那天说McScience（http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=279992&do=blog&id=777578），提起Sheldon Krimsky的Science in the PrivateInterest（Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, 2004），说科学变味儿了，学校成了麦当劳。不过，最后他还是回归“正宗”的科学，引用了Robert Merton (1942)在The Social Structure of Science里提出的现代科学的“四好”标准（Norm）：“foursets of institutional imperatives [comprising] the ethos of modern science”——简称CUDOS原则：Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness,Originality and Skepticism，大概可以译为共享、普及、无私、独创和怀疑。后来有人将最后一点改为organized skepticism，有序怀疑，即不到最后不下结论——几点解释如下（如Ziman, 2000）：

Communalism entails that scientific results are the common property of the entire scientific community

Universalism means that all scientists can contribute to science regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender

Disinterestedness according to which scientists are supposed to act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for personal gain

Originality requires that scientificclaims contribute something new, whether a new problem, a new approach, newdata, a new theory or a new explanation

Skepticism (Organized Skepticism) Skepticism means that scientific claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted.

最后一点可能是现代大科学的特点，从前个人玩儿的时候，才不管它呢。再想想，这一点纯粹是废话，因为任何科学结论本来就是被怀疑对象，随时可能被“证伪”。如果说“organized”是指有组织的，是科学团体的集体意识，那就更荒唐了。

针对那四个原则（除去originality），有人提出四个“反”原则（Mitroff, Ian I., 1974."Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo MoonScientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists", American Sociological Review 39 (4): 579–595），可以叫SPID原则：Solitariness, Particularism, Interestedness, Dogmatism。（勉强译为独享、排他、自利、独断——如此翻译肯定不准确。）这几点不属于Merton所说的科学气质，而是科学人的纠结（ambivalence of scientists），如今似乎更加突出了。