Entrepreneurs of contested commodities often face stakeholders engaged in market excluding boundary work driven by ethical considerations. For example, the conversion of academic scientific knowledge into technologies that can be owned and sold (i.e., science commercialization) is a growing global trend and key stakeholders have different ethical responses to this contested commodity. Commercialization of science can be viewed as a good thing because people believe it bolsters economic growth and broadly benefits society. Others view it as bad because they believe it discourages basic research that ought to be freely shared without concern for profit. Taking a descriptive sociological approach, we posit that the stance of a religious tradition toward capitalism will help shape individual scientists’ views on science commercialization and test whether the religious tradition of scientists correlates with their attitude toward the commercialization of science. To maximize variance on the religious tradition dimension, we analyze pooled data from a cross-national survey of university biologists and physicists encompassing France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, UK and the USA. We indeed find religious tradition differences. Hindus and scientists with no religious tradition are more likely to agree that commercialization of science “harms a university’s commitment to knowledge production” than Protestants. We end with a discussion on business ethics and the moral limits of the market as well as implications for entrepreneurs of contested commodities.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The original wording is as follows: “engagement in commercial activities has the potential to confuse [sic] university’s central commitment to knowledge production” (p. 320).
Answer categories for Hong Kong and Taiwan respondents refer to “God/gods” to account for belief in multiple gods.
The UK and India survey instruments do not directly measure Tenure. We develop proxies for both based on the respondents’ self-reported professional position. For the UK, Tenure = 1 for Senior Lecturers, Readers, and Professors. In India, Tenure = 1 for Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors.
The following Stata code was used: svyset DepartmentIndicatorVariable [pw = weight].
Additional bivariate analysis reveals this is merely an artifact of the tendency of some scientists to refuse to answer both questions that we use to operationalize our key variables. In other words, of the 296 scientists we initially dropped because they refused to answer the question about science commercialization, 288 also refused to answer the religious tradition question.
Almeling, R. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 319–340.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003). Religion and economic growth across countries. American Sociological Review, 68(5), 760–781.
Bénabou, R., Ticchi, D., & Vindigni, A. (2015a). Forbidden fruits: The political economy of science, religion, and growth. NBER Working Paper 21105. http://wws.princeton.edu/faculty-research/research/item/forbidden-fruits-political-economy-science-religion-and-growth
Bénabou, R., Ticchi, D., & Vindigni, A. (2015b). Religion and innovation. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 105(5), 346–351.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market University: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., & Wise, D. (1986). Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 231(4735), 242–246.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bowie, N. E. (1994). University-business partnerships: An assessment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Brandl, B., & Glenna, L. L. (2017). Intellectual property and agricultural science and innovation in Germany and the United States. Science, Technology and Human Values, 42(4), 622–656.
Brennan, J., & Jaworski, P. (2015a). In defense of commodification. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 2(2), 357–377.
Brennan, J., & Jaworski, P. M. (2015b). Markets without symbolic limits. Ethics, 125(4), 1053–1077.
Bunker Whittington, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender and Society, 22(2), 194–218.
Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Carruthers, B. G., & Ariovich, L. (2004). The sociology of property rights. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 23–46.
Costa, E., & Ramus, T. (2015). Italian Economia Aziendale as a Model Inspired by Catholic Humanism. In D. Melé & M. Schlag (Eds.), Humanism in economics and business: Perspectives of the catholic social tradition (Vol. 43, pp. 147–162). Berlin: Springer.
Das, G. (2002). India unbound: The social and economic revolution from independence to the global information age. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Delacroix, J., & Nielsen, F. (2001). The beloved myth: Protestantism and the rise of industrial capitalism in nineteenth-century Europe. Social Forces, 80(2), 509–533.
Dhanda, K. K., & Hartman, L. P. (2011). The ethics of carbon neutrality: A critical examination of voluntary carbon offset providers. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 119–149.
DiMaggio, P. (1994). Culture and economy. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 27–57). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dreher, S. (2015). Islamic capitalism? The Turkish Hizmet business community network in a global economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(4), 823–832.
Ecklund, E. H. (2010). Science vs. religion: What scientists really think. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Ecklund, E. H., Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., Matthews, K. R. W., & Lewis, S. W. (2016). Religion among scientists in international context: A new study of scientists in eight regions. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 1–9.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York, NY: Routledge.
Evans, J. H. (2003). Commodifying life? A pilot study of opinions regarding financial incentives for organ donation John H. Evans. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28(6), 1003–1032.
Facchini, F. (2013). Economic freedom in Muslim countries: An explanation using the theory of institutional path dependency. European Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 139–167.
Firer-Hinze, C. (2007). Bridge discourse on wage justice: Roman Catholic and feminist perspectives on the family living wage. In T. O’Brien & S. Paeth (Eds.), Religious perspectives on business ethics (pp. 295–318). Plymouth: UK Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Geiger, R. L. (1988). Milking the sacred cow: Research and the quest for useful knowledge in the American University Since 1920. Science, Technology and Human Values, 13(3), 332–348.
Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. (2009). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gellner, D. (1982). Max weber, capitalism and the religion of India. Sociology, 16(4), 526–543.
Glenna, L. L., Welsh, R., Ervin, D., Lacy, W. B., & Biscotti, D. (2011). Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy, 40(7), 957–968.
Goodpaster, K. E. (2011). Goods that are truly good and services that truly serve: Reflections on “Caritas in Veritate”. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(S1), 9–16.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2003). People’s opium? Religion and economic attitudes. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 225–282.
Hackett, E. J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 241–279.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayward, D. R., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). How competition is viewed across cultures: A test of four theories cross-cultural research, 41(4), 364–395.
Hayward, D. R., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2011). Weber revisited: A cross-national analysis of religiosity, religious culture, and economic attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(8), 1406–1420.
Hefner, R. W. (2006). Islamic economics and global capitalism. Society, 44(1), 16–22.
Herder, M., & Brian, J. D. (2007). Canada’s stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(1), 73–84.
Hesse, C. (2002). The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C.–A.D. 2000: An idea in the balance. Dædalus, Spring, 26–45.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.
Johnson, D. R. (2017). A fractured profession: Commercialism and conflict in science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
Kuran, T., & Singh, A. (2013). Economic modernization in late British India: Hindu-Muslim Differences. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 61(3), 503–538.
Lam, A. (2010). From ivory “tower traditionalists” to “entrepreneurial scientists”? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 49(2), 307–340.
Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Landes, D. S. (1998). The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some are so rich and some so poor. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Martin, K. E. (2015). Ethical issues in the big data industry big data. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2), 67–85.
McCann, D. P. (1997). Catholic social teaching in an era of economic globalization: A resource for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(2), 57–70.
Melé, D. (2015). Three keys concepts of catholic humanism for economic activity: Human dignity, human rights and integral human development. In D. Melé & M. Schlag (Eds.), Humanism in economics and business: Perspectives of the catholic social tradition (Vol. 43, pp. 113–136). Berlin: Springer.
Mirowski, P. (2011). Science mart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology of Transfer, 26(1/2), 99–114.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. L. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–57.
Quinn, S. (2008). The transformation of morals in markets: Death, benefits, and the exchange of life insurance policies. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3), 738–780.
Safar-Aly, S. H. K. (2016). Islamic conscious capitalism: A ‘third way’ in light of classical scripture. International Review of Economics, 63(1), 77–91.
Sait, S., & Lim, H. (2006). Land, law & Islam: Property and human rights in the Muslim world. London and New York: Zed Books.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Satz, D. (2010). Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shibayama, S., Walsh, J. P., & Baba, Y. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship and exchange of scientific resources. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 804–830.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. L., Johnson, D. R., & Barringer, S. (2014). Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 1–35.
Smith, H. J. (2001). Information privacy and marketing: What the U.S. should (and shouldn’t) learn from Europe. California Management Review, 43(2), 8–33.
Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Institutionalizing the network form: How life scientists legitimate work in the biotech industry. Sociological Forum, 20(2), 271–299.
Strathern, M. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy. London: Psychology Press.
Swedberg, R. (2005). The economic sociology of capitalism: An introduction and agenda. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tuchman, G. (2011). Wannabe U: Inside the corporate university. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6(2), 283–311.
Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Ben-David, E., Jones, L., Anderson, M., Louis, K., et al. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. American Medicine, 81(2), 128–136.
Weber, M. 1905 . The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Weber, M. 1924 . General economic history (F. H. Knight, Trans.). New York, NY: Collier Macmillan Ltd.
Whittington, K. B. (2011). Mothers of invention? Gender, motherhood, and new dimensions of productivity in the science profession. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 417–456.
Williams-Jones, B., & Ozdemir, V. (2007). Challenges for corporate ethics in marketing genetic tests. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(1), 33–44.
Zelizer, V. A. (1978). Human values and the market: The case of life insurance and death in 19th-century America. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(3), 591–610.
Data collection for this paper was funded by the Templeton World Charity Foundation, Religion among Scientists in International Context Study TWCF0033/AB14, Elaine Howard Ecklund PI, Kirstin R. W. Matthews and Steven Lewis, Co-PIs.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
About this article
Cite this article
Peifer, J.L., Johnson, D.R. & Ecklund, E.H. The Moral Limits of the Market: Science Commercialization and Religious Traditions. J Bus Ethics 157, 183–197 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3718-9
- Academic capitalism
- Contested commodity