Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

download Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

of 8

Transcript of Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    1/8

    The.

    Matthew Effect0

    m Science

    The reward and communication systemsof science are considered.

    Robert K. Mcrton

    This paper develops a conception ofways in which certain psychosociai

    ., processes affect the allocation of re-wards to scientists for their contribu-\tjons- an allocation which in turn af-fwts the flow of ideas and findingsth&gh the communication networksof s&,nce. The conception is basedupon ah, analysis of the compotite ofexperienc; ,,reported in Harriet Zucker-mans intemiews with Nobel laureatesin the United @ates (1) and upon datadrawn from the diaries, letters, note-books. scientific &pen, and biographiesof other scientists.

    The Reward System and bceaparats

    of the Forty-First chair

    We might best begin with s&me gen-erai observations on the reward systemin science, basing these on eariier ibex-reticai formulations and empirical in-vestigations. Some time ago (2) it wad

    A number of workers, in empiricaistudies, have investigated various as-pects of the reward system of scienceas thus conceived. Gtaser (3) has found.for example, that some degree of rcc-o&ion is required to stabiiizc thecareen of scientists. In a case studyCrane (4) used the quantity of publica-tion (apart from quality) as a measureof scientific productivity and found thathighly productive scientists at a majoruniversity gained recognition more of-ten than equally productive scientists

    at a lesser university. Hagstrom (5) hasdeveloped and partly tested the hypoth-esis that matcriai rewards in sciencefunction primarily to reinforce the op-eration of a reward system in which

    noted that graded rewards in the realm the primary reward of recognition for

    , scientific contributions is exchanged forof science arc distributed principally inthe coin of recognition accorded re-

    +cess to scientific information. Storer

    search by feUow-scientists. This recog-(6) ,has analyzed the ambivalence of

    nition is stratified for varying gradesthe @cntists response to recognition

    Of scientific accompiishment, as judgedas a qase in which the norm of dis-

    hv the scientists peen. Both the self-

    intereste+ss operates to make scien-

    . tists deny ,thc vaiue to them of in-

    image and the pubiic image of scien-tists arc iargeiy shaped by the corn-munaily validating testimony of sign&cant others that they have variously

    lived up to the exacting institutionalrequirements of their roies.

    The author is Giddings Professor of Sociologyat Columbia University, IJew York 10027. Thi8

    fluence and kvthority in science. Zuck-

    article is brKd on a papw read before theerman (7) and S,he Coics (8) have found

    Amctican Sociolo@icrJ Association in San Fran- that scientists ~$0 receive recognitioncisco. August 1967. for research done early in their ca-

    1

    CopyrightAmencan

    @ 1968 by theAssociation for the Advancement of Science

    rcers are more productive later on fhnnthose who do not. And the Cola &WCat o found that. at least in the Bof contemporary American phys& thereward system operates iargciy in a*cord with institutional valua of thes&l- inasmuch as quality of d,is more often and more su-9rewarded than mere quantity. **

    In science as in other ins&u&df&n& a special problem in &8 w&-inlp of the reward system tums upwhen individuals or organizations takeon the job of gauging and suitablymVaKiing lofty performance on behalfof a large community. TIiw M uiti-m accolade in ZOth*eattay sciatc&the Nobel prize, is often- asshed tomark off its recipients from ail theother scbtists of the time. Yet. tbisassumption is at odds with the- well-

    known fact that a good number ofscientists who have not recdved theprize and wiil not receive it ham con-tributed as much to the advrrrrccnrtnlof science as some of the iedpients.or more. This can be desctibed a thephenomenon of the 4lst ChaiP Thederivation of this tag is citar enough.The French Academy, it M be rc-membered. decided early that oniy acohort of 40 couid qualify as m-0hen and so emerge as immo& Thislimitation of numbers ma& inevitable,of course, the exciusi6n through thecenturies of many talented individrrallrwho have won their own immortality.The familiar list of occupants Of this41st chair inciudes Descartes, Pd.Moli&rt, Bayle, Rousseau, Saint&non,Didcrot, Stendahl, FIaubert, 204 andProust (9).

    What holds for the French Academyholds in varying degree for every btherinstitution designed to identify and re-ward talent. in all of them there arcoccupants of the 4lst chair, mea out-side the Academy having at least the

    same order of talent as those inside it.In part, this circumstance results fromemrs of judgment that lead to inclu-sion of the less talented at the expenseof the more talented. History serves

    Reprinted from

    SCIENCE

    Januuy 5, 1968. Vol. 59, No. 3810. pages 56-63

    cience, 159(3810): 56-63, January 5, 1968

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    2/8

    as an appellate court, ready to reversethe judgments of the lower courts,which are limited by the myopia ofcontemporaneity. But in greater part,the phenomenon of the 41st chair isan artifact of having a fixed numberof places available at the summit ofrecognition. Moreover, when a particu-lar generation is rich in achievementsof a high order, it follows from therule of fixed numbers that some menwhose accomplishments rank as highas those actually given the award willbe excluded from the honorific ranks. Indeed, their accomplishments some-times far outrank those which, in a timeof less creativity, proved enough toqualify men for .&is high order ofrccognitioa

    The Nobel prize retains its luster be-cause errors of the first kind-wherescientic work of dubious or inferiorworth has been mistakenly honored-are uncommonly few. Yet limitationsof the second kind cannot be avoided.

    The small number of awards meansthat, particularly in times of greatscientific advance, there will be manyoccupants of the 41st chair (and, sincethe terms governing the award of theprize do not provide for Posthumousrecognition, permanent occupants ofthat chair). This gap in the award ofthe ultimate prize is only partly filfedby other awards for scientific accom-plishrnent since these do not c a r r y t h es a m e p r e s t i g e either inside the scientificcommunity or outside it. Furthermore,

    i*what has been noted about the artifactof fixed numbers producing o c c u p a n t s

    of the 41st chair in the case of theNobei prize holds in principle for otherawards providing less prestige (thoughsometimes, nowadays, more cash).

    Scientists reflecting on the stratifica-t i o n of honor and esteem in the worldo&&&e know all this; the Nobel

    *laureates themselves know and empha-size it, and the members of the Swcd-ish Royal Academy of Science and theRoyal Caroline Institute who face theunenviable task of making the tialdecisions know it. The latter testifyto the phenomenon of the 41st chairwhenever they allude to work of prize-winning calibre which, under the con-ditions of+ the scarcity of prizes, couldnot be given the award. And so it isthat, in the case of the Nobel prize, oc-cupants of the 41st chair comprise anillustrious company that includes suchnames as Josiah Willard Gibbs, Mende-Ieev, W. B. Cannon, H. Quincke, J.Barcroft, F. dH&elle, H. De Vries,

    Jacques Loeb, W. M. Bayiiss, E. H.Starling, G. N. Lewis, 0. T. Avery,and Selig Hecht, to say nothing of thelong list of still-living uncrowned Nobellaureates (IO).

    In the stratification system of honorin science, there may also be a ratcheteffect (II) operating in the careersof scientists such that, once havingachieved a particular degree of emi-nence, they do not later fall much be-lo w that level (although they .may beoutdistanced by newcomers and so suf-fer a r e l a r i v e decline in prestige). Oncea Nobel laureate, always a Nobel lau-reate. Yet the reward system based onrecognition for work accomplished tendsto induce continued effort, which servesboth to validate the judgment that thescientist has unusual capacities and totestify that these capacities have con-tinuing potential. What appears frombelow to be the summit becomes, inthe experience of those who havereached it, only another way station.

    The scientists ,peers and other ass00ciates regard each of his scientificachievements as only the prelude tonew and greater achievements. Such so-cial pressures do not often permit thosewho have climbed the rugged mounotains of scientific achievement to re-main content. It is not necessarily thefact that their own Faustian aspirationsare ever escalating that keeps eminentscientists at work More and more isexpected of them, and this creates itsown measure of motivation and stress.Less often than might be imagined isthere repose at the top in science

    (see 12).The recognition accorded scientific

    achievement by the scientists peers isa reward in the strict sense identifiedby Parsons (13). As we shall see, suchrecognition can be converted into aninstrumental asset as enlarged facilitiesare made available to the honored scien-tist for further work. Without deiiber-ate intent on the part of any group.the reward system thus influences theclass structure of science by provid-ing a stratied distribution of chances,among scientists, for enlarging theirrole as investigators. The process pro-vides differential access to the meansof scientific production. This becomesalf the more important in the current*historical shift from little science to bigscience, with its expensive and oftencentralized equipment needed for re-search. There is thus a continuing inter-play between the status system, basedon honor and esteem, and the class

    system, based . on differential iife-chances, which locates scientists in dif-fering positions within the opportunitystructure of science (14).

    The Matthew E f f e c t n heRewardSystem

    The social structure of science pro-vides the context for this inquiry intoa complex psychosocial process thataffects both the reward system andthe communication system of science.We start by noting a. theme that runsthrough the interviews with the Nobellaureates. They repeatedly observe thateminent scientists get dispmportionate-ly great credit for their contributionsto science while reiativeiy unknownscientists tend to get disproportionatelylittle credit for comparable contribu-tions. As one laureate in physics putit (25): The world is peculiar in thismatter of how it gives credit. It tendsto give the credit to [already] famouspeople?

    As we examine the experiences re-ported by eminent scientists we findthat this pattern of recognition, skewedin favor of the established scientist, ap-pears principally (i) in cases of co10laboration and (ii) in cases of inde-pendcnt multiple discoveries made byscientists of distinctly different rank(Ia)

    1; papers coauthored by men of de-cidedly unequal reputation, anotherlaureate in physics reports, the manwhos best known gets more credit, an

    inordinate amount of CrcdW In thewords of a laureate in chemistry:When people see my name on a paper,they are apt to remember it and not toremember the other names. And -alaureate in physiology and medicinedescribes his awn pattern of responseto jointly authored-papers. ,

    You usually notice the name that yourefamiliar with. Even if its fast. it wilf be theone that sticks. In some cases, all thenames are unfamiliar to you, and theyrevirtually anonymous. But what you noteis the acknowledgement at the end of thepaper to the senior person for his adviceand encouragement. So you wiil say:This came out of Greenes lab, or seand-sos lab. You remember that, ratherthan the long list of authors,

    Almost as though he had been listen-ing to this .account, another laureatein medicine explains why he will oftennot put his name on the published re-port of a collaborative piece of work:People are more or less tempted to

    2

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    3/8

    ay: Oh yes, so-and-so is working onuch-and-such in Cs laboratory. Itss idea. I try to cut that down. Stillnother laureate in medicine alludes tohis pattern and goes on to observeow it might prejudice the career of

    he junior investigator:

    someone is being conside=d for a joby people who have not had much ex-rience with him, if he hw published

    nly together with some known name+eii, it detracts. It naturally makes peoplek: How much is really his own con-bution. how much [the senior authors].ow will he work out once he goes out

    that laboratory? .

    Under certain conditions this adversefect on recognition of the junior au-or of papers written in collaborationith prominent scientists can apparent-

    be countered and even convertedto an asset. Shouid the younger scien-

    st .move ahead to do autonomous and

    gnificant work,this

    workrerroactivciy

    fects the appraisals of his role in ear-er collaboration. In the words of theureate in medicine who referred toe virtual anonymity of junior au-ors of coauthored papets: People who

    ave been identified with such jointork and who then go on to do goodork later on, [do] get the -propermount of recognition. Indeed, as an-her laureate implies, this retroactivedgment may actuaily heighten recog-tion for later accomplishments: The

    nior person is sometimes iost sight of,ut only temporariiy if he continues.n many cases, he actually gains in ac-eptance of his work and in generaicceptance, by having once had suchssociation. Awareness of this pattern

    retroactive recognition may accountpart for the preference. described by

    nother laureate of some young fei-ws [,who] feel that to have a better-

    nown name on the paper wiil be ofelp to them. But this is an expressives weii as a merely instrumental prefer-nce, as we see also in the pride withhich laureates themselves speak ofaving worked, say, with Fermi, G. N.ewis, Meycrhof, or Niels Bohr.

    So much for the misallocation ofedit in this reward system in the case

    f collaborative work. Such misaiioca-on also occurs in the case of inde-endent multiple discoveries. When ap-roximately the same ideas or findingse independently communicated by a

    cientist of great repute and by oneot yet widely known, it is the first,e are told, who ordinarily receivesrime recognition. An approximation

    . .

    to this pattern is reported by a iau-reate who observes:

    It does happen that two men have thesame idea and one becomes better knownfor it. F-+ who had the idea, went cir-cling round to try to get an experimentfor. . l . Nobody wouid do it and so itwas forgotten, practically. Finally, Land B- and c,, did it, became famous.and got the Nobel Prize. . . . If thingshad gone just a little differently; if somc-body had been willing to try the txpcri-ment when E suggested it, they proba-bly couid have published it jointly and hewould have &en a famous man. As it is,hes a footnote.

    The workings of this process at theexpense of the young scientist and tothe benefit of the famous one is re-markably summarized in the life his-tory of a laureate in physics, who hasexperienced both phases at diRerenttimes in his career.

    When youre not recognized, he recalls,its a little bit irritating to have somebodycome along and figure out the obviouswhich youve also figured out, and every-body gives him credit just because hes afamous physicist or a famous man in hisfield.

    Here he is viewing the case he re-ports from the perspective of one whohad this happen to him before he hadbecome famous. The conversation takesa new turn as he notes that his ownposition has greatly changed. Shiftingfrom the perspective of his earlier days,

    when he felt victimized by the pattern.to the perspective of his present highstatus, he goes on to say:

    This often happens, and Im probablygetting credit now, if I dont watch myself,for things other people figured out. Be-cause Im notorious and when I say it,people say: Well, hes the one thatthought this out. Well. I may just besaying things that other people havethought out before.

