Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is the market civilizing or destructive? The increased salience of science commercialization is forcing scientists to address this question. Benefiting from the sociology of morality literature’s increased attention to specific kinds of morality and engaging with economic sociology’s moral markets literature, we generate competing hypotheses about scientists’ value-driven attitudes toward patenting. The Civilizing Market thesis suggests scientists who prioritize universalism (i.e., concern for the welfare of all people) will tend to support patenting. The Destructive Market thesis, by contrast, suggests universalism will be correlated with opposition to patenting. We analyze survey data from biologists and physicists nested within academic organizations, which are nested within the following regions: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, and the USA. Employing multilevel analysis, we find correlational evidence to support the Destructive Market thesis. Universalism is associated with anti-patenting attitudes, suggesting scientists expect patenting to have deleterious effects on science and society. We end with a discussion of this article’s implications for the moral markets literature, sociology of morality and business ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Schwartz (2012)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Since the nation-state status of Taiwan and Hong Kong is contested, we will use “region” in place of “country” throughout this article.

  2. It is important to emphasize that in the sociology of science, universalism has traditionally referred to Merton’s norm of universalism (1973). Traditionally, sociologists have emphasized Mertonian universalism as a norm specific to science which asserts that only scientific criteria—rather than social factors such as gender or institutional affiliation—should be used to evaluate contributions to knowledge. While this emphasis gives the impression that a boundary separates scientific objectivity from emotions or values, Daston (1995) argues that moral values are integral to science. Our use of Schwartz’ (2012) universalism, which involves broader concern for societal welfare, thus reflects Daston’s emphasis that values influence scientific practice.

  3. To be sure, patenting incentivizes public disclosure of private information. In exchange for disclosure, inventors receive a temporary monopoly from which they are able to reap economic benefits. In science however, the pursuit of patents can lead to periods of secrecy among scientists, motivated by the fear that a discovery in another lab might preclude one’s claim to intellectual property.

References

  • Abend, G. (2007). Two main problems in the sociology of morality. Theory and Society, 37(2), 87–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abend, G. (2010). What's new and what's old about the new sociology of morality. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 561–585). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anteby, M. (2010). Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 606–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, P., Barish, E.B., Elliott, J., Fuller, R.N., Henderson, M.R. & Perilstein, D. (2010). The positive impact of academic innovations on quality of life. Association of University Technology Managers, Inc.

  • Beckert, J., Hollstein, B., Lehman, E. W., Marsden, D., & Etzioni, A. (2008). Amitai Etzioni twenty years of 'the moral dimension: Toward a new economics'. Socio-Economic Review, 6(1), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwm021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., & Wise, D. (1986). Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 231(4735), 242–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2009). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldrin, M. L. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, N., Gottwald, J., Rencher, K., Fiala, K., Hecht, J., Karpe, Y., et al. (2010). The better world report: The positive impact of academic innovations on quality of life. Deerfield, IL: The Association of University Technology Managers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. JAMA, 287(4), 473–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Deegan, R. M., & McCormack, S. J. (2001). Patents, secrecy, and DNA. Science, 293(5528), 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L. (1995). The moral economy of science. Osiris, 10, 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: Adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists' perspectives concerning the effects of patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dioun, C. (2018). Negotiating moral boundaries: Social movements and the strategic (re)definition of the medical in cannabis markets. In F. Briscoe, B. G. King, & J. Leitzinger (Eds.), Social movements, stakeholders and non-market strategy (pp. 53–82). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C.-F., & Lee, F. (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2003). Toward a New Socio-Economic Paradigm. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 105–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “Nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2007). Moral views of market society. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. (2009). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what's right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godlee, F. (2007). Milestones on the long road to knowledge. British Medical Journal, 334(s2), 4584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. (2004). Altruism as an organizational problem: The case of organ procurement. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 387–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Civilizing, destructive, or feeble? Rival interpretations of market society. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(4), 1463–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S., & Civettini, N. (2017). The situated durability of values. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 175–198). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. R. (2017). A fractured profession: Commercialism and conflict in science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, P. (2008). Culture and markets: How economic sociology conceptualizes culture. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619(1), 114–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livne, R. (2014). Economies of dying. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 888–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longest, K. C., Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). Position and disposition: The contextual development of human values. Social Forces, 91(4), 1499–1528. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, A. (2015). The (Re)genesis of values. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 680–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, A., & Upenieks, L. (2018). An expanded model of the moral self: Beyond care and justice. Social Science Research, 72, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshinksy, D. M. (2005). Polio: An American story. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peifer, J. L., Johnson, D. R., & Ecklund, E. H. (2019). The moral limits of the market: science commercialization and religious traditions. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(1), 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, B. N., & Kajonius, P. J. (2016). Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(6), 610–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponizovskiy, V., Grigoryan, L., Kühnen, U., & Boehnke, K. (2019). Social construction of the value–behavior relation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(934), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, A. D. (2014). Contradictions in the commodification of hospital care. American Journal of Sociology, 119(6), 1576–1628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., & Rossman, G. (2018). It’s only wrong if it’s transactional: Moral perceptions of obfuscated exchange. American Sociological Review, 83(6), 1079–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2019). Reliability. Retrieved 22 April, 2019, from https://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/4/3.html.

  • Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine, 66(9), 1909–1914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur'squadrant:Basicscienceandtechnologicalinnovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 97–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavory, I. (2011). The question of moral action: A formalist position. Sociological Theory, 29(4), 272–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaisey, S., & Miles, A. (2014). Tools from moral psychology for measuring personal moral culture. Theory and Society, 43(3–4), 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, P., Ansari, S., & Lounsbury, M. (2016). Understanding “failed” markets: Dissonance in attempts to price the priceless child? In J. Gehman, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 37–68). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., & Cohen, W. M. (2003). Working through the patent problem. Science, 299(5609), 1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yue, L. Q., Wang, J., & Yang, B. (2018). Contesting commercialization: Political influence, responsive authoritarianism, and cultural resistance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelizer, V. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelizer, V. (1981). The price and value of children: The case of children's insurance in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1036–1056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Richard Swedberg, Bob Thompson, Defne Over and Laura Ford for their feedback on this manuscript.

Funding

The survey data collection for this manuscript was funded by the Templeton World. Charity Foundation TWCF0033/AB14.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baruch College, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY, 10010, USA

    Jared L. Peifer

  2. University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Reno, NV, 89557, USA

    David R. Johnson

  3. Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX, MS-2877251, USA

    Elaine Howard Ecklund

Authors
  1. Jared L. Peifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David R. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elaine Howard Ecklund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jared L. Peifer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Regression analyses of anti-patent attitudes

Appendix: Regression analyses of anti-patent attitudes

 

M1

M2

M3

Individual level

   

 Universalism

0.10**

0.18**

0.16**

 Patent holder

 − 0.21***

 − 0.24***

 − 0.19***

 Research funding

0.06

0.04

0.02

 Female

 − 0.13***

 − 0.11**

 − 0.11***

 Political conservative

 − 0.09***

 − 0.07***

 − 0.07***

Organization level

   

 Biologist

0.14**

0.14***

0.14***

 Elite institution

0.10*

0.10

0.10

Regional level

   

 Turkey (referent)

–

  

 France

0.65***

  

 Hong Kong

0.19

  

 India

0.45***

  

 Italy

0.30**

  

 Taiwan

0.47***

  

 United Kingdom (UK)

0.69***

  

 United States (US)

0.61***

  

 Intercept

3.06***

3.35***

3.34***

Region level

   

 Variance

–

0.05

0.06

Organization level

   

 Variance

–

0.95

0.84

 Universalism slope var

–

0.55

0.49

 Slope/intercept covariance

–

 − 0.64

 − 0.56

Individual level

   

 Variance

–

0.64

0.67

 Region N

–

8

8

 Organization N

–

604

613

 Individual N

7107

6934

7580

  1. Model 1 (M1) tests a complex survey design (svy Stata command). M2 is a multilevel model that omits observations with Universalism values less than zero. M3 is a multilevel model using independent variables with imputed values via single shot regressions
  2. *p < 0.05; **p < 0. 01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peifer, J.L., Johnson, D.R. & Ecklund, E.H. Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents. J Bus Ethics 170, 253–267 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04633-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04633-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation