Commercialization of Science in a Neoliberal World

The promise and perils of industry‐funded science

“…One of the driving forces behind these changes has been the expansion of the ability of academic researchers to patent their inventions as a result of legislation like the Bayh‐Dole Act in the early 1980s (Biddle, ; Biddle, ; Brown, ; Irzık, ; Sterckx, ). Some critics, like John Ziman (), have argued that patent‐focused inquiry can result in less robust knowledge claims, which are useful only for achieving pragmatic results in applied contexts.…”

“…Another common social practice is the restriction of access to data, materials, patented innovations, or other confidential business information. Many scholars have worried that the culture of corporate science clashes with traditional Mertonian norms, especially the norm of communal ownership and sharing of scientific information (Irzık, ; Krimsky, ; Radder, ; Resnik, ; Sterckx, ). Though patents are supposed to facilitate openness and provide incentives for researchers to develop new innovations, researchers are sometimes hampered by “patent thickets,” where so many of the materials or necessary technologies are patented that they can hardly continue their research (Biddle, ; Sterckx, ).…”

“…Rarely, if ever, do we see a case study of scientific work done at Dow Chemicals inform a discussion about “core” philosophical topics like scientific explanation, confirmation, causation, or modeling. Yet despite its limited influence on philosophical discourse, industry accounts for roughly two thirds of all R&D funding in developed countries (OECD, ), and its influence is expanding to the public sector because of multiple changes to university and government policies over the past 40 years (Biddle, , ; Irzık, ; Krimsky, ; Mirowski, ; Slaughter & Rhoades, ; Sterckx, ; Washburn, ).…”

Introduction: Commercialization of Academic Science and a New Agenda for Science Education

“…Thus, research interests are increasingly shaped by commercial and corporate interests rather than by scientific value or social utility (Brown 2010;Irzik 2007;Resnik 2010). …”

“…They generally have confidence in the findings of science; they trust scientists' judgments especially in matters of health and environment, and count on the independent critical voice of the scientific community to self-regulate and provide accurate information. The image of a scientist who is secretive, biased, and motivated more by money than by truth may erode public confidence in the results of science and undermine science's social legitimacy (Irzik 2007). …”