On commodification and the governance of academic research

Minerva

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 391-405

  Jacob, Merle ^a,b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Commodification; Commodity; Gift; Governance; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 73949154314     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-009-9134-2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors social research. Social Research73: 1129-1172.
2. Böhme, Gernot. 2003. Contribution to the critique of the aesthetic economy. Thesis Eleven 73: 71-82.
3. Callon, Michel. 1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values 4: 395-425.
4. Coase, Ronald H. 1974. The market for goods and the market for ideas. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 64: 384-391.
5. Dale, Roger. 2007. Repairing the deficits of modernity: The emergence of parallel discourses in higher education in Europe. In World yearbook of higher education, eds. Debbie Epstein, Rebecca Boden, Rosemary Deem, Rizvi Fazal, and Susan Wright, 14-31. UK: Routledge.
6. Everett, Margaret. 2003. The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Social Science and Medicine 56: 53-65.
7. Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47: 93-114.
8. Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The enigma of the gift. Oxford: Polity Press.
9. Green, Ronald M. 2001. What does it mean to use someone as "a means only": Rereading Kant. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 247-261.
10. Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
11. Haug, Wolfgang F. [1971] 1986. Critique of commodity aesthetics, trans. R. Bock. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12. Holland, S. 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 263-284.
13. Katches, Mark, William Heisel, and Ronald Campbell. 2000. Donors don't realize they are fueling a lucrative business. Orange County Register (16 April). Online at http://www.ocregister.com/health-fitness/features/body/index.shtml. cited in Holland, Suzanne 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 267.
14. Kaushik Sunder, Rajan. 2006. Biocapital: The constitution of post-genomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.
15. Kitcher, Phillip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16. Kleinman, Daniel Lee, and Steven P. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism, and the rise of the "Knowledge Worker": The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society 30: 451-492.
17. Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the private interest. Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
19. Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
20. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1991. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Oxford, UK: Manchester University Press.
21. Mäki, Uskali. 1999. Science as a free market: A reflexivity test in an economics of economics. Perspectives on Science 7: 486-509.
22. Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital: A critique of political economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes, vol. 1. New York: Penguin.
23. McSherry, Corynne. 2001. Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. USA: Harvard University Press.
24. Merton, Robert K. 1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1973.
25. Mirowski, Philip, and Esther Mirjam-Sent. 2002. Introduction. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. Philip Mirowski, and Esther Mirjam Sent, 1-66. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26. Mirowski, Philip, and Robert van Horn. 2005. The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 35: 503-548.
27. Morris, Ian. 1986. Gift and commodity in archaic Greece. Man 21: 1-17.
28. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across Public and Private Sciences at Research One Universities. Research Policy 32: 1081-1104.
29. Pestre, Dominique. 2005. The technosciences between markets, social worries and the political: How to imagine a better future? In The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science and the law, eds. Helga Nowotny, Domique Pestre, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Helmut Schultze-Fielitz, and Hans-Heinrich Trute. Berlin: Springer.
30. Prasad, Amit. 2009. Capitalizing disease: Biopolitics of drug trials in India. Theory, Culture & Society 26: 1-29.
31. Radin, Margaret. 1996. Contested commodities: Trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
32. Rhoten, Diana, and William Powell. 2007. The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 345-373.
33. Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3-23.
34. Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 489-504.
35. Stephan, P. E. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 1199-1235.
36. Thrift, Nigel. 2006. Re-inventing invention: New tendencies in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society 35(2): 279-306.
37. Tinic, Serra A. 1997. United colors and untied meanings: Benetton and the commodification of social issues. Journal of Communication 47: 3-25.
38. Turner, Stephen. 2002. Scientists as agents. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. P. Mirowski, and E. Mirjam Sent, 362-384. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
39. Valentin, Finn, and Rasmus Lund Jensen. 2006. Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 251-276.
40. Walstad, Allan. 2002. On science as a free market. Perspectives on Science 9: 324-330.
41. Weisbrod, Burton, Jeffrey Ballou, and Evelyn Asch. 2008. Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Williams, Colin. 2002. A critical evaluation of the commodification thesis. The Sociological Review 525-542.