Skip to main content

The Institutional Pressure to Become a Professor-Entrepreneur

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
University Responsibility for the Adjudication of Research Misconduct
  • 154 Accesses

Abstract

The pressure on faculty has continued to escalate to produce, that is to bring money into the university. The Bayh-Dole Act came with a requirement to submit any novel idea as a patent application. While not enforceable as a regulation, this guidance to professors, along with funding opportunities from companies, state seed funding for companies and small business categories of federal funding have pressured faculty to think like entrepreneurs. However, the culture of the university has not adapted. The administration is still reaping the benefits of tax-exempt status, near-immunity from lawsuits, while maintaining an illusory Ivory Tower status. To keep the best of both worlds, university administrators have insulated themselves from the problem of research ethics. They do what they are required to, but many cases are dismissed without an inquiry. Can the majority of cases really be frivolous allegations? There is no doubt that the pressures to seek funding are taking a toll on faculty and affecting the ethical climate. Universities have focused on productivity above all else and since the federal regulations have put them in charge of adjudication, there is a brewing crisis.

It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing – and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite – that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

– Mark Twain, Letter to Helen Keller, 1903

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hohm, C.F., and H.B. Shore. 1998. The Academy Under Siege: Informing the Public About the Merits of Academic Tenure. Sociological Perspectives 41: 827–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sobel, D. 1995. Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Whole Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of his Time. New York: MacMillian.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159: 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards, M.A., and S. Roy. 2017. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34: 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gardner, S.K., and D. Veliz. 2014. Evincing the Ratchet: A Thematic Analysis of the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines at a Striving University. Review of Higher Education 38: 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg, D.M. 2011. Science at the Crossroads: Fact or Fiction. Journal of Medical Biochemistry 30: 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Binder, R., A. Friedli, and E. Fuentes-Afflick. 2016. The New Academic Environment and Faculty Misconduct. Academic Medicine 91: 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fanelli, D. 2010. Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLos One 5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Montgomery, K., and A.L. Oliver. 2009. Shifts in Guidelines for Ethical Scientific Conduct: How Public and Private Organizations Create and Change Norms of Research Integrity. Social Studies of Science 39: 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Charlton, B.G. 2009. Are you an Honest Scientist? Truthfulness in Science Should be an Iron Law, not a Vague Aspiration. Medical Hypotheses 73: 633–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pflumm, M. 2011. NIH Funding Rates Drop to Record Lows. Nature Medicine 17: 637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lacetera, N., and L. Zirulia. 2012. The Economics of Scientific Misconduct (vol 27, pg 568, 2011). Journal of Law Economics & Organization 28: 183–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. John, L.K., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science 23: 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the Social Relations of Academic Science – Technology Transfer. Educational Policy 4: 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Glenna, L.L., R. Welsh, D. Ervin, W.B. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2011. Commercial Science, Scientists’ Values, and University Biotechnology Research Agendas. Research Policy 40: 957–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans, J.A. 2010. Industry Induces Academic Science to Know Less about More. American Journal of Sociology 116: 389–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saiki, R., et al. 1988. Primer-Directed Enzymatic Amplification of DNA with a Thermostable DNA Polymerase. Science 239: 487–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bower, D.J. 2003. Business Model Fashion and the Academic Spinout Firm. R & D Management 33: 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Valdivia, W.D. 2013. University Start-Ups: Critical for Improving Technology Transfer. Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gonzales, L.D., E. Martinez, and C. Ordu. 2014. Exploring Faculty Experiences in a Striving University Through the Lens of Academic Capitalism. Studies in Higher Education 39: 1097–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Colombo, M.G., and E. Piva. 2008. Strengths and Weaknesses of Academic Startups: A Conceptual Model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55: 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wall, M.E., and M.C. Wani. 1995. Camptothecin and Taxol – Discovery to Clinic – 13th Bruce F Cain Memorial Award Lecture. Cancer Research 55: 753–760.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ———. 1998. History and Future Prospects of Camptothecin and Taxol. In Alkaloids, ed. G.A. Cordell, vol. 50, 509–536. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Faguet, G.B. 2006. The War on Cancer: Anatomy of a Failure. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kolata, G. 2013. Hopeful Glimmers in Long War on Cancer. New York Times, November 4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Clark, M. 1977. Laetrile: Should It be Banned? Newsweek 89: 48.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bitting, T.H. 1978. Drugs – Federal Drug Administration Ban on Laetrile Treatments for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients is Arbitrary and Capricious. Tulsa Law Journal 14: 222–225.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moertel, C.G., et al. 1982. A Clinical Trial of Amygdalin (Laetrile) in the Treatment of Human Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine 306: 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Harris, R. 2017. Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Howitz, K.T., et al. 2003. Small Molecule Activators of Sirtuins Extend Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Lifespan. Nature 425: 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baur, J.A., et al. 2006. Resveratrol Improves Health and Survival of Mice on a High-Calorie Diet. Nature 444: 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burnett, C., et al. 2011. Absence of Effects of Sir2 Overexpression on Lifespan in C. elegans and Drosophila. Nature 477: 482–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Couzin-Frankel, J. 2011. Aging Genes: The Sirtuin Story Unravels. Science 334: 1194–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Doody, R.S., et al. 2008. Effect of Dimebon on Cognition, Activities of Daily Living, Behaviour, and Global Function in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Lancet 372: 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hopkins, C.R. 2010. ACS Chemical Neuroscience Molecule Spotlight on Dimebon. Acs Chemical Neuroscience 1: 587–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reed, M.A., C. Zhou, C.J. Muller, T.P. Burgin, and J.M. Tour. 1997. Conductance of a Molecular Junction. Science 278: 252–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Overton, R. 2000. Molecular Electronics Will Change Everything. Wired, July.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weiss, E.A., J.K. Kriebel, M.A. Rampi, and G.M. Whitesides. 2007. The Study of Charge Transport Through Organic Thin Films: Mechanism, Tools and Applications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 365: 1509–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lieber, C.M. 2007. The Incredible Shrinking Circuit. Scientific American 17: 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Arkin, I.T. 2011. Science, Music, Literature and the One-Hit Wonder Connection. Research Trends, March.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sampat, B.N. 2006. Patenting and US Academic Research in the 20th Century: The World Before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy 35: 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Carreyrou, J. 2015. Hot Startup Theranos has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology. The Wall Street Journal, October 16.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kosloff, M. 2016. Theranos is Under Federal Criminal Investigation. Vanity Fair, April 19.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tracy, A. 2016. Elizabeth Holmes’s Theranos Nightmare Just Got Even Worse. Vanity Fair, May 26.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Greenspan, N. 2009. The Hype of Science: Leading Journals Including Science and Nature are Exaggerating Research Novelty. The Scientist, April 14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Franzen, S. (2021). The Institutional Pressure to Become a Professor-Entrepreneur. In: University Responsibility for the Adjudication of Research Misconduct. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68063-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics