Abstract
In this chapter, we argue that, in the United States, an academic public good knowledge regime is shifting to an academic capitalist knowledge regime. The public good knowledge regime was characterised by valuing knowledge as a public good to which the citizenry has claims. Mertonian norms — such as communalism, universality, the free flow of knowledge and organised scepticism — were associated with the public good model. The public service regime paid heed to academic freedom, which honoured professors’ rights to follow research where it led, and gave professors the right to dispose of discoveries as they saw fit (Merton 1942). The cornerstone of the public good knowledge regime was basic science that led to the discovery of new knowledge within the academic disciplines, serendipitously leading to public benefits. Mertonian values are often associated with the Vannevar Bush model, in which basic science that pushes back the frontiers of knowledge was necessarily performed in universities (Bush 1945). The discoveries of basic science always preceded development. Development occurred in federal laboratories and sometimes in corporations. It often involved building and testing costly prototypes. Application followed development and almost always took place in corporations. The public good model assumed a relatively strong separation between public sector and private sector.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
American Association of University Professors. The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2001-02. 2002, http://www.aaup.org/surveys/02z/z02rep.htm.
Association of University Technology Managers. FY 2000 Annual AUTM Licensing Survey. 1999, http://www.autm.net/survevs/99/survey99A.pdf.
Baez, B. and S. Slaughter. “Academic Freedom and Federal Courts in the 1990s: The Legitimation of the Conservative Entrepreneurial State.” In Smart, J. and W. Tierney (eds). Handbook of Theory and Research in Higher Education. Bronx, NY: Agathon Press, 2001, 73–118.
Bollier, D. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Branscomb, L. “From Technology Politics to Technology Policy.” Issues in Science and Technology 13 Spring (1997): 41–48.
Branscomb, L., R. Florida, D. Hart, J. Keller and D. Boville. Investing in Innovation, Toward a Consensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy. Cambridge: Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, 1997.
Bush, V. Science-The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990 (1945).
Callon, M. “The Sociology of an Actor-network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle.” In Callon, Michael, John Law and Arie Rip (eds). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1986, 19–34.
Chew, P.K. “Faculty-generated Invention: Who Owns the Golden Egg?” Wisconsin Law Review 259 (1992).
Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle Almanac 2002-03: California. 30 August 2002.
Clarke, A.E. and J.H. Fujimura (eds). The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth Century Life Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Council on Competitiveness. Endless Frontier, Limited Resources: U.S. R&D Policy for Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, 1996.
Council on Governmental Relations. A Tutorial on Technology Transfer in US Colleges and Universities. 1999, http://www.cogr.edu/techtransfertutorial.htm.
Dasgupta, P. and P. David. “Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology.” In Feiwel, G. (ed.). Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York: New York University Press, 1987, 519–542.
Eisinger, P.K. The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State: State and Local Economic Development Policy in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster and P. Healey. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Interactions of Industry and Academia. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
Feldman, M., I. Feller, J. Bercovitz and R. Burton. “Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities.” Management Science 48.1 (2002): 105–121.
Feller, I., C.P. Ailes and J.D. Roessner. “Impacts of Research Universities on Technological Innovation in Industry: Evidence From Engineering Research Centers.” Research Policy 31.3 (2002): 457–475.
Foreman, P. “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as a Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960 (Part 1).” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18 (1987): 149–229.
Heller, M.A. and R.S. Eisenberg. “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research.” Science 5364 (1998): 698–701.
Isserman, A.M. “State Economic Development Policy and Practice in the United States: A Survey Article.” International Regional Science Review 16.1/2 (1994): 49–100.
Kleinman, D.L. “Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World.” Science, Technology and Human Values 23.3 (1998): 285–314.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage, 197
Law, J. and M. Callon. “The Life and Death of an Aircraft: A Network Analysis of Technological Change.” In Bijker, Wiebe and John Law (eds). Shaping Technology, Building Society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1992, 21–52.
Leslie, S. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia, 1993.
Merton, R.K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973 (1942).
Mowery, D.C. and A.A. Ziedonis. “Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States.” Research Policy 31 (2002): 399–418.
Mulcahy, D. “(Actor-net) Working Bodies and Representations: Tales From a Training Field.” Science, Technology and Human Values 2A.1 (1999): 80–104.
Noble, D.F. America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. New York: Knopf, 1976.
Rhoades, G. Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
Schmidt, P. “States Push Public Universities to Commercialize Research.” Chronicle of Higher Education. 29 March 2002, A26–27.
Science, Technology and Human Values. Special Issue on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. 26.4 (2001).
Slaughter, S. and L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades. “The Emergence of a Competitiveness Research and Development Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology.” Science, Technology and Human Values 21.3 (1996): 303–339.
Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades. More Academic Capitalism: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming.
Soley, L. Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia. Boston: South End Press, 1995.
State of California. The State of California Political Reform Act of 1974. 1974.
Stokes, D. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997.
University of California. University of California Patent Policy. 1985, http://www.ucop.edu/ott/patentpolicy/patentp1.html.
University of California. University Guidelines on University-Industry Relations. 1989, http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/.html.url
University of California. Revision of the University of California Patent Policy. 1990a.
University of California. University Policy on Integrity in Research. 1990b, http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/S1.html.
University of California. University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership. 1992, http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/copyr.html.
University of California. Policy on Accepting Equity When Licensing University Technology. 1996, http://www.ucop.edu/ott/equi-pol.html.
University of California. University of California Patent Policy. 1997a, http://www.ucop.edu/ott/patentpolicy/patentpo.htm#pol.
University of California. Summary of Changes to the Patent Policy. 1997b.
University of California. Business and Finance Bulletin G-44 on Accepting Equity. 2002, http://patron.ucop.edu/ottmemos/docs/ott02-01.html .
University of Texas System. The University of Texas System History of Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations and Other Policies on Intellectual Property Rules, 1985-Present. 1985, http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/htellectualproperty/contract/IPhistory.htm.
University of Texas System. The University of Texas System History of Board of Regents ‘Rules and Regulations and Other Policies on Intellectual Property Rules, 1985-Present. 1987, http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/contract/iphist-rr3.htm.
University of Texas System. The University of Texas System History of Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations and Other Policies on Intellectual Property Rules, 1985-Present. 1992, http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/contract/iphist-rr7.htm.
University of Texas System. Regents’ Rules and Regulations. Part Two, Chapter XII, Intellectual Property. 2002, http://www.utstyem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/2xii.htm
University of Texas at Austin. Original Handbook of Operating Procedures. 2002, http://www.utexas.edu/policies/hoppm/h0511.html.
University of Utah. Patent, Inventions and Copyrights Policy. 1970.
University of Utah. Patents and Inventions (Policy #6-4). 1999, http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/6/6-4.html.
Veblen, T. The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men. New York: Viking Press, 1935.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2003). Contested Intellectual Property: The Role of the Institution in United States Higher Education. In: Amaral, A., Meek, V.L., Larsen, I.M. (eds) The Higher Education Managerial Revolution?. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0072-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0072-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1586-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0072-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive