This article discusses the emergence of a patenting culture in university science.
Patenting culture is examined empirically in the context of the increasing commerciali
zation of science, and theoretically within debates over scientific "credibility." The
article explores the translation of academic credit into patents, and vice versa, and argues
that this process raises new questions for our understanding of scientific recognition and
of scientists' networks. In particular, the analysis suggests that scientists must move
between two distinct social worlds to manage the rewards that academic and patent
cultures carry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bourdieu, P.1974. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information6:110-35.
2.
Bozeman, B., and M. Crow.1991. Technology transfer from U.S. government and university R&D. Science and Public Policy11:231-46.
3.
Brooks, H.1993. Research universities and the social contract for science . In Empowering technology, edited by L. M. Branscomb, 202-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Cambrosio, A.1994. Standards, instruments and techniques. Paper presented at EASST conference, Science, Technology and Change: New Theories, Realities, Institutions, 28-31 August, Budapest , Hungary.
5.
Collins, H.1985. Changing order. New York: Russell Sage.
6.
Eisenberg, R.1987. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law Journal97:177-231.
7.
Etzkowitz, H.1993. Entrepreneurs from science: The origins of science-based regional economic development. Minerva31:326-60.
8.
Fujimura, J.H.1987. Constructing "do-able" problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science17:257-93.
9.
Hagstrom, W.O.1966. The scientific community. New York : Basic Books.
10.
Knorr-Cetina, K.1995. Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Handbook of sociology of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. C. Petersen , and T. Pinch, 140-66. London : Sage.
11.
Krimsky, S.1991. Academic-corporate ties in biotechnology: A quantitative study. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:275-87.
12.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar.1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Lynch, M.1985. Art and artefact in laboratory science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
14.
Mackenzie, M., P. Keating, and A. Cambrosio.1990. Patents and free scientific information on biotechnology: Making monoclonal antibodies property. Science, Technology, & Human Values15:65-83.
15.
Mullis, K.1990. The unusual origin of the polymerase chain reaction . Scientific American263:36-43.
16.
Myers, G.1995. From discovery to invention: The writing and rewriting of two patents. Social Studies of Science25:57-105.
Packer, K., and A. Webster.1995. Inventing boundaries: The prior art of the social world. Social Studies of Science25:107-18.
19.
Rappert, B.1995. Shifting notions of accountability in public and private sector research in the UK: Some central concerns. Science and Public Policy22:383-90.
20.
Rip, A.1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education28:3-23.
21.
Seashore Louis, K., M. Anderson, and L. Rosenberg. Forthcoming. The changing context of science and university-industry relations: Academic misconduct and academic values. In Capitalizing knowledge, edited by A. Webster and H. Etzkowitz.New York: State University of New York Press.
22.
Star, S.L.1986. Triangulating clinical and basic research. History of Science26:29-48.
23.
Swinbanks, D.1994. TI loses patent battle to Fujitsu. Nature371:92.
24.
Webster, A.1994. University-corporate ties and the construction of research agendas. Sociology28:123-42.
25.
Williams, K.M.1994. When is a "private" conversation "public" disclosure ? Bio/technology12:523-24.
