1
Science Policy Group, Faculty, National Research Institute for Science Policy
2
Science Policy Group, Researcher, National Research Institute for Science Policy
3
Economics of Science, Faculty, National Research Institute for Science Policy
Abstract
The historical backbone of the discourse of commercialization of scientific research in the world is tied to the end of the Cold War. At this historic juncture, the institutions that emerged during World War II and later during the Cold War to direct, frame, and manage scientific and technological activities were gradually reconfigured. The neoliberal extremist version of this discourse has been around since the mid-1980s and has left profound changes in the organization and praxis of the institution of science. The most notable of these developments has been the rollback of governments in the widespread financial support of universities and public research. At the same time, in the 1980s in the United States, for the first time in these decades, the amount of private sector support from research exceeded federal support. This paper compares the modern wave of commercialization of scientific research with the norms proposed by renowned American sociologist Robert K Merton to describe the essential virtues of academia. An in-depth analysis of this shows us that the new ethical values resulting from the commercialization of science are in serious conflict with the Merton norms, and so as the wave of commercialization progresses, we must wait for the collapse of Merton academia.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Barnes & A. Dolb. (1970). The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint. European Journal of Sociology. (11). 3-25.
Bhagat, S; Shleifer, A; Vishny, R. W; Jarrel, G; Summers, L. (1990). Hostile takeovers in the 1980s: The return to corporate specialization. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics. 1990. 1-84.
Brown, J.R. (2000). Privatizing the university--the new tragedy of the commons. 290(5497). 1701-1702.
Callon, M. (1994). Is Science a Public Good. Technology, and Human Values. (19). 395-424.
Callon, M. (2003), The increasing involvement of concerned groups in R&D policies: what lessons for public powers?. in Geuna et al (eds.) Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Cohen, W.M; Nelson, R.R; Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not): National Bureau of Economic Research.
Downie, Jocelyn. (2006). The Power of Money: Commercialization of Research Conducted in Public Institutions. Journal of Otago Law Review. Vol 11 No 2. 305-324.
Evans, J. A. (2010). Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. Social Studies of Science. 40(5). 757-791.
Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. in Fagerberg et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation., Oxford University Press.
Geiger, Roger. (2004). Knowledge and Money. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Griliches, Z. (1991). The search for R&D spillovers. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hall, B; Helmers, C; Rogers, M; Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: a review. Journal of economic literature. 52(2). 375-423.
Hemphill, Thomas. (2003). Role of Competition Policy in the U.S. Innovation System. Science and Public Policy. 285–94.
Johnson, H.G. (1972). Some economic aspects of science. Minerva 10(1). 10-18.
Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Rowman & Littlefield.
Ktepe, G.D. (2004). Mechanisms for transferring university research results to industry: Licensing and university Start-up, division of innovation-LTH Lund University. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.lv/ino2/publications/ A2004_007.pdf
Lambert, C; Parker, A; Neary, M. (2007). Entrepreneurialism and critical pedagogy: reinventing the higher education curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education. 12(4). 525-537.
Lamoreaux, N; Raff, D; Temin, P. (2003). Beyond Markets and American Historical Review. (108). 404–33.
Langlois, Richard. (2004). Chandler in the Larger Frame. Enterprise and Society. 355–75.
Lave, R; Mirowski, P; Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Study of Science. 40(5). 659-675.
Lederman, D. (2007). Inexorable March to a Part-Time Faculty. Inside Higher Education. 28.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. In: Merton, Robert K. (1979-09-15). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American sociological review. 22(6). 635-659.
Mirowski, P., & Van Horn, R. (2005). The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social studies of science. 35(4). 503-548.
Mirowski, P; Sent, E. M. (2008). The commercialization of science and the response of STS.
Mirowski, P; Van Horn, R. (2005). The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social studies of science. 35(4). 503-548.
National Science Board (NSB). (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators.
Nelson, R.R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of political economy. 67(3). 297-306.
Quiggin, John. (1999). Rationalism and Rationality in Economics. www.onlineopinion.com.au.
Reamer, A; Icerman, L; et al. (2003). Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Their Role in Economic Development. U.S Department of Commerce.
Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and choices. American Academic. 1(1). 37-59.
Rothbard, M. N. (2015). Science, technology, and government. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Schwarts, R; Weil, M. (2010). United States Law on Restrictive Covenants and Trade Secrets. American Law Institute-American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education. ST001 2291.
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science. 39(2). 171-198.
Sowell, Thomas. (2003). Profit Motive Underrated By Intelligentsia. Sun-sentinel.com.
S. Chamber of Commerce. (2014). The Case for Enhanced Protection of Trade Secrets in. the Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreements. Covington and Burling, LLP.
Moussavi,A. , baradaran nikou,M. A. and Azimi,N. A. (2022). The Fate of the Merton Academy in the Age of Commercialization and Scientific Neoliberalism. Strategy for Culture, 15(57), 63-93.
MLA
Moussavi,A. , , baradaran nikou,M. A. , and Azimi,N. A. . "The Fate of the Merton Academy in the Age of Commercialization and Scientific Neoliberalism", Strategy for Culture, 15, 57, 2022, 63-93.
HARVARD
Moussavi A., baradaran nikou M. A., Azimi N. A. (2022). 'The Fate of the Merton Academy in the Age of Commercialization and Scientific Neoliberalism', Strategy for Culture, 15(57), pp. 63-93.
CHICAGO
A. Moussavi, M. A. baradaran nikou and N. A. Azimi, "The Fate of the Merton Academy in the Age of Commercialization and Scientific Neoliberalism," Strategy for Culture, 15 57 (2022): 63-93,
VANCOUVER
Moussavi A., baradaran nikou M. A., Azimi N. A. The Fate of the Merton Academy in the Age of Commercialization and Scientific Neoliberalism. Strategy for Culture, 2022; 15(57): 63-93.
