The adoption by universities in many countries of a mission of contributing to wealth creation and social benefit has raised questions, and also concerns, about its effects on academic research and academic researchers. This study used in-depth interviews to examine how a sample of academics in UK biological sciences departments were responding to this change. Although most were engaged in user-oriented research, much of it was undertaken to generate income and was on the periphery of their mainstream research. Their criteria for success continue to uphold traditional academic values. It is argued that the dominance of these values may disadvantage assistant staff working on industry-related projects and encourages a narrow view of postgraduate and postdoctoral research training as preparation solely for an academic career. Thus, for all the apparent readiness of research departments to engage with industry, their engagement appears strictly limited, and this may have implications for universities' performance of their mission in both research and training.
AllenD. N.NorlingF. (1990), ‘Exploring perceived threats in faculty commercialization of research’, in SmilorR. W.GibsonD. V.BrettL.A., eds, University Spinout Corporations, Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
2.
AUT/IoE (2000), Academic and Academic Related Staff Involvement in the Local, Regional and National Economy, Association of University Teachers/Institute of Education, University of London, London.
3.
BalmerB. (1996), ‘Managing mapping in the Human Genome Project’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 26, pp 531–573.
4.
BehrensT. R.GrayD. O. (2001), ‘Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 2, pp 179–199.
5.
BlumenthalD.CampbellE.AndersonM.CausinoN.LouisK. S. (1997), ‘Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 277, pp 1224–1228.
6.
BlumenthalD.CausinoN.CampbellE.LouisK. S. (1996), ‘Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences – an industry survey’, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 334, No 6, pp 368–373.
7.
BozemanB. (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory’, Research Policy, Vol 29, Nos 4–5, pp 627–655.
8.
BraunD. (1998), ‘The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 807–821.
9.
CalvertJ. (2001), ‘Goodbye blue skies? The concept of “basic research” and its role in a changing funding environment’, DPhil Thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton.
10.
CBI (1997), ‘Investing in research’, Technology and Innovation Brief, Confederation of British Industry, London, October.
11.
CohenW.FloridaR.GoeW. (1994), University-Industry Research Centers in the United States, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
12.
COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy) (2000), Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisors, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
13.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (1999), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, Cmnd 4176, HMSO, London.
14.
EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 823–833.
15.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1998), ‘The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university–industry–government relations’, Miner va, Vol 36, No 3, pp 203–208.
16.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA. (1998), ‘Entrepreneurial science: The second academic revolution’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
17.
GeigerR. L. (1988), ‘Milking the sacred cow – research and the quest for useful knowledge in the American University since 1920’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol 13, Nos 3–4, pp 332–348.
18.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London.
19.
GierynT. F. (1983), ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, Vol 48, No 6, pp 781–795.
20.
GluckM.BlumenthalD.StotoM. (1987), ‘University–industry relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows’, Research Policy, Vol 16, pp 327–336.
21.
GoddardA. (2001), ‘Billion-pound prescription for success’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 26 January, p 17.
22.
HagedoornJ.LinkA.N.VonortasN. S. (2000), ‘Research partnerships’, Research Policy, Vol 29, Nos 4–5, pp 567–586.
23.
HarmanG. (1999), ‘Australian science and technology academics and university–industry research links’, Higher Education, Vol 38, No 1, pp 83–103.
HowellsJ.NedevaM.GeorghiouL. (1998), Industry–Academic Links in the UK, PREST, Manchester.
26.
KennyM. (1987), ‘The ethical dilemmas of university–industry collaborations’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 6, pp 127–135.
27.
KonecnyE.QuinnC.SachsK.ThompsonD. (1995), Universities and Industrial Research, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
28.
LeeY. S. (1996), ‘“Technology transfer” and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration’, Research Policy, Vol 25, pp 843–863.
29.
LouisK. S.AndersonM. S. (1998), ‘The changing context of science and university–industry relations’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
30.
MertonR. K. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, chapters 13–15.
quoting DoreT.GoldeC., At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Today's Doctoral Students Reveal About Doctoral Education, www.phd-survey.org, January 2001.
33.
MorrisN. (2000), ‘Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher’, Minerva, Vol 38, pp 425–451.
34.
MorrisN. (2002), ‘The developing role of departments’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 817–833.
35.
MulkayM. (1979), Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, Allen and Unwin, London, p 71.
36.
MulkayM. (1991), ‘Theories of science in society’(review), Contemporary Sociology, pp 456–457.
37.
National Science Board (1996), Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
38.
OECD (1998), University Research in Transition, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, p 77.
39.
OST (Office of Science and Technology) (1993), Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cmnd 2250, HMSO, London.
40.
PackerK.WebsterA. (1996), ‘Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol 21, No 4, pp 427–453.
41.
PetersL. S.FusfieldH. I., eds (1982), Current US University-Industry Research Connections, National Science Board, Washington, DC.
42.
PolanyiM. (1962), ‘The republic of science: Its political and economic theory’, Minerva, Vol 1, pp 54–73.
43.
RichmondM. (1993), ‘Mission in the market-place’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2 July, p 9.
44.
RobertsG. (2000), Second Report of the Research Careers Initiative, Office of Science and Technology and Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, London.
45.
RosenbergN.NelsonR.R. (1994), ‘American universities and technical advance in industry’, Research Policy, Vol 23, No 3, pp 323–348.
46.
SainsburyD. (2000), Knowledge and Technology Transfer, speech in April by the UK Minister for Science at the opening of Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research at University College London, Department of Trade and Industry, London (www.dti.gov.uk).
47.
Segal Quince (1985), The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town, Segal, Quince, Wicksteed, Cambridge.
48.
SenkerJ.FaulknerW.VelhoL. (1998), ‘Science and technology knowledge flows between industrial and academic research: A comparative study’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
49.
SlaughterS.LeslieL. (1997), Academic Capitalism, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
50.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (1990), ‘Renorming the social relations of academic science technology transfer’, Educational Policy, Vol 4, No 4, pp 341–361.
51.
SoleyL.C. (1995), Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia, South End Press, Boston, MA.
52.
StankiewiczR. (1998), ‘Science parks and innovation centres’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
53.
SteffensonM.RogersE. M.SpeakmanK. (2000), ‘Spinoffs from research centers at a research university’, Journal of Business VenturingVol 15, No 1, pp 93–111.
54.
StokesD. E. (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant, The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
55.
WebsterA. (1991), Science, Technology and Society: New Directions, Macmillan, London.
56.
WebsterA, (1994), ‘University–corporate ties and the construction of research agendas’, Sociology, Vol 28, No 1, pp 123–142.
