Advertisement

The Corporate Capture of Academic Science and Its Social Costs

  • Sheldon Krimsky

Abstract

Commercial applications of molecular genetics and cell biology have resulted in a flurry of entrepreneurial activities among academic biologists and universities eager to cash in on the financial side of this technological revolution. The situation is not unique to biology. It is following the path of other disciplines that have formed close partnerships with industry, including nuclear and petroleum engineering, computer sciences, nutrition, electronics, and chemistry. Nevertheless, the current debate that has centered on the commercial ties of academic biologists has been more widely publicized than at any time in the past. Several hypotheses may be offered to explain this phenomenon.

Keywords

Supra Note Study Panel Academic Science Peer Review System Biotechnology Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weiner, C. (1984) (personal communication).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis ,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (Jan. 1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on Commercialization of Academic Biomedical Research ,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (June 8–9, 1981).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    California Rural Legal Assistance vs. Board of Trustees of the University of California. Brief filed in the California Judicial Court, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings on University/Industry Cooperation in Biotechnology ,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (July 16–17, 1982); and supra note 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See supra note 2.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Supra note 2, at 417.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walsh, J., Universities: Industry links raise conflict of interest issue, Science 164:411–2 (Apr. 25, 1969).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Id. at 412.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cone, J. and Robinson, J. DBCP-UC Research, Synapse ,San Francisco, CA: University of California at San Francisco, 22(9):4, 1 (Nov. 10, 1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orr, L. (ed.), Corporate money and co-opted scholars, Business and Society Rev. 37:4–11 (Spring 1980–1981), at 5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genetic Engineering News (M. Liebert, publisher, in letter to readers) 3(6):4 (Nov./Dec. 1983).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Culliton, B., The academic-industrial complex, Science 216:960 (May 28, 1982).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biogen, N. V., Company Prospectus (1983).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centocor, Inc., Company Prospectus (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Aubrey Milunsky and George J. Annas 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheldon Krimsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban and Environmental PolicyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations