nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

08.10.2020 | Original Paper

Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents

verfasst von: Jared L. Peifer, David R. Johnson, Elaine Howard Ecklund

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Is the market civilizing or destructive? The increased salience of science commercialization is forcing scientists to address this question. Benefiting from the sociology of morality literature’s increased attention to specific kinds of morality and engaging with economic sociology’s moral markets literature, we generate competing hypotheses about scientists’ value-driven attitudes toward patenting. The Civilizing Market thesis suggests scientists who prioritize universalism (i.e., concern for the welfare of all people) will tend to support patenting. The Destructive Market thesis, by contrast, suggests universalism will be correlated with opposition to patenting. We analyze survey data from biologists and physicists nested within academic organizations, which are nested within the following regions: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, and the USA. Employing multilevel analysis, we find correlational evidence to support the Destructive Market thesis. Universalism is associated with anti-patenting attitudes, suggesting scientists expect patenting to have deleterious effects on science and society. We end with a discussion of this article’s implications for the moral markets literature, sociology of morality and business ethics.

Vorheriger Artikel New Moralities for New Media? Assessing the Role of Social Media in Acts of Terror and Providing Points of Deliberation for Business Ethics

Nächster Artikel The Morality of “new” CEO Activism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Since the nation-state status of Taiwan and Hong Kong is contested, we will use “region” in place of “country” throughout this article.

It is important to emphasize that in the sociology of science, universalism has traditionally referred to Merton’s norm of universalism (1973). Traditionally, sociologists have emphasized Mertonian universalism as a norm specific to science which asserts that only scientific criteria—rather than social factors such as gender or institutional affiliation—should be used to evaluate contributions to knowledge. While this emphasis gives the impression that a boundary separates scientific objectivity from emotions or values, Daston (1995) argues that moral values are integral to science. Our use of Schwartz’ (2012) universalism, which involves broader concern for societal welfare, thus reflects Daston’s emphasis that values influence scientific practice.

To be sure, patenting incentivizes public disclosure of private information. In exchange for disclosure, inventors receive a temporary monopoly from which they are able to reap economic benefits. In science however, the pursuit of patents can lead to periods of secrecy among scientists, motivated by the fear that a discovery in another lab might preclude one’s claim to intellectual property.

Abend, G. (2007). Two main problems in the sociology of morality. Theory and Society, 37(2), 87–125.

Abend, G. (2010). What's new and what's old about the new sociology of morality. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 561–585). New York, NY: Springer.

Almeling, R. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 319–340.

Anteby, M. (2010). Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 606–638.

Baker, P., Barish, E.B., Elliott, J., Fuller, R.N., Henderson, M.R. & Perilstein, D. (2010). The positive impact of academic innovations on quality of life. Association of University Technology Managers, Inc.

Beckert, J., Hollstein, B., Lehman, E. W., Marsden, D., & Etzioni, A. (2008). Amitai Etzioni twenty years of 'the moral dimension: Toward a new economics'. Socio-Economic Review, 6(1), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwm021.CrossRef

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.

Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., & Wise, D. (1986). Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 231(4735), 242–246.

Bok, D. (2009). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boldrin, M. L. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borman, N., Gottwald, J., Rencher, K., Fiala, K., Hecht, J., Karpe, Y., et al. (2010). The better world report: The positive impact of academic innovations on quality of life. Deerfield, IL: The Association of University Technology Managers.

Bunker Whittington, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender and Society, 22(2), 194–218.

Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a National Survey. JAMA, 287(4), 473–480.

Cook-Deegan, R. M., & McCormack, S. J. (2001). Patents, secrecy, and DNA. Science, 293(5528), 217.

Daston, L. (1995). The moral economy of science. Osiris, 10, 2–24.

Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: Adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420–445.

Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists' perspectives concerning the effects of patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 14–37.

Dioun, C. (2018). Negotiating moral boundaries: Social movements and the strategic (re)definition of the medical in cannabis markets. In F. Briscoe, B. G. King, & J. Leitzinger (Eds.), Social movements, stakeholders and non-market strategy (pp. 53–82). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C.-F., & Lee, F. (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ecklund, E. H., Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., Matthews, K. R. W., & Lewis, S. W. (2016). Religion among scientists in international context: A new study of scientists in eight regions. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664353.CrossRef

Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Etzioni, A. (2003). Toward a New Socio-Economic Paradigm. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 105–134.

Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “Nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.

Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2007). Moral views of market society. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 285–311.

Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. (2009). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what's right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Godlee, F. (2007). Milestones on the long road to knowledge. British Medical Journal, 334(s2), 4584.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Healy, K. (2004). Altruism as an organizational problem: The case of organ procurement. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 387–404.

Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Civilizing, destructive, or feeble? Rival interpretations of market society. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(4), 1463–1484.

Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118–137.

Hitlin, S., & Civettini, N. (2017). The situated durability of values. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 175–198). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 51–68.

Johnson, D. R. (2017). A fractured profession: Commercialism and conflict in science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91.

Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.

Levin, P. (2