most optimal progress
of the endeavor. Since the investigation is
their labor and therefore their property,
not that of the public or of
humanity, the scientists can and should set
the terms of its disclosure.
If sharing of results is detrimental to the
profit and recognition that those scientists
expect to derive from their studies, then
they have a moral obligation to themselves
not to reveal them. If, however,
there is no such detriment, they should be
free to receive consensual assistance and
feedback as they see fit.
But no scientist should be obligated to do so, either legally or morally; such disclosure ought to remain a matter of individual free choice.