
Steven Shapin is Franklin L. Ford Professor of the History of Science at Harvard. His next book will be Never Pure, a collection of his papers on the history and sociology of science.
MORE BY THIS CONTRIBUTOR
RELATED ARTICLES
6 February 2003
Keeping cool
18 December 2008
Buckminster Fuller’s Visions
10 April 2008
Engineers and Architects
17 March 2005
Remembering Susan Sontag
6 May 2004
US policy in Iraq
1 April 2004
What Happened at al-Hilla
4 March 2004
Losing in Las Vegas
RELATED CATEGORIES
Science, technology and mathematics, Design and technology, 2000-present, 2003-2004, Americas, North America, USA, Academia, Intellectual property, Education
Vol. 25 No. 17 · 11 September 2003
pages 15-19 | 5970 words

Ivory Trade
Steven Shapin
- MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science by Henry Etzkowitz
Routledge, 173 pp, £70.00, June 2002, ISBN 0 415 28516 X
- Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialisation of Higher Education by Derek Bok
Princeton, 233 pp, £14.95, April 2003, ISBN 0 691 11412 9
Here is the sort of thing that appals critics of the modern American entrepreneurial university. Members of the physics department invent an electronic gadget that looks like it might be useful in aviation guidance systems. Hearing about the technology, the university’s administration, including a trustee who had been a right-wing Republican President of the United States, takes control of the intellectual property and proceeds to patent it, hoping to generate licensing income for the university, and to cut in one of the inventors for a small slice of the pie. They succeed in interesting a large engineering firm in the technology; an exclusive licence is arranged, and funds begin to flow to the university, including significant sums conditional on the physics department undertaking further work in this area. The administration is delighted with the arrangement, and offers the company privileged access to the department’s personnel and resources. The administration agrees to seek the company’s approval before allowing any of the university’s scientists to publish findings related to the technology. Among the scientists there is a certain amount of grousing about the propriety of this arrangement and its possible effect on their careers: they need to publish to secure their academic reputations. On the other hand, the deal promises a serious expansion of research resources, and, at the beginning of the relationship, there is little angst about such things as ‘academic values’ or a ‘conflict of interests’.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
print this article
Letters
Vol. 25 No. 20 · 23 October 2003
From John Scott
Steven Shapin neglects certain points in his article on the influence of industry and commerce on universities (LRB, 11 September). Fifty years ago research was described as either pure or applied, though Pasteur suggested that applied science was a figment: only applications of science exist. In Canada, these traditional categories have been displaced by 'curiosity-driven' and 'mission-oriented' research. The inflexibility of 'mission-oriented' research is a limiting feature in a university context. Much of the work is likely to result in dead-end routine investigations inadequate for patent applications, publication in refereed journals or inclusion in a thesis, yet a measure of success in these areas is vital to the morale and future of a graduate student. Mission-oriented research mostly requires a frontal attack on a problem, leaving little room for manoeuvre, while doctoral science students require individual problems that can evolve in any direction that is intellectually valid.
Also, using graduate students to pursue industrial problems in a university is a cheap way for parsimonious companies to do research. The cost of establishing laboratories, libraries, offices, workshops and stores, and of hiring people to run these vital services, is avoided. The arrangement means that the industrial sponsor doesn't have to pay for pensions or medical insurance for the scientists and support staff involved – and doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows traditionally expect to earn less than industrial and faculty scientists. In short, applied research conducted in an academic setting is much cheaper than in an industrial setting even when companies partly underwrite the research.
John Scott
St John’s, Canada