Minerva

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 391–405 | Cite as

On Commodification and the Governance of Academic Research

Article

Abstract

The new prominence given to science for economic growth and industry comes with an increased policy focus on the promotion of commodification and commercialization of academic science. This paper posits that this increased interest in commodification is a new steering mechanism for governing science. This is achieved by first outlining what is meant by the commodification of scientific knowledge through reviewing a selection of literatures on the concept of commodification. The paper concludes with a discussion of how commodification functions as a means for governing science.

Keywords

Commodification Science Gift Commodity Governance 

References

  1. Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors social research. Social Research 73: 1129–1172.Google Scholar
  2. Böhme, Gernot. 2003. Contribution to the critique of the aesthetic economy. Thesis Eleven 73: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callon, Michel. 1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values 4: 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coase, Ronald H. 1974. The market for goods and the market for ideas. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 64: 384–391.Google Scholar
  5. Dale, Roger. 2007. Repairing the deficits of modernity: The emergence of parallel discourses in higher education in Europe. In World yearbook of higher education, eds. Debbie Epstein, Rebecca Boden, Rosemary Deem, Rizvi Fazal, and Susan Wright, 14–31. UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Everett, Margaret. 2003. The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Social Science and Medicine 56: 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47: 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The enigma of the gift. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Green, Ronald M. 2001. What does it mean to use someone as “a means only”: Rereading Kant. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Haug, Wolfgang F. [1971] 1986. Critique of commodity aesthetics, trans. R. Bock. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, S. 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katches, Mark, William Heisel, and Ronald Campbell. 2000. Donors don’t realize they are fueling a lucrative business. Orange County Register (16 April). Online at http://www.ocregister.com/health-fitness/features/body/ index.shtml. cited in Holland, Suzanne 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 267.Google Scholar
  14. Kaushik Sunder, Rajan. 2006. Biocapital: The constitution of post-genomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kitcher, Phillip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kleinman, Daniel Lee, and Steven P. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “Knowledge Worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society 30: 451–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the private interest. Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1991. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Oxford, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mäki, Uskali. 1999. Science as a free market: A reflexivity test in an economics of economics. Perspectives on Science 7: 486–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital: A critique of political economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes, vol. 1. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. McSherry, Corynne. 2001. Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Merton, Robert K. 1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1973.Google Scholar
  25. Mirowski, Philip, and Esther Mirjam-Sent. 2002. Introduction. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. Philip Mirowski, and Esther Mirjam Sent, 1–66. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mirowski, Philip, and Robert van Horn. 2005. The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 35: 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, Ian. 1986. Gift and commodity in archaic Greece. Man 21: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across Public and Private Sciences at Research One Universities. Research Policy 32: 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pestre, Dominique. 2005. The technosciences between markets, social worries and the political: How to imagine a better future? In The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science and the law, eds. Helga Nowotny, Domique Pestre, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Helmut Schultze-Fielitz, and Hans-Heinrich Trute. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Prasad, Amit. 2009. Capitalizing disease: Biopolitics of drug trials in India. Theory, Culture & Society 26: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radin, Margaret. 1996. Contested commodities: Trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rhoten, Diana, and William Powell. 2007. The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stephan, P.E. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  36. Thrift, Nigel. 2006. Re-inventing invention: New tendencies in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society 35(2): 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tinic, Serra A. 1997. United colors and untied meanings: Benetton and the commodification of social issues. Journal of Communication 47: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turner, Stephen. 2002. Scientists as agents. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. P. Mirowski, and E. Mirjam Sent, 362–384. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Valentin, Finn, and Rasmus Lund Jensen. 2006. Effects on academia–industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walstad, Allan. 2002. On science as a free market. Perspectives on Science 9: 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weisbrod, Burton, Jeffrey Ballou, and Evelyn Asch. 2008. Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, Colin. 2002. A critical evaluation of the commodification thesis. The Sociological Review 525–542.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Policy Institute/CIRCLELund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Technology, Innovation and CultureOslo UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations