Skip to main content

Positive Organizational Outcomes Associated with a Penchant for Openness

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 19, pages 799–812 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

The tension between scientific openness versus secrecy has existed for centuries (Hull 1985). However, both academics and practitioners have recently argued that openness by private firms has many positive attributes. The purpose of this research effort is to review the extant literature on openness and to develop hypotheses regarding its impact on organizational outcomes. We then use a unique database to test the idea with 87 companies. Our findings are that openness is beneficial to the firm from a science, technological, and financial perspective and, perhaps, to the employees from an ethical viewpoint. The managerial and societal implications are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Consistent with the “knowledge production function” empirical methodology (Griliches 1995; Jaffe 1986; Fabrizio 2009) and because a non-linear relationship is expected (i.e., percentage change matters more than a unit change), all variables except R&D intensity and SIC code are included as natural logs.

  2. Previous research has determined that there are sometimes decreasing returns to scale in research and development activities (Graves and Langowitz 1993).

References

  • Adams, J, & Clemmons, J. (2008). The NBER-Rensselaer scientific papers database: Form, nature, and function. NBER working paper 14575.

  • Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., DeBackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clozel, M. (2011). Between confidentiality and scientific exchange: The place of publication in drug discovery and pharmaceutical research. Science Translations Medicine, 3, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Deegan, R. (2007). The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crumpton, A. (1999). Secrecy in science: Exploring university, industry, and government relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 417–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39, 699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • della Valle, F., & Gambardella, A. (1993). Biological revolution and strategies for innovation in pharmaceutical companies. R&D Management, 23, 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictor of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 53, 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38, 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B. A., & Zigmond, M. J. (2010). The essential nature of sharing in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 783–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., Murray, F. E. & Stern, S. (2011). Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication. http://ssrn.com/abstract-1559871. Accessed 15 September 2012.

  • Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49, 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, J., & Langowitz, N. (1993). Innovative productivity and returns to scale in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grilliches, Z. (1995). R&D and productivity: Econometric results and measurement issues, Technological Change. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B, Jaffe, A, & Trajtenberg, M. (2000) Market value and patent citations: A first look, NBER working paper 7741.

  • Halperin, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1987). Firm and industry characteristics influencing publications of scientists in large American companies. R&D Management, 17, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawken, P. (1994). The ecology of commerce. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11, 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1985). Openness and secrecy in science: The origins and limitations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence form firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76, 984–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O. (1992). Postgraduate scientists and R&D: The role of reputation in organizational choice. R&D Management, 22, 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. (2010). Ethical conflicts in commercialization of university research in the post-Bayh-Dole era. Ethics and Behavior, 20(5), 324–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. (2009). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach. Scientometrics, 79, 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., & Deeds, D. (1998). The role of reputation in the recruitment of scientists. R&D Management, 28, 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, S., Duska, R., Hamilton, R., & Casey, D. (2006). The ethical dilemma of research and development openness versus secrecy. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, S., Hamilton, R., & Deeds, D. (2000). Firm management of scientific information: An empirical update. R&D Management, 30, 177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Debarckere, K., & Glanzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be “good science”? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85, 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, P., & Pénin, J. (2006). Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16, 85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munthe, C., & Welin, S. (1996). The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 341–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1999). Tech-line background paper, version of 19 August. Available on-line.

  • Pénin, J. (2007). Open knowledge disclosure: An overview of the evidence and economic motivations. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(2), 326–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polidoro, F., Jr., & Theeke, M. (2012). Getting competition down to a science: The effects of technological competition on firms’ scientific publications. Organization Science, 23(4), 1135–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulugurtha, S., & Sambhara, V. (2011). Pedestrian crash estimation models for signalized intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2005). Some recent challenges to openness and freedom in scientific publication. In M. Korthals & R. Bogers (Eds.), Ethics for life scientists (pp. 85–100). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2006). Openness versus secrecy in scientific research. Episteme, 2, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy, 39, 422–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymore, S. (2007). The “printed publication” bare after Klopfenstein: Has the Federal Circuit changed the way professors should talk about science? Akron Law Review, 40, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50, 835–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke, C. (2009). Patents and publications as sources of novel and inventive knowledge. Scientometrics, 79, 551–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. (2001). A relationship between technology indicators and stock market performance. Scientometrics, 51, 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. P. (2006). Protect the tree, not just the orange: Strategic use of printed publications for intellectual property protection. Orange County Lawyer, 48, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 47, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Penn State Abington, 1600 Woodland Road, Abington, PA, 19001, USA

    G. Steven McMillan

  2. Cabrini College, 610 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, USA

    Debra L. Casey

Authors
  1. G. Steven McMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debra L. Casey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Steven McMillan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McMillan, G.S., Casey, D.L. Positive Organizational Outcomes Associated with a Penchant for Openness. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 799–812 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9404-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9404-5

Keywords

  • Openness
  • Technology
  • Science