Health Care Analysis

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 291–304 | Cite as

Profitable Exchanges for Scientists: The Case of Swedish Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Original Paper


In this article two inter-related issues concerning the ongoing commercialisation of biomedical research are analyzed. One aim is to explain how scientists and clinicians at Swedish public institutions can make profits, both commercially and scientifically, by controlling rare human biological material, like embryos and embryonic stem cell lines. This control in no way presupposes legal ownership or other property rights as an initial condition. We show how ethically sensitive material (embryos and stem cell lines) have been used in Sweden as a foundation for a commercial stem cell enterprise—despite all official Swedish strictures against commercialisation in this area. We also show how political decisions may amplify the value of controlling this kind of biological material. Another aim of the article is to analyze and discuss the meaning of this kind of academic commercial enterprise in a wider context of research funding strategies. A conclusion that is drawn is that the academic turn to commercial funding sources is dependent on the decline of public funding.


Commercialisation Control of human biological material Research funding Scientists’ behaviour 


  1. 1.
    Blaug, S., Chien, C., & Shuster, M. J. (2004). Managing innovation: University–industry partnerships and the licensing of the Harvard mouse. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 761–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bush, G. W. (2001). Remarks by the President on stem cell research.
  3. 3.
    Ducor, P. (2000). Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science, 289, 873–874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elzinga, A. (2002). The new production of reductionism in models relating to research policy. Paper to the Nobel Symposium, Science and Industry in the 20th Century. Stockholm, 21–23 November 2002 at the Royal Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enerbäck, L., & Lindsten, J. (2002). Survey of stem cell research. A study commisioned by the Scientific Council of Medicine. Stockholm: The Science Council.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, R. M. (2001). The human embryo research debates. Bioethics in the vortex of controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hagstrom, W. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammar, L. (2003). Cell therapeutics får pengar till stamcellforskning. Biotech Sweden,
  10. 10.
    Hammar, L. (2004). Amerikanska försvarspengar till svensk Parkinsonforskning. Biotech Sweden,
  11. 11.
    Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(2), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ICMJE. (2003). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication.
  13. 13.
    Innovationskapital. (2004). Cellartis AB is awarded the second year of infrastructural award from the US National Institutes of Health.
  14. 14.
    ISA. (2002). Stem cells. Sweden—a key area for stem cell research and investment, http://www.isa,se/upload/Filer/pdf/ISA_StemCells_2002.pdf
  15. 15.
    Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest. Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Latham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leydesdorff, L., & Etskowitz, H. (Eds.) (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy. A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple helix of innovation. Science and Public Policy, 25, 358–364.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merton, R. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NENT. (1997). Fusk i forskning. Oslo.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NIH. (2001). NIH human embryonic stem cell registry,
  21. 21.
    Östros, T. (2004). Forskare ska inte längre äga sina resultat. Ökad kommersialisering av forskningsrönen blir avgörande för tillväxten. Dagens Nyheter February 5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Resnik, D. B. (2002). The commercialization of human stem cells: Ethical and policy issues. Health Care Analysis, 10, 127–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    SOU 2002:119. Rättslig reglering av stamcellsforskning. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stone, R., & Frank, L. (2001). Karolinska Inc. Science, 293, 2374–2376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Swedish Science Council. (2001). The Swedish Science Council’s guidelines for research—ethical review of human stem cell research,
  27. 27.
    The Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics. (2002). Statement of opinion on embryonic stem cell research,
  28. 28.
    Vogel, G. (2002). New stem cell fund raises hackles. Science, 298, 517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ziman, J. (2002). The continuing need for disinterested research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 397–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziman, J. (2003). Non-instrumental roles of science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology and Social ChangeLinköping UniversityLinkopingSweden
  2. 2.The Sahlgrenska AcademyGöteborg UniversityGoteborgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Health and SocietyLinköping UniversityLinkopingSweden

Personalised recommendations