    In the end, then, a sort of rough-hewnjustice has been done by the compound-

    ing of two compensating injustices. Hisearlier ~accomplishments have been un-derestimated; his later ones, overesti-mated (I 7).

    This complex pattern of the mis-aiiocation of credit for scientific workmust quite evidently be described asthe Matthew effect, for, as will beremembered, the Gospel According toSt. Matthew puts it this way:

    For unto every one that hath shall begiven, and he shail have abundance: butfrom him that hath not shall be takenaway even that which he hath.

    Put in less stately language, the Mat-

    thew effect consists in the accruing ofgreater increments of recognition forparticuiar scientific contributions to sci-entists of considerable repute and thewithholding of such recognition fromscientists who have not yet made theirmark. Nobel laureates provide presump-tive evidence of the effect. since theytestify to its occurrence, not as victims-which might make their testimonysuspect-but as unwitting beneficiaries.

    The laureates and other eminentmen of science are sufficiently awareof this aspect of the Matthew effectto make apeciai efforts to counteractit. At the extreme, they sometimes rc-fuse to coauthor a paper reporting remsearch on which they have coilabootcdin order not to diminish the-.ra%gni-tion accorded their less-well-known as-sociates. An& as Harriet Zuckcrmanhas found (28), they tend to give fintplace in jointly authored papers to one

    of their collaborators. She discovered,moreover, that the iaureates who haveattained eminence before receiving theNobei prize begin to transfer fint-authorship to associates earlier thanless eminent laureates-to-be do, andthat both sets of laureate-he pre-viousiy eminent and not-so-eminent-greatly increase this practice a@r re-ceiving the prize. Yet the latter effortis probably more expressive of the lau-reates good intentions than it is &cc-tive in redressing the imbalance of

    credit attributable to the Matthew ef-fect. As the laureate quoted by Har-riet Zuckerman acknowledges: If Ipublish my name first, then everyonethinks the others are just techni-cians. . . . If my name is last, peoplewill credit me anyway for the wholething, so I want the others to have a bitmore glory.

    The problem of achieving a publicidentity in science may be deepenedby the great increase in the numberof papers with several authors (2, chap.3; 19; 20, p. 87) in which the -role ofyoung collaborators becomes obscuredby the brilliance that surrounds theirillustrious co-authors. So great is thisproblem that we are tempted to turnagain to the Scriptures to designatethe status-enhancement and status-sup-pression components of the Mattheweffect. We can describe it as the Ec-clesiasticus component, from the famil-iar injunction Let us now praise fa-mous men, in the noncanonical book

    of that name.It will surely have been noted thatthe laureates perceive the Matthew tf-

    3

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    4/8

    et primarily as a problem in thest allocation of credit for scientificccomplishment. They see it largely inrms of its action in enhancing rank

    suppressing recognition. They seeas leading to an unintended double

    justice, in which unknown scientistsre unjustifiably victimized and famousnes, unjustifiably benefited. In short,hey see the Matthew effect in terms

    f a basic inequity in the rewardystem that affects the careers of in-ividual scientists. But it has other im-lications for the development of sci-nce, and we must shift our angle ofheoreticai vision in order to identifyhem.

    he Matthew Effect

    n the Commtutication System

    We now look at the same social

    henomena from another perspective-ot from the standpoint of individualareers and the workings of the re-

    ward system but from the standpointf science conceived of as a systemf communication. This perspective

    yields a further set of inferences. Iteads us to propose the hypothesis that

    a scientific contribution will have great-er visibiIity in the community of scien-ists when it is introduced by a scien-ist of high rank than when it is intro-

    duced by one who has not yet made

    his mark. In other words, consideredn its implications for the reward sys-em, the Matthew effect is dysfunction-al for the careers of individual scien-ists who are penaiized in the earlystages of their development, but con-sidered in its implications for the com-munication system, the Matthew effect.n cases of collaboration and multiplediscoveries, may operate to heightenthe visibility of new scientific commu-nications. This is not the first instanceof a social patterns being functional

    for certain *aspects of a social systemand dysfunctional for certain individ-uals within that system. That, indeed,is a principal theme of classicaltragedy (21).

    Several laureates have sensed this so-cial function of the Matthew effect,Speaking of the diiemma that con-fronts the famous man of science whodirects the work of a junior associate,one of them observes:

    It raises the question of what you are to

    do. You have a studentt shouid you putyour name on that paper or not? Youvecontributed to it, but is it better that you

    shouldnt or should? There are two sidesto it. If you dont [and here comes thedecisive point on visibility], if you dont,theres the possibility that the paper maygo quite unrecognized. Nobody reads it. Ifyou do, it might be recognized, but thenthe student doesnt get enough credit.

    Studies gf the reading practices ofscientists indicate that the suggestedpossibility-Nobody reads itissomething less than sheer hyperbole. Ithas been found, for example, that oniyabout half of 1 percent of the articlespublished in journals of chemistry areread by any one chemist (22). Andmuch the same pattern has been foundto hold in psychology (23, p. 9):

    The data on current readership (i.e., withina couple [of] months after distribution ofthe journal) suggested that about one-halfof the research reports in co&* joumaiswiil be read [or skimmed) by 1% or lessof a random sample of psychologists. Atthe highest end of the current readership

    distribution, no research report is likeiy tobe read by more than about 7% of sucha safnpie.

    Several of the Coless findings (24)bear tangentially on the hypothesisabout the communication function ofthe Matthew effect. The evidence istangential rather than centrai to thehypothesis since their data deal withthe degree of visibility of the entrrecorpus of each physicists work in thenational community of physicists ratherthan with the visibility of particular

    papers within it. Still, in gross terms,their findings are at least consistent withthe hypothesis. The h&her the rankof physicists (as measured by the pres-tige of the awards they have receivedfor scientific work), the higher theirvisibility in the national communityof physicists. Nobel Iaureates have avisibility score (25) of 85; other mem-bers of the National Academy of Sci-ences, a score of 72; recipients ofawards *having less prestige, a scoreof 38; and physicists who have re-ceived no awards, a visibility score of17. The Coles also find (24) that thevisibility of physicists producing workof high quality is heightened by theirattaining honorific awards more pres-tigious than those they have previous-ly received. Further investigation isneeded to discover whether these samepatterns hold for differences in the vis-ibility (as measured by readership) ofindividual papers published by s&n-tists of differing rank.

    There is reason to assume that thecommunication function of the Mat-thew effect is increasing in frequency

    and intensity with the exponential in-crease (20, chaps. 1 and 2; 26) in thevolume of scientific publications, whichmakes it increasingly difficult for scien-tists to keep UP with work in theirfield. Bentley Glass (27) is o n l y o n eamong many to conciude that p e r -haps no problem facing the individualscientist today is more defeating thanthe effort to cope with the flood of

    published scientific research, even with=in ones own narrow specialty. Stud-ies of the communication behavior ofscientists (28) have shown that, con-fronted with the growing task of idea&fying significant work pubiished in theirfield, scientists search for cues to whatthey should attend to. One such a jsthe professional reputation 6f the au-thors. The problem of locating the per-tinent research literature and the prob,lem of authors wanting their work tobe noticed and used are symmetricai:

    the vastly increased bulk of publica-tion stiffens the competition he-npapers for such notice. The AmericanPsychological Association study (23,pp. 252, 254; 29) found that from 15 to23 percent of the psychologist-readersbehaviors in selecting articles werebased on &he identity of the authors.

    The workings of the Matthew eflectin the communication system requireus to draw out and emphasize certainimplications about the character of sci-ence. They remind us that science is

    not composed of a series of priv>teexperiences of discovery by many. S&entists, as sometimes seems to be as-sumed in inquiries centered exclusivelyon the psychological processes involvedin discovery. Science is public, notprivate. True, the making of a dis-covery is a complex personal experi=+ence. And since the making of the dis-covery necessarily precedes its fate, thenature of the experience is the samewhether the discovery temporarily failsto become part of the socially sharedculture of science or quickly becomesa functionally significant part Of thatculture. But, for science to be ad-vanced, it is not enough that fnribfulideas be originated or new experimentsdeveloped or new problems formulatedor new methods instituted. The innova-tions must be effectively communicatedto others. That, after all, is what wemean by a contribution to science-wmething given to the common fundof knowledge. In the end, then, scienceis a socially shared and socially vaii-dated body of knowledge. For the de=velopment of science, only work that

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    5/8

    js effectiveiy perceived and utilized byother scientists, then and there, matters.

    In investigating the processes thatshape the development of science, it istherefore important to consider the so-cial mechanisms that curb or facilitatethe incorporation of would-be contri-butions into the domain of science.Looking at the Matthew effect fromthis perspective, we have noted the dis-tinct possibility that contributions madeby scientists of considerable standingare the most likely to enter promptlyand widely into the communicationnetworks df science, and so to acceler-ate its development. .

    The Matthew Effect and

    the Functions of Redundancy

    Construed in this way, the Mattheweffect links up with my previous stud-ies of the functions of redundancy inscience (30). When similar discoveriesare made by two or more scientists work-ing independently (multiple discover-ies), the probability that they will bepromply incorporated into the cur-rent body of scientific knowledge is in-creased. The more often .a discoveryhas been made independently, the bet-ter are its prospects of being identifiedand used. If one published version ofthe discovery is obscured by noisein the communication system of sci-ence, then another vemion may be-come visible. This leaves us with anunresolved question: How can one esti-mate what amount of redundancy inindependent efforts to solve a scientificproblem wiil give maximum probabilityof solution without entailing so muchreplication of effort that the last incre-ments wiil not appreciably increase theprobability? (See 31.)

    In examining the functions of theMatthew effect for communication inscience. we can now refine this concep-tion further. It is not only the numberof times a discovery has been inde-

    pendently made and published that af-fects its visibility but also the standing,within the stratification system of sci-ence, of the scientists who have madeit. To put the matter with undue sim-plicity, a single discovery introducedby a scientist of established reputationmay have as good a chance of achievinghigh visibility as a multiple discoveryvariously introduced by several scien-tists no one of whom has yet achieveda substantial reputation. Although thegeneral idea is, at this writing, tenta-tive, it does have the not inconsiderable

    virtue of lending itself to approximatetest. One can examine citation indexesto find whether in multiple discoveriesby scientists of markedly unequal rankit is indeed the case that work pub-lished by the scientists of higher rankis the more promptly and more widelycited (32). To the extent that it is, thefindings will shed some light on the un-planned consequences of the strat@a-tion system for the development of sci-ence. Interviews with working scientistsabout their reading practices can alsosupply data bearing on the hypothesis.

    So much for the link between theMatthew effect and the functions ofmultiple discoveries in increasing boththe probability and the speed of dif-fusion of significant new contributionsto - science. The Matthew effect aIs0links up with the finding, reported clse-where (33). that great talents in scienceare .typicaily involved in many multiplediscoveries. This statement holds forGalileo and Newton: for Faraday andCIerk Maxwell; for Hooke, Cavendish,and Stensen: for Gauss and Laplace; forLavoisier, Priestley, and Scheele: andfor most Nobel laureates. It holds, inshort, for all those whose place in thepantheon of science is largely assured.however much they may differ in thescale of their total accomplishment.

    The greatness of these scientists restsin their having individually contributeda body of ideas, methods, and resultswhich, in the case of multiple discov-

    eries, has also been contributed by asizable aggregate of lem talented men.For example, we have found that Kel-vin had a part in 32 or more multiplediscoveries, and that it took 30 othermen to contribute what Kelvin him-seif contributed.

    By-examining the interviews with thelaureates, we can now detect someunderlying ,psychosocial mechanismsthat make for the greater visibility ofcontributions reported by scientists ofestablished reputation. This greater vis-ibility is not merely the result of a

    halo effect such that their personalprestige nibs off on their separate con-tributions. Rather, certain aspects oftheir socialization, their scheme of val-ues, and their social character accountin part for the visibility of their work.

    Social and Psychologicai Bases

    of the Matthew Ukct

    Even when some of his contributionshave been independently made by anaggregate of other scientists, the great

    man of science serves distinctive func-tions. It makes a diEerence, and.aftcrra decisive difference, for the advance-ment of science whether a compositeof ideas and findings is heavily con-centrated in the work of one man orone research group or is thinly dis-persed among a great number of mand organizations. Such a wmposi~tends to take on a structure sooner inthe first instance than in the second.It required Al Freud, for instan- tofocus the attention of many psychoi+gisti upon a tide array of idela which,as has been shown elsewhere (30), hadin large part also been hit upon byvarious other scientists. Such focJidnamay turn out to be a distinctiVe*fUSiC-tian of eminent men of science (36. _

    A Freud, a Fermi, and a Q&r&play a charismatic role in t SC&UThey excite intelIectual en&&amamong others who ascribe cmq&i& to them. Not only do thwthemselves achieve excellence, they brvr,the capacity for evoking exccllEnm inothen. In the compelling phrase of Wlaureate, they provide a bright am&ancc. It Is not so much tha8 thr-rrgreat men of science pass ontheir te&niqum methods, information, and the-ory to novices working with thsoa,More consequentially, they cm totheir associates the norms and vahaesthat govern significant research. oibenin their later years, or after their dtithis personal influence becomes eized, in the fashion described by MmWeber for other fields of hm a&~-ity. Charisma becomes institutionriized,in the form of schools of thought ndresearch establishments.

    The role of outstanding men of sci-encc in influencing younger as34ktesis repeatedly emphasized in the in--views with laureates. Almost to a mthey lay great emphasis on the impor-tance of problem-finding, not onfy prob,lem-solving. They uniformly exprus thestmng conviction that what rm@tcrsmost in their work is a d-g

    sense of taste, of judgment, in tigupon problems that *are of fundamtntaiimportance. And, typically, they rcpartthat they acquired this sense f thesignificant problem during their y-of training in evocative environmmts.Reflecting on his years as a novice inthe laboratory of a chemist of the firstrank, one laureate reports that he ledme to look for important things, when-ever possible, rather th& to work onendless detail or to work just to im-prove accuracy rather than malting abasic new contribution. Another de-

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    6/8

    scribes his socialization in a Europeanlaboratory as my first real contactwith first-rate creative minds at thehigh point of their power. I acquireda certain expansion of taste. It wasa matter of taste and attitude and,to a certain extent, real self-confidence.I learned that it was just as difficultto do an unimportant experiment, oftenmore difficult, than an important one.

    There is one rough measure of theextent to which the laureates weretrained and influenced in particularlycreative research environments-thenumber of laureates each worked un-der in eariier years. Of 55 AmericanLaureates, 34 worked in some capacity,as young men, under a total of 46Nobel prize winners (35). But appareat-ly it is not only the experience of thelaureates (and, presumably, other out-standing men of science) in these en-vironments that accounts for their tend-

    ency to focus on significant problemsand so to affect the communicationfunction of the Matthew effect. Cer-tain aspects of their character also playa part. With few exceptions, these aremen of exceptional ego strength. Theirself-assurance finds varied expressionwithin the context of science as a so-cial institution. That institution, as weknow, includes a norm calling for auton-omous and critical judgment aboutones own work and the work of others.With their own tendencies reinforcedby such norms, the laureates exhibit

    a distinct self-confidence (which, at theextreme, can be loosely described asattractive arrogance). They exhibit agreat capacity to tolerate frustrationin their work, absorbing repeated fail-utfs - without manifest psychologicaldamage. One laureate alluded to thiscapacity while taking note of the valueof psychological support by colleagues:

    Rpsar& is a rough game. You may workfor months, or even a few years, and seem-ingly you are getting nowhere. It getspretty dark at times. Then, all of a sudden,you get a break. Jts good to have somc-

    body around to give a bit of encouragt-meat when its needed.

    Though attentive to the cues pro-vided by the work of others in theirfield, the Nobelists are self-directedmen, moving confidently into new fieldsof inquiry once they are persuaded thata previous one has been substantiallymined. In these activities they displaya high degree of venturesome fortitude.They are prepared to tackle importantthough difficult problems rather thansettle for easy and secure ones. Thus, alaureate recalls having been given, early

    in his career, a problem about whichthere was no risk. All I had to dowas to analyze [the chemicai composi-tion of certain materials]. You couldnot fail because the method was wellestablished. But I knew I was goingto work on the t- instead and thewhole thing would have to be createdbecause nothing was known about it.He then went on to make one of hisprime contribution; in the more riskyfield of investigation (36).

    This marked ego strength links upwith these scientists selection of im-portant problems in at least two ways.Being convinced that they will recog-nize an important problem when theyencounter it, they are willing to bidetheir time and not settle too soon fora prolonged commitment to a compara-tively unimportant one. Their capacityfor delayed gratification, coupled withself-assurance, leads to a conviction

    that an important problem wiil comealong in due course and that. when itdoes, their acquired sense of taste willenable them to recognize it and handleit. As we have seen, this attitude hasbeen reinforced by their early experi-ence in creative environments. There.association with eminent scientists hasdemonstrated to the talented novice.as didactic teaching never could, thathe can set his sights high and stillcope with the problem he chooses.Emulation is reinforced by observingsuccessful, though often delayed, out-

    comes. Indeed, the idiom of thelaureates reflects this orientation. Theylike to speak of the big problemsand the fundamental ones, the im-portant problems and the beautifulones. These they distinguish from thepedestrian work in which they engagewhile waiting for the next big prob-lem to come their way. As a resultof all this, their papers are apt tohave the kind of scientific significancethat makes an impact, and other scien-tists tend to single out their papersfor special attention.

    The character structure of these iead-ing scientists may contribute to thecommunication aspect of the Mattheweffect in still another way, which hasto do with their mode of presentingtheir scientific work. Confident in theirpowers of discriminating judgment-aconfidence that has been confirmed bythe responses of others to their previouswork-they tend, in their exposition. toemphasize and, develop the centralideas and findings and to play downperipheral ones. This server, to high-light the significance of their contribu-

    6

    tions, raising them out of the streamof publications by scientists having lesssocially-validated self-esteem, who moreoften employ routine exposition.

    Finally, this character structure andan acquired set of high standards oftenlead these outstanding scientists to dis-criminate between work that is worthpublishing and that which, in theircandid judgment, is best left unpub-lished though it could easiiy find itsway into print. The laureates and otherscientists of stature often report scrap-ping research papers that simply didnot measure up to their own demand-ing standards or to those of their coi-legues (37), Seymour Benzcr, for exam-ple, tells of how ahe was saved fromgoing down the biochemical drain:Delbriick saved me, -when he wroteto my wife to tell me to stop writing somany papers. And I did stop (38).And a referees incisive report on a

    manuscript sent to a journal of physicsasserts a relevant consequence of a sci-entists faiiure to exercise rigorousjudgment in deciding whether to pub-lish or not to publish: If C- wouldwrite fewer papers, more peopie wouldread them. Outstanding scientists tendto develop an immunity to insanabilcscribendi ctacoethes (the itch to pub-lish) (39). Since they prefer their pub-lished work to be significant and fruit-ful rather than merely extensive, theircontributions are apt to matter. Thisin turn reinforces the expectations of

    their feilw scientists that what theseeminent scientists publish (at least dur-ing their most productive period) willbe worth close attention (40). Onceagain this makes for operation of theMatthew effect, as scientists focus onthe output of men whose outstandingpositions in science *have been sociallyvalidated by judgments of the averagequality of their past work. And themore closely the other scientists attendto this work, the more they are likelyto learn from it and the more discrimi-nating their response is apt to be (42).

    For all these reasons, cognitive ma-terial presented by an outstanding sci-entist may have greater stimuius vaiuethan roughly the same kind of mater-ial presented by an obscure one-aprinciple which provides a sociopsycho-logical basis for the communicationfunction of the Matthew effect. Thisprinciple represents a special appiica-tion of the self-fulfilling prophecy(42). somewhat as follows: Fermi orPauling or G, N. Lewis or l eisskopfsee fit to report this in print and soit is apt to be important (since, with

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    7/8

    some consistency, they have made im-portant contributions in the past); sinceit is probably important, it should beread with special care; and the moreattention one gives it, the more oneis apt to get out of it. This becomesa self-confirming process, making forthe greater evocative effect of publica-tions by eminent men of science (until

    that time, of course, when their imageamong their fellow scientists is one ofmen who have seen their best days-an image, incidentally, that correspondswith the self-image of certain laureateswho find themselves outpaccd by on-rushing generations of new men).

    Like other self-fulfilling prophecies,this one becomes dysfunctionai undercertain conditions. For although emi-nent scientists may be more likely tomake significant contributions, they areobviously not alone in making them.After all, scientists do not begin byk i n g eminent (though the careen ofmen such as MGssbauer and Watsonmay sometimes give us that mistakenimpression). The history of scienceabounds in instances of basic papershaving been written by comparativelyunknown scientists. only to be ne-glected for years. Consider the case ofWaterston, whose classic paper on mo-Itcuiar velocity was rejected by theRoyal Society as nothing but non-sense; or of Mended, who, deeply dis-appointed by the lack of response tohis historic papers on heredity, refUsedto publish the results of his furtherresearch: or of Fourier, whose ckmicpaper on the propagation of heat hadto wait 13 years before being finallypublished by the French Academy (43).

    Barber (44) 91as noted how the slightprofessiorial standing of certain scien-tists has on occasion led to some oftheir work, later acknowledged as sig-nificant, being refused publication alto-gether. And, correlatively, an experi-enc&g brd Rayleighs (45) providesan example in which an appraisal ofa paper was reversed once its eminentauthorship became known. Rayleighs

    name was either omitted or accidental-ly detached [from a manuscript], and theCommittee [of the British Associationfor the Advancement of Science]turned it down as the work of oneof those curious persons called para-doxers. However, when the authorshipwas discovered, the paper was foundto have merits after all.

    When the Matthew effect is thustransformed into an idol of authority,it violates the norx!l Of UIliversaliamembodied jn the institution of Science

    and curbs the advancement of knawi-edge. But next to nothing is knownabout the frequency with which these

    .,

    practices are adopted by the editorsand referees of scientific journals andby other gatekeepers of science, Thisaspect of the workings of the institu-tion of science remains largely a mat-ter of anecdote and heavily motivated

    gossip.

    The Matthew Efbct and Al loca t i on

    of Scicat& Resoumu

    One institutional version of the Mat-thew effect, apart from its role in thereward and communication systems ofscience, requires at least short review.This is expressed in the principle ofcumulative advantage that operates inmany systems of social stratificationto produce the same result: the richget richer at a rate that makes thepoor become relatively poorer (46).Thus, centers of demonstrated scien-tific excellence are allocated far largerr t s ~ u r c c s for investigation than centerswhich have yet to make their mark(47). In turn, their prestige attracts adisproportionate share of the trulypromising graduate students (48) . Thisdisparity is found to be especiallymarked at the extremes (49): six uni-versities (Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia,Princeton, California Institute of Tech-noiogy, and Chicago) which produced22 percent of the doctorates in thephysical and biological sciences pro-duced fully 69 percent of the Ph.D.swho later became Nobel laureates.Moreover, the 12 leading universitiesmanage to identify early, and to retainon their faculties, thae scientists ofexceptional talent: they keep 70 per-cent of the future laureates in com-parison with only 28 percent of theother Ph.D.s they have trained. Andfinally, the top twelve [universities]are much more apt to reckit futurtlaureates who received degrees fernother American universities than they

    are other recipients of the doctorate;half the iaureates who were trained out-side the top twelve and who workedin a university moved into the toptwelve but only six percent of thesampie of doctoral recipients did SO.

    These social processes of social selec-tion that deepen the concentration oftop scientific talent create extreme dif-ficulties for any efforts to counteractthe institutional consequences of t heMatthew principle in order to producenew centers of scientific excellence.

    S-

    This account of tbt Ma&cw tiectis another smaII exercise ia the ps~-cb!Bociologicai anaiyh of the work-ings of science as a so&i in&Ution.The initial problem is transformed by

    -a shift in thee- penpectin, Asoriginally identi&d, the Matthew C&U

    tnrw construed in terms of enhmxamfof the position of already rfnjncntscientists who are g&n Mr-tionate credit in cases *of coiiaixmhmor of independent multiple &WV&U.Its significance was thu8 cur&cdto its implications for the. -system of scicsa#, By shiffing the angleof vision, we note other me wof amsquences, this time for t@ mm-munication system of S&XX. The Mat-thew effect may serve to m thevisibility of contribtiom to s&n~~ byscientists of acknowkdgod S~JE&QJ a\dto redUcc! the visibility of colltribotjo83by authors who arc less well m.We examine the psycbosocirl um&tions and me&misms Und&y&thiseffect and find a correlation betaracnthe redundancy fun&on of mo)tiplediscoveries and the focalizing mof eminent men of scicocc-a mwhich is reinforced by the great vah~these men place upon finding bsicproblems and by their self-assumm.This seif-assUrance, which b +y bherent, partly the rutrlt of expcrimocsand associations in -tie &a&&eIIyironments, and partly a &t oflater social validation of their gmihun.encourages them to 8mmh a l+SQbut important problems and to hi+light the results of their inquiry. Ama-1 version of the Meprinciple is apparently invohred in thoseprocesses of sociai selection that cur-rently lead to the concentration of sci-entific resources and talent (SO).

    1.

    2.

    3.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10,

    Tbeambodaofobtrdntn~~~intewiewr and the chrrran of tkk sub-- are deadbed in H. A. Zuchmmn,r)lcdr, calumM8 ufrivenity, 1965.R. K. w A-. -1. R e v : . a 6 3 309s7).B. 0. G-9 Oe SC- TIbbP m j e m i o n a I c - m- -wk Pa l i& 1 9 6 4 hD. Crlaa, Am-. soclol. R e v. 3 % 699 (196s).w. 0. H8# %treln, Thr Sclrrr ttpc co-may(B&c Boo& Ncr Yo* l%r), chap. LN. W. Storer. l%e Soefaf System ot S -(He Rimbarr an d W i m t a a , Ne w Yo rk , 1 9 6 6 ).p. 106: se8 rl- ibid, pp. -26, 103406.

    Ey %i!Y-t-thea i& c&albi8 U&

    S. kok ;rd J. R C&e, Amer. Sodol. Rn.3% 377 v9m.I bare 8doptcd this term tat the mphenomenon from the tnonogr8p h on .tkF-cb Arrhmr by Arsene Hw,H-8 du 41-9 Fawu U de l A_F-e iPl?iSs, 1886).This partial list of men who b8va &lb8

  • 8/8/2019 Merton. 1968. the Matthew Effect in Science

    8/8

    11.

    12.

    13;

    14.

    13.

    16.

    i

    17.

    18.

    19.

    20.

    21.

    ..

    votk of prize-winning calibre it derivedram Nobel: The Man and His Prittr (El-levier, London. 1962). an official publication,f the Nokl prize-grantmg academy andnstitutc, Nobclstlftelscn.I am indebted to Marshall Childr for sug-pting that this term, inttoduccd into cco-comics by James S. Ducscnbcrry in quite~nothet connection, could aptly refer to thispattern in the cumulation of prestige for suc-:cuive accomplishments . For its USC in cco-9Ofl iCS, see D u e s e n b c r r y, Income, Savings,and rhc Theory f Consumer Behavior (Har-rard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1949).sp. 11416.Ihi, process of a socfufly rrintorced rise

    In ,rrpirat ions. as distinct from Durkhcims=owpt of the insatiability of wanta. is:xamined by R. K. Mcrton in Anomie undDevkrnr Behavior, M. Cllnard. Ed. (FretPms, New York. 1964). pp. 213-242.t. Parsons, The Social System (Free Press,New York, 19511, p. 127.Max Webcr touches upon the convertibilityof position in distinct systems of stratificationIn his classic essay Cl- Status, Party[Fmm Max We&w: Essays in Socfofogy,H; H. Gcrth and C. Wright Mills. Eds. (Ox-ford Univ. Press, New York, 1916)).Ihe laureates are not rlone in notins thaiprominent scientists tend to get the lionsrhulb of credit: similar observ8tions weremade by less eminent scientists in the samopie studied by Hagstrom (set 3, pp. 24, 25).A third cw can be infcrrcd from the pro-tocols of interviews, in which t he view isstated that , had a paper wtlttcn by a com-para t:vcly unk nown scientist been presentedinstead by an eminent scientist, it wouldhave had a better chance of being publishedan3 of receiving respectful attention. Sy*temrtic *information about such casts is toospans f or detailed study.This compensatory pattern ca n only obtain,of course, among scicntl sts who ultimarclyachieve recognition with its associate d fur-ther rewards. But, as with all systems ofsocial strat ificrtion involving different ials inlifechances, thcrc remains the qucstlon ofthe extent to which talent among individualsin the deprived strata has gone unrccogni;Pcdand undcvclopcd, and its fruits lost totiety. MO = spccificaliy, we have yet 10d-vet whether or not the channels ofmobility are equally open to talent in vrriowlnstftution8l rc8lms. Dots contemporary sci-ence rfford grerter or less opportunity than

    an, politics, the practicing profcssionr, orrcliaion for the recognition of talent, what-ever its socirl origins?H. Zuckennan, Patterns of namc~rdtrjnqamong authors of scientific papers: a study of-aI symbolism a nd its ambiguity, paperr t a d .&fore the American Sociological ~sso-cition, Augmt 1967. Dr. Zuckcrman willnot demean herrtlf to give thcsc practicestheir prcdcstincd tag, but I shall: plainly,these arc instanccx of Nobelesse oblllre.8. Berekaon, Graduate Educatton IU the fnltedStates (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960). p. 55.D. J. dcSolia Price, tftrlr Science . f3& SC&t n c y (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 196 3).This nattern of social functions and individ-

    + dysfunctions is at variance with the vigor-ous and untutored optimism unforgctt;blye x p r e s s e d b y Adam Smith. who speaks of8 barrnomous order of nature, under divinegtince, which promoter the welfare of man

    through the opcratlon of hire individual pro-pa&ties. If only it were that simple. Oneof the prime problems for sociological the-oty is that of identifying the special condi-tioru under which mens propcnrities and therequir ements of the social system ar e insuffictcnt accord to be functional for bothindividuals and the social system.R. L. Ackoff and M. H. Halbert. An Over-atlonr Research Study of the Sclrnrlfic AC-~lrlly of Chembrt (Cue institut e of Tech-aoAogy Operations Research Group, Clevbland 1958).Project on Sctenrific lntormarlon ExchangeIn ~s~chofory (American Psychological As-sociation, Washington. D.C., 1963 ), vol. 1.S. Cole and 1. R. Cole, Vlsibillty and thestructural bases of observability in sc ience,paper prcscntcd bcforc the American Socio-lo@c8l Association, Auaust 1967.In the Colcsg study (24). the term rgfsfbflltyscores refers to percentages in a sample ofmore than 1300 American physicists who in-

    22,

    23.

    24.

    2%

    26.

    dCs

    1Iff1

    ic1

    27.28. .

    29.

    30.

    31.

    32

    33.

    34.

    33.

    36.

    37.

    38.

    licatcd that they were familiar with the workbf a designated list of 120 physicists. Theltudy includes checks on Ihe validity ofhcse visibility scores.>. J. dtSolla Price has noted that all crudeneasurcs, however arrived at. show 10 aint approximation that sclcncc incrcascs:xponentially, at a compound interest ofrbout 7 per cent per annum, thus doublingn size every 10-15 years, growing by a factor,f 10 every l alf~cntury, and by somcthmg,ike a factor of a million in the 300 yearswhich separate us from the seventccnthscn-,ury invention of the scientific paper when:he process began [Nature 206, 233 (1965).pp. 233-238).B. Glass. Science 121, 583 (1955).k. for example. H. Men&. In Communi-cordon: Conceprr and Perspecwes. L. Thaycr,

    (Spartan Books. Washington. D.C..:&) pp 279-2950 , - Amer. Psychoforrfsr21. ob9 il966). See also S. Herncr (Science128. 9 (1958)). who notes that one of theprcrtest uimulams to the use of informationis familiarity with its source: S. Hcmcr.fnd. Eng. Chem. 46, 228 ( 1954).Future rnvcstigations will rcquitc more de-taikd data on the actual proccsscs o f select-ing scientific papers for varying kinds ofrcrding and skimming. But the datanow available ar c at least suggestive.On the concept of functional redundancy asd i s t i n c t from wa~cful duplication in sci-cntific rcscarch. see R. K. Merton, Europearr1. Socfol. 4. 237 ( 1963 ).One of the laureates questioned the readyassumption that redundancy of rescrrcheffort ncccssrrily means wasteful duplica-tion: One often hears, especially when largeamounts of money are involved. that dupli-cation of effort should bc avoided. that this isnot an efficient way of doing t hings. .I thinkthat most of the time. in respect to te-scatch, duplication of effor t is a good thing.I think that if there ate diflcrcnr groups indiffennt Iaboratortcs working on the samething, their approach is sufficiently different(lo incrcasc the probability of a successf uloutcome). On the whole. this is il good thingand no t something that should be avoidedfor the sake of efficiency.So far as I know. no investigation has yetbeen carried out on pnciscly this question.A t b e s t sug;ertive is the pcriphcrnl evidencethat papers of Nobel laurcatcs-to-bc werecited 30 times more often in the 5 yearsbefore their authors were awarded the prize

    than were the papers of the average au-thor appearing in the Citation index dunngthe same per iod. See i. H. Shcr and E.GuAcid, New t-Is for improving the effec-tivencss of research. paper prescntcd at the2nd Conference on Rcscarch Program Effec-tivencss . Washington. D.C.. July 1965: H.Zuckcrman, Scf. AtpIer. 217. 25 (1967).R. K. Merton, Proc. Amer. Phil. Sot. 10%470 (l%l).Later In this discussion. I consider the dys-functions arsoccatcd with these functions ofgreat men of science. Idols of the caveoften continue to wield great influcncc e venthough the norms of science call for the sys-tematic questioning of mere authority. Here,as In other institutional spheres. the prob=lem is one of accounting for patterns ofcotncidencc and discrepancy bctwccn socialnorms and actual behavior.H. Zuckcrman, A nrrr. Aociol. Rev. 32, 391

    m m .Germane resuirr in expcrimcntoi psychologyshow that preference s for riskier work butmore significant outcomes arc related bothto high motivation for achieve ment and toa capacity for accepting delay in gratification.See. for example, W. Mischel, J. AbnormufSot. Psychol. 62, 543 ( 196 I).To this extent. they engage in the kind ofbebavior ascribed to physicists of the per-fectionist * type. who hav e been statlsticallyidentified by the Coles ( 8 1 as tho.sc whopublish less than they might but whose pub-licrtions neverthel ess have a considerableimpact on the field. as indicated by citations.It is significant that this type of physicistwas accorded more recognition in the formof awards for scientific work tha n any othertypes (including the prolific and the massproducer types ) .S. Bcnzcr, in PhaRe and rhc OriRfns of Mo-lecular Biology, 1. Cairns. G. S. Stent. J.D. Watson, Eds. (Cold Spring Harbor Labo-

    39.

    40.

    41.

    42.

    43.

    44.

    45.

    46.

    47.

    48.

    49.

    SO .

    51.

    Ir;ltory of Quantitative Biology, Cold SpringHarbor, N.Y., 1966). p. 165. This Festschri/fClearly shows that Dclbriick is one of thoseIcicntists who generally exercise this kindof dcmandirw judgment on the publicationof their own work and that of their associates.For some observations on the prophylaxisfor this disease. see R. K. Menon, On theShoulders of Giants (Harcourt. Brace andWorld, New York. 1967). pp. g3-_85.It has been noted (G. Williams, Virus Hwrr-em (Knopf, NW York. 1959)J that the earlyconhdtncc of SCientlStS in the mcas1cs vat-cinc was a paradoxical feedback of (En-dens) own scientific insistence, not on bc-licvinp, but on doubting. His fellow s&n-

    tists trust John Enden not to go overboardon anything.This remains a moot conclusion. Hovland*experiments with laymen have shown thatthe scanBe communicauons are conudcrculess biased when attributed to sources ofhigh rather than low credibility [C. I. Hov-land, Anrer. Pwcholonfs~ 14. Y (1959)). In anearlier study. Hovland and his associatesfound thrrt. in the cast of fucwol c o m m u n i c a -[ions, cherc is equally good kaminv ofwhat was said regardless of the credibilityof the commumcator [C. 1. Hovtrnd. 1. 1.J a n i s , H. H. Kcllcy, C o m m u n k a h n and Ptr-suusdon (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.Conn.. 1953 1. p. 271)).For an analysis of the sclf4ulfWlnq prophe-cy. see R. K, Merton. Anrkch Rev. 1918.5% (Summer 1948). rcpfintcd in -. So-cial Tlrwrr urrd Swiul Strtwrrrre ( Fret Press,New York. 19371, pp. 421-43 6.Set W. K. hlcrton (1 1, who cttcs the follow-ing: R. H. Murray. Science ond Sclenrirts inthe Ninereenrh Cenrtrr.v (Sheldon. London,1923). pp. .146w.t48: D. 1. Watmn. Scien-tists urt Hwnutt (Watts. London. 1938 ), pp.58. 80: R. J. Strutt (Boron Rayleigh). JohnWilliurrr Slrtrrr. Third Bitron Hcrdr igk ( Ar-nald. London. 1924). pp. 169-171.B. Barber. Scirncv 134. 596 f I961 ). rcprintcdin - and W. Hirsch. Ed%.. T/rr Social+g.v 01 Scitncr (Free Press. New York. 1962).pp. 539-556.Quoted hy Barber (44) from R. J. Strutt.John Wifliunt Slrrrtl. Third Buror, Rcrylelrrh(A r n o l d . Londotl. 1924).Dcrck Price pcrccivcd this implication of theMatthew pr inciple (Ndrr rt 206, 233 (196511.D. S. (irecnbcrg. Satrrr4u.v Rev. (4 Novem-bcr 19671, p. 62; R. B. Bar&r. In Tht Poll-r i c s o j Rrsturch (Public A ff a i r s Press. Wash-ington, D.C., 1966). p. 63. notcr that in1962, 38 per cent of all federal support went tojust ten institutions and 59 per cent to just25:* See al- H. Orlans, Tht E#rcrs of Ftd-tral Pr~~rumx ON Hkhtr Education ( Brook-ings Institution. Washington, D.C., 1962).Thus. Allan M. Cart&r tcports that. in19-3, 86 percent of (regular) NationalScience Foundatron Fellows and 82 percentof Woodrow Wilson Fellows free to choosetheir place of study elected to study in oneor a n o t h e r of the 23 leading universities (asrated in terms of the quality of their gradu-ate faculties) (A. M. Carttcr. An Assess-rnemt o f Qt1aftiy in Graduate Educarfon(American Council on Education. Washing-ton, D.C., 19661. p. 1081.For this and other detailed information onthe career patterns of lrrureatcs, se e H. Zuck-ermrn (1, 32).Chancing to come upon the manuscript of

    this paper, Richard 1. Russ& a mokcularbiologist of more than passing aCuUaintanCc.has informed me that a well-known textbookin organic chemistry (L. F. Ficser and M.F jeser. In runfucrion lo Oruanic Chemistry(Heath. Boston. 1957 )] refers lo the empiri-cal rule due to Saytzeff ( 1873) that in de-hydralion of ;Ilcohols. hydrogen is eliminatedprefcrcntially from the adjacent carbon atomthat is poorer in hydrogen. What m akesthe rule germane to this discussion is the ac-companying footnote: MA~Ew, XXV,29, . . . but from him that bath not shallbc taken away even that which hc hath. Evjdcntly the Matthew effect transcends rheworld of human behavior and s&al process.Earlier versions of this discussion were prc-scntcd before NIH and AAAS. The worksummarized was suppotted in part by NSFgrant GS-960 to Columbia Universitys pro,gram in rhe sociology of science. This 8rtiCleis publication No. A- 493 of the Bureau ofApplied ocial Research, Columbia UnivcnitY g