Constructing "Disinterested" academic science: Relational work in university-industry research collaborations

Dina Biscotti; William B. Lacy; Leland L. Glenna; Rick Welsh

doi:10.1177/0032329212441601

Constructing "Disinterested" academic science: Relational work in university-industry research collaborations

Dina Biscotti
, William B. Lacy
, Leland L. Glenna
, Rick Welsh

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

24 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article analyzes how exchange participants in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations manage and create differences between the academy and industry with regard to the open dissemination and commercialization of scientific knowledge. Our focus is on the constitutive relations that define the boundary between academic and commercial science. We identify a particular "relational package" that formalizes and standardizes exchanges of money from industry for privileged access to university research discoveries. Our analysis of academic scientists' justificatory narratives about their patenting decisions challenges the oft-made assertion that academic patenting on its face should be taken as evidence of a blurred institutional boundary between academic and commercial science.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	273-308
Number of pages	36
Journal	Politics and Society
Volume	40
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329212441601
State	Published - Jun 2012

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Sociology and Political Science
Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Political Science and International Relations

Access to Document

10.1177/0032329212441601

Cite this

@article{eed608671d4b422b8ad4e8db24febfb5,

title = "Constructing {"}Disinterested{"} academic science: Relational work in university-industry research collaborations",

abstract = "This article analyzes how exchange participants in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations manage and create differences between the academy and industry with regard to the open dissemination and commercialization of scientific knowledge. Our focus is on the constitutive relations that define the boundary between academic and commercial science. We identify a particular {"}relational package{"} that formalizes and standardizes exchanges of money from industry for privileged access to university research discoveries. Our analysis of academic scientists' justificatory narratives about their patenting decisions challenges the oft-made assertion that academic patenting on its face should be taken as evidence of a blurred institutional boundary between academic and commercial science.",

author = "Dina Biscotti and Lacy, \{William B.\} and Glenna, \{Leland L.\} and Rick Welsh",

note = "Funding Information: Similarly, our interview data reveal that our university respondents typically frame competitive grants from federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as essential for university scientists to do their work. In contrast, our respondents often highlight the flexible nature of industry funding and its ease of use for nonessential expenditures, such as sending graduate students to academic conferences, purchasing new, expensive equipment, or paying for end-of-the- year departmental parties. We argue that this reported earmarking is a way in which academic scientists claim a lack of dependence on research funding from industry. Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program of the United States Department of Agriculture{\textquoteright}s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service under Agreement No. 2001-52100-11217. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ",

year = "2012",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1177/0032329212441601",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "40",

pages = "273--308",

journal = "Politics and Society",

issn = "0032-3292",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Constructing "Disinterested" academic science

T2 - Relational work in university-industry research collaborations

AU - Biscotti, Dina

AU - Lacy, William B.

AU - Glenna, Leland L.

AU - Welsh, Rick

N1 - Funding Information: Similarly, our interview data reveal that our university respondents typically frame competitive grants from federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as essential for university scientists to do their work. In contrast, our respondents often highlight the flexible nature of industry funding and its ease of use for nonessential expenditures, such as sending graduate students to academic conferences, purchasing new, expensive equipment, or paying for end-of-the- year departmental parties. We argue that this reported earmarking is a way in which academic scientists claim a lack of dependence on research funding from industry. Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service under Agreement No. 2001-52100-11217. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - This article analyzes how exchange participants in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations manage and create differences between the academy and industry with regard to the open dissemination and commercialization of scientific knowledge. Our focus is on the constitutive relations that define the boundary between academic and commercial science. We identify a particular "relational package" that formalizes and standardizes exchanges of money from industry for privileged access to university research discoveries. Our analysis of academic scientists' justificatory narratives about their patenting decisions challenges the oft-made assertion that academic patenting on its face should be taken as evidence of a blurred institutional boundary between academic and commercial science.

AB - This article analyzes how exchange participants in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations manage and create differences between the academy and industry with regard to the open dissemination and commercialization of scientific knowledge. Our focus is on the constitutive relations that define the boundary between academic and commercial science. We identify a particular "relational package" that formalizes and standardizes exchanges of money from industry for privileged access to university research discoveries. Our analysis of academic scientists' justificatory narratives about their patenting decisions challenges the oft-made assertion that academic patenting on its face should be taken as evidence of a blurred institutional boundary between academic and commercial science.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84860712366

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84860712366#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1177/0032329212441601

DO - 10.1177/0032329212441601

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84860712366

SN - 0032-3292

VL - 40

SP - 273

EP - 308

JO - Politics and Society

JF - Politics and Society

IS - 2

ER -

Constructing "Disinterested" academic science: Relational work in university-industry research collaborations

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this