Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:51:19.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governing Sincience: Patents and Public Sector Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Brad Sherman
Brad Sherman
Affiliation:
Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge and Department of Law, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

while reconizing that public sector research has long been managed by a wide variety of practices and techniques, this paper concentrates on the increasingly important role that patents are playing in the management and regulation of public sector research. It argues that as a specific form of technology, patents play a significant and growing role in facilitating the management of the scientific object and can also be seen as a particular instance of governmentality. More specifically, it argues that patents have had an important impact on the culture and political ecomomy of science. In this sence patents can be seen not only as a legal regime that provides limited property rights over technical information but also as a sophisticated tool of discipline and control that is used to regulate and manage public sector research. The paper suggests that with the increasing use of patents as a means of governing science, we are witnessing the growing juridification of science, the intervention of the law into an arena it hitherto largely ignored.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1994, pp. 515 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Apple, Rima D. 1989. “Patenting University Research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation”. ISIS 80:375–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baggott, Jim. 1993. “Quantum Leap for the Market Formula.” THES 21 12, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
Bell, Elizabeth.n.d. “Some Current Issue in Technology Transfer and Academic industry Relations—A Review paper.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bell, Elizabeth, Davic, R. Kingham and Annel, Powell. 1992. “Technology Audit: Methodology and Case Example.” Paper presented at Technology Transfer and Implementation Conference, 6–8 July.Google Scholar
Benn, Stanley, and Richard, Peters 1959. Social Principles and the Democratic state. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bently, Lionel. 1992 “Imitations and Immorality: The Onco Mouse Decision.” Kings college law Journal 3:145.Google Scholar
Berg, Maxine, ed. 1979. Technology and Toil in Nineteenth Century Britain. London: CSE Books.Google Scholar
Bok, Derek. 1982. Beyound the Ivory Tower. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornemann, Stephen. 1994 “The Research Student and Coping with Confidentiality: A Pilot Survey.” paper Presentedat “The Role ofIPR in the Innovation Environment:An evaluation of Socio-Economic and Legal Issues.” 23–24 03 1994.Google Scholar
Broad, William, and Nicholas, Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Phyllida. 1992. “Call for ‘Treaty’ on Human Gene Patents.” New Scientist, 9 05, p. 5.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office. 1992. Intellectual Property in the public Sector Research Base. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Cabinet office. 1993. Annual Review of UK research and Development. London: HMSO. Cambridge Univercity Reporter. 1987 p 441.Google Scholar
Cabinet office. 1993. “Report of the General Board of the Wolfson Cambridge Industrial Unit”. Pp. 1003–7.Google Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, and Peter, Keating. 1988. “The Commercial Application of a Scientfic DIscovery: The Case of the Hybridgedom Techinque.” Research Policy 17:155.Google Scholar
Charles, Dan and Andy, Coghlan. 1992. “Ministes Move to Limit Genome Patents.” New Sciengst, 14 05, P. 9.Google Scholar
Cooper, Carolyn C. 1991. “Making Invengions Patent.” Technology and Culture, pp 837–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper Report. 1998. Intellectual Propert Rights in collborative R & D ventures with Higher Education Institutes DTI paper. “Copyright Scam.” 1993. Nature, 8 04, p 489.Google Scholar
Dickson, David. 1993a. “Britiam Rediscovers Industry-Academia LINKs”. Nature 22 04, p 687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, David. 1993b. “SERC Broadens Its Role in Suppost of Industry”. Nature, 1 04, p 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DTI. 1992a. Auditing Research in Higher Education Institutions: A Guide to Best Practice London: DTI.Google Scholar
DTI. 1992b. Innovation: Support for Technologt Audit. London: DTI.Google Scholar
Durant, john. 1992. “Introduction.” In Biotechnology in public A review of Recent research, edited by John, Durant, 13. London: Scince museum.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1987 “Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research”. Yale law journal 97 (2): 177–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, Revecca S. 1988. “Academic Freedom and Academic Values in Sponsored Research.” Texas Law Review 67:1363–1404.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1979. “What Is an Authour.” In Testual Strategies, edited by Harari, J., 141. Ithata, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. [1979] 1991. “On Governmentality”. The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Graham, Burchell, Colin, Gordon and Peter, Miller. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Originally published in Ideology and consciousness 6:5–22.Google Scholar
Gluck, M. E., Blumenthal, D., and Stoto, M. A.. 1987 “University-Industry Relationships in the Life-Sciences: Implications for Students and Post-Doctoral Fellows.” Research policy 16:327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Translated by Burger, T. Cambridge: Polity press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1986. “Making Up People”. In Reconstructing Incividualism, edited by Heller, T. C.. stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutter, Michael, and Gunther, Teubner. “The Fast Plunder of Society Homo iuridicus and homo oeconomicus as Communication-Sustaining Fictions.” Unpublished paper. London school of Economics.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1993. “Flavr [sic] of the Month.” London Review of Books, 15 10 pp. 16, 21.Google Scholar
Kenney, M.. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Klaffke, Oliver. 1993. “Swiss Do Well on Patents but Demand Results.” Nature, 25 05, p. 281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kloppenburg, Jack. 1988. First the Seed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. “Visualisation and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Socilogy of Culture, Past and Present 6:1–40.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve, Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction Scientific Facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
“Law of Literary Property and Patents”. 1829. Westiminster Review 10:444–48.Google Scholar
Levidow, Les, and Kevin, Robins. 1989. Cyborg Worlds: The Military information Society. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
Lewin, Roger. 1992. “Pressure to Publish Leads to Increase in Fraud.” New Scientist 4 04, p. 7.Google Scholar
Lion Laboratories v, Evans. 1985. Queens Bench 526, Court of Appeal.Google Scholar
Colin, Macilwain. 1993. “OTA Panel Opens Inquiry into Patenting of Genes.” Nature, 1 04, p. 386.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Michael, Alberto, Cambrosio, and Peter, Keating. 1988. “The Commercial Applicaton of a Scientific Discovery: The Case of the Hybridoma Techmique.” Research Policy 17:155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Michael, Peter, Keating, and Alberto, Cambrosio. 1990. “Patents and Free Scientific Information in Biotechnology: Making Monoclanal Anitbodies Proprietary.”. Science, Technology and Human Values 15:65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markle, Gerld E., and Stanley, S.Robin. 1985. “Biotechnology and The Social Reconstruction of Molecular Bilogy.” Science, Technology and Human Values 10:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Doreen, Paul, Quintas, and David, Wield. 1992. High Tech Fantasies: Science parks in society Space and Time London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In his The Sociology of Science Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Peter. 1992. “Accounting and Objectivity: The Invention of Calculating Selves and Calculable Space.” Annals of Scholarship 9:61–86.Google Scholar
Miller, Pter, and Nikolas, Rose. 1990. “Governing Economic Life.” Economy and Society 19:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, v. 1988a. Regents of the University of calfornia. 249 Calfornian Reporter 494.Google Scholar
Moore, v. 1988a. Regents of the University of calfornia. 271 Calfornian Reporter 146.Google Scholar
National Health Service 1993. Proposal for Intellectual Property Handling and Technology Transfer in the National Health Service London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Noble, Davi.F. 1977. America by Design:Science, Technology and the Rise of corporate Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Onco-mouse, , 1989. Examing Division [1989] Board of Appeal [1990] EPOR 501; Examinign Division [1991] EPOR 525.Google Scholar
“Patent Power.” 1992. New Scienist 31 03, P. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Nikolas, and Peter, Miller. 1992 “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” British Journal of Sociology 43:173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University Directors of industrial Liaison. 1988. The Report of University Directors of Industrial Liaison(s). London.Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1989. Its management and commerical Exploitation. University Directors of Industrial Liaison. London.Google Scholar
University Funding Council (UFC). 1992a. Research Assessment Exerise 1992. UFC Circular 5/92. 03.Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1992b. Research Assessment Exerise. 1992: The Outcome. UFC Circular 26/92. 12.Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1993. A Report for the Universities funding Council on the conduct of the. 1992 Research Assessment Exercise. 06.Google Scholar
Congress, U. S., House Committee on Scinece and Techology. 1981. Fraud in Biomedical Research: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. 97th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
Weil, Vivian. 1988. “Policy Incentives and Constraints on Scientific Information.” Science, Technology and Human ValuesM 13:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Charles. 1986. “Universities, Professors and Patents: A Continuing Controversy.” Technology Review, Feb./March, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
White paper. 1993. Realising Our Potential; A Strategy fof Scieence, Engineering and Technology. Cm. 2250. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
WIlkie, Tom. 1993. Perilous Knowledge; The Human Genome Project and Its Implications. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Yoxen, Edward J. 1985. The Gene Business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar