Dear Rogerio Fernandes da Costa,

Thank you for the very interesting question. As you have rightly observed, Legal fragility may certainly lead to herd behavior. Such a mentality is characterized by a lack of individual decision-making or thoughtfulness, making  people to think and act in the same way as the majority of those around them, more specifically, those at higher echelons of the society. This is the situation in many Middle East countries where corruption at higher levels has resulted in the consolidation of herd instinct. Notably, the breach of the motto, " you should practice what you preach" not only leads to legal fragility, but it also strengthens corruption.

Best regards,

R. Biria 

Dear Rogerio

I am sorry, but perhaps this isn't the best way to phrase the query. As you rightly point out, the very scientific process is learning to copy the good gestures, habits, procedures, and to repeat the works of your predecessors, peers and "contribute" (root "con" means sharing, adding to, conserving, repeating etc). The problem starts when the contribution, collective effort is not valued. When the edifice of knowledge is "taken" by the individual, without the due acknowledgement of the contribution of thought that came before.

Surely, Einstein didn't recognise Neanderthal man, Pythagoras, Newton and Leibnitz as contributors, and didn't refer to their individual paintings, papers, reports or books in his references. But his whole work is put at the service of humanity, patents nothing and it is Einstein who repeatedly calls attention to the fact that every great scientist stands on the shoulders of giants.

What is important to mention, is not what is "copied", unless it was a triger to creativity, a work that embodied or referred a point of particular change, or stimulus to view the problem in a new manner. If there is a possible patent, or ownership claimed, then, it is absolutely essential that contribution or ownership is referred and acknowledged.

Nobody thinks the less of Shakespear because he used stories invented by troubadours or other writers of his time. He made a living out of the expression of the old story, in a new context. Science is also an expression of the human genius. What is legal fragility is to expect the law to express the infinite variability of originality. Herd instinct is important to human survival, and has very little to do with the acephalic panic reaction that is classified as herd instinct in common parlance.

So, let's call things by their names.

1- Herd instinct in this "understanding is submission to authority arguments . Which is improper of a scientist

2- Legal fragility is "wrong/false cause". Which is also unbecoming of a human being, let alone of a scientist

3- Copying is the refusal of recognition of work - thieving them of recognition of fraternity. Obscuring the life of a peer is very bad behaviour for any human, for an educated person, it is unforgivable.

The problem is that there is a very fine line between what is invented and discovered and what is the common inheritance of all humans. That is the reason why many scientists refuse or neglect to patent or claim ownership of their discovery. Not the lesser ones, either, like Salk, Einstein, Leibnitz, Newton, Poincaré, Galileo and many others.

It is they who created the spiritual link with the people, the link that has protected scientists from the judicial, the tyranny, the ideological repression of science.

It was the error of seeking to patent and claim ownership of what should be gifted back to humanity that has created the distance that is widening between scientists and the public. After all, isn't it the taxpayer ignoramus who funded the primary education system, the university, the regulators that attribute ownership? The ones who express the needs that are met by innovation?

 Thanks Reza Biria! While there has been a number of empirical research on the links between legal weakness and the causes of corruption in recent years, the issue has become more relevant in some countries.

Dear Joana Namorado

I respect your approach to legal and philosophical hermeneutics, however, I believe you have not understood the central question...

https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/15/1/65/1619501/Persistence-and-Reversal-in-Herd-Behavior-Theory

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3312898?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261849

You are probably right. Though I don't usually have difficulties in understanding.

I am mostly concerned with the practical decisions, and how to keep things sane, and I find the pragmatic approach more effective.