AFHVS 2017 presidential address
- 159 Downloads
As efforts to commercialize university research outputs continue, critics charge that universities and university scientists are failing to live up to their public-interest purpose. In this paper, I discuss the distinctions between public-interest and private-interest research institutions and how commercialization of university science may be undermining the public interest. I then use Jürgen Habermas’s concept of communicative action as the foundation for efforts to establish public spaces for ethical deliberation among scientists and university administrators. Such ethical deliberation is necessary to facilitate discussion on whether public-interest science should be the research university’s primary purpose and what institutional rules and resources are needed to honor that purpose.
KeywordsPublic research Commercial science Public interest Food and agricultural research and development
Thank you to Lisa Heldke, William Lacy, Larry Busch, David Ervin, Rick Welsh, Jonathan Marks, Robert Chiles, Don Thompson, Raymond Jussaume, to participants in Penn State’s 2017 Social Thought Program, and to participants in the 2017 Trans-Atlantic Rural Research Network (especially Ian Merrell and Siobhan Maderson) for valuable feedback and insights on various drafts of this paper.
- Abbott, A. 1988. The system of the professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Allen, K.R. 2012. Technology commercialization: Have we learned anything? The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship 3 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K.J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors, 609–625. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, R.C., R.N. Beachy, G. Conway, F.A. Cordova, M.A. Fox, K.A. Holbrook, D.F. Klessig, R.L. McCormick, P.M. McPherson, H.R. Rawlings, III R. Rapson, L.N. Vanderhoef, J.D. Wiley, and C.E. Young. 2003. Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science 301 (11): 174–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker, N. 2008. The body toxic. New York: North Point Press.Google Scholar
- Berman, E.P., and C. Paradeise, eds. 2016. The university under pressure. Vol. 46 of research in the sociology of organizations. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
- Besley, J.C., A.M. McCright, N.R. Zahry, K.C. Elliott, N.E. Kaminski, and J.D. Martin. 2017. Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS ONE 1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175643.
- Biscotti, D., L.L. Glenna, W.B. Lacy, and R. Welsh. 2009. The ‘Independent’ investigator: How academic scientists construct their professional identity in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations. Economic Sociology of Work 18: 261–285.Google Scholar
- Block, F. 2011. Innovation and the invisible hand of government. In State of innovation: The U.S. government’s role in technology development, eds. Fred Block and Matthew R. Keller, 1–26. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
- Brandl, B., and L.L. Glenna. 2016. Intellectual property and agricultural science and Innovation in Germany and the United States. In Science, technology, & human values.Google Scholar
- Buccola, S.T., D. Ervin, and H. Yang. 2009. Research choice and finance in university bioscience. Southern Economic Journal 75: 1238–1255.Google Scholar
- Busch, L. 2000. The eclipse of morality: Science, state, and market. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Busch, L. 2017. Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Clancy, M., K. Fuglie, and P. Heisey. 2016. U.S. agricultural R&D in an era of falling public funding. Amber Waves 1Google Scholar
- Gewin, V. 2017. Crop breeders sprout plan to boost public sector research. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/crop-breeders-sprout-plan-boost-public-sector-research.
- Habermas, J. 1981. The theory of communicative action: Volume II. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 1990. Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In The communicative ethics controversy, ed. Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr, 60–110. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 1991. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Trans. Frederick G. Lawrence. The MIT Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Hakim, D. 2016. Scientists loved and loathed by an agrochemical giant. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fdanny-hakim&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection. Accessed 31 Dec 2016.
- Harwood, J. 2012. Europe’s green revolution and others since. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hughes, E.C. 1963. Professions. Daedalus 92 (4): 655–668.Google Scholar
- Kant, I. 1980. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Kleinman, D.L. 1995. Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr. 2004. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology: 1942 to 2000. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Lacy, W.B. 1989. Changing division of labor between the university and industry: The case of agricultural biotechnology. In Biotechnology and the new agricultural revolution, eds. J.J. Molnar, and H. Kinnican, 21–50. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Lacy, William B. 2001. Generation and commercialization of knowledge: Trends, implications, and models for public and private agricultural research and education. In Knowledge generation and technical change: Institutional innovation in agriculture, eds. S. Wolf, and D. Zilberman, 27–54. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lacy, W.B., L.L. Glenna, D. Biscotti, R. Welsh, and K. Clancy. 2014. The two cultures of science: Implications for university-industry relationships in U.S. agriculture biotechnology. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 12 (1): 60345–60347.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. 2011. Republic lost: How money corrupts congress—and a plan to stop it. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lewis, S. 2010. Neoliberalism, conflict of interest, and the governance of health research in Canada. Open Medicine 1 (1): 28–30.Google Scholar
- Martinson, B.C., A.L. Crain, M.S. Anderson, and R. de Vries. 2009. Institutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: Manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior. Academic Medicine 84 (11): 1491–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–127.Google Scholar
- Merton, R.K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Mirowski, P. 2011. Science mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-dole act. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Science. 2004. A patent system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Science. 2010. The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Science. 2016. Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation (NSF). 2016. Science and engineering indicators—2016. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Newfield, C. 2016. Unmaking the public university: The forty year assault on the middle class. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Owen-Smith, J., and W.W. Powell. 2002. Standing on shifting terrain: Faculty responses to the transformation of knoweldge and its uses in the life sciences. Science Studies 15 (1): 3–28.Google Scholar
- Pollack, A. and M.I.T. Harvard. 2017. Scientists win gene-editing patent fight. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/science/broad-institute-harvard-mit-gene-editing-patent.html?_r=0. Accessed 22 June 2017.
- Rosenberg, C.E. 1976. No other gods: On science and American social thought. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Sandel, M.J. 2009. Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Strom, S. 2016. National biotechnology panel faces new conflict of interest questions. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/business/national-academies-biotechnology-conflicts.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2016.
- Uekötter, F. 2010. Die Wahrheit liegt auf dem Feld. Eine Wissensgeschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
- Vallas, S.P., D.L. Kleinman, and D. Biscotti. 2011. Political structures and the making of U.S. biotechnology. In State of innovation: The U.S. government’s role in technology development, eds. Fred Block, and Matthew R. Keller, 57–76. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
- Vogeli, C., R. Yucel, E. Bendavid, L.M. Jones, M.S. Anderson, K.S. Louis, and E.G. Campbell. 2006. Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey. American Medicine 81 (2): 128–136.Google Scholar
- Walzer, M. 1984. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
- Wright, B.D. 2007. Agricultural innovation after the diffusion of intellectual property protection. In Agricultural biotechnology and intellectual property, ed. J. Kesan, Wallingford: CABI International.Google Scholar