The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 508–531 | Cite as

Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms

Article

Abstract

In the trend of academic entrepreneurship, practical and direct contribution of university research to the society has been emphasized, in which university scientists have increasingly engaged in commercial activities, university-industry relationships, and technology transfers. However, this trend has aroused concern about a potentially negative impact on the tradition of open science. Drawing on a survey data of 698 Japanese natural scientists, this study analyzes the behaviors and norms of university scientists under the influence of university interventions for entrepreneurship, whereby examining the compatibility between entrepreneurship and open science. The results indicate that entrepreneurial interventions have facilitated scientists’ norm for practical contribution, and consequently, their involvement in commercial activities and ties with industry. Then, some, but not all, of these entrepreneurial activities have deterred cooperative or open relationships between scientists. However, the results suggest that the entrepreneurial interventions have not deteriorated the traditional norm for open science. Further analyses indicate that the two norms for practical contribution and for open science are determined independently, implying that academic entrepreneurship can be promoted without deteriorating open science.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship Academic capitalism Commercialism Open science Scientific norm 

JEL Classification

I23 O38 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge Prof. John P. Walsh at Georgia Institute of Technology and Prof. Yasunori Baba at the University of Tokyo for their invaluable support for this project. I appreciate an anonymous reviewer for critical comments. I also appreciate Prof. Cristiano Antonelli at the University of Turin for reviewing an earlier version of this paper presented at BRICK-DIME-STRIKE workshop, the Organization Economics and Policy of Scientific Research, in 2010. I wish to express my gratitude to all the interviewees and respondents of the survey. I acknowledge Ms. Ayaka Saka and Mr. Terutaka Kuwahara at National Institute of Science and Technology Policy for providing the national survey data, and Prof. Hideaki Takeda at the National Institute of Informatics for providing the national grant database. I thank Ms. Asako Chiba for technical support. This study is supported by Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Institute of Science and Technology Policy.

References

  1. Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1994). The management of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 1185–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Association of University Technology Managers. (2007). AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey. Deerfield, IL: The Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
  5. Blume, S. (1974). Toward a political sociology of science. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science—evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., et al. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, M. A., Berry, L. G., & Goel, R. K. (1991). Guidelines for successfully transferring government-sponsored innovations. Research Policy, 20, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics—Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. D. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 171–177.Google Scholar
  12. CD, O. E. (1999). University research in transition. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  13. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. David, P. A. (2003). The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: A primer. In J. M. Esanu & P. F. Uhlir (Eds.), The role of the public domain in scientific and technical data and information (pp. 19–34). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. David, P. A. (2004). Understanding the emergence of ‘open science’ institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellison, G. (2007). Is peer review in decline? NBER working paper, Vol. 13272: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21, 198–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H. (1990). The second academic revolution: The role of the research university in economic development. In S. E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip, & J. Ziman (Eds.), The research system in transition (pp. 109–124). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faria, J. R. (2001). Rent seeking in academia: The consultancy disease. American Economist, 45, 69–74.Google Scholar
  23. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 159–171.Google Scholar
  24. Frickel, S., & Moore, K. (2005). The new political sociology of science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glenna, L. L., Lacy, W. B., Welsh, R., & Biscotti, D. (2007a). University administrators, agricultural biotechnology, and academic capitalism: Defining the public good to promote university-industry relationships. Sociological Quarterly, 48, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenna, L., Welsh, R., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2007b). Transforming genes and university research: Agricultural biotechnology, university-industry research collaborations, and professional science values. New York, NY: The Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  27. Goel, R. K., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hackett, E. J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s—The changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 241–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal: Agent analyses, incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 24–52.Google Scholar
  33. Hong, W., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). For money or glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. Sociological Quarterly, 50, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleinman, D. L., & Vallas, S. P. (2005). Contradiction in covergence: Universities and industry in the biotechnology field. In S. Frickel & K. Moore (Eds.), The new political sociology of science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Laband, D. N. (2002). Contribution, attribution and the allocation of intellectual property rights: Economics versus agricultural economics. Labour Economics, 9, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laband, D. N., & Beil, R. O. (1999). Are economists more selfish than other ‘social’ scientists? Public Choice, 100, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lei, Z., Juneja, R., & Wright, B. D. (2009). Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall, E. (2000). A deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research. Science, 288, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else—Experiments on the provision of public-goods, IV. Journal of Public Economics, 15, 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merton, R. K. (1973). Sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of Apollo moon scientists—Case study of ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagaoka, S., Kondo, M., Flamm, K., & Wessner, C. (2009). 21st century innovation systems for Japan and the United States: Lessons from a decade of change: Report of a symposium. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Academy of Sciences. (1993). Science, technology, and the federal government: National goals for a new era. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. National Academy of Sciences. (2003). Sharing publication-related data and materials: Responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the marker for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 161–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shibayama, S., & Saka, A. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship in Japanese universities: Effects of university interventions on entrepreneurial and academic activities. NISTEP working paper. Tokyo, Japan: NISTEP.Google Scholar
  56. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science Technology & Human Values, 21, 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Bendavid, E., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., et al. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine, 81, 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walsh, J. P., Cohen, W. M., & Cho, C. (2007). Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy, 36, 1184–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Research Center for Advanced Science and TechnologyThe University of TokyoMeguro-ku, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP)Chiyoda-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations