{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02825278810408922, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001486988847583643, 'mean_word_length': 4.776824034334764, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge and the Scientist-Entrepreneur

“There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition. . . . Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery. . . . But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing. I am a salesman.”1 In this way, psychologist Diederik Stapel defends his prolific fabrication of data that has led to fifty-four retractions. Rather than an aberration, he views himself merely as an accentuated version of the contemporary researcher, who is expected to be an entrepreneur. Today’s ideal scientist is not primarily a seeker of truth, but a person who can transform her skills and education into profit. 2 This ideal is reinforced by the current structure of biomedical science, which forces researchers to turn their research into patents, grants, and biotech start-ups. As researchers compete to secure intellectual property or produce papers that help them obtain grants, the scientific community becomes not a community of joint inquiry but a competitive marketplace. To find these developments concerning, one need not deny that entrepreneurialism in the sphere of business could have an important place in an ethical vision of society. Dangers occur when this entrepreneurial ideal spreads beyond the sphere of business to become a central charac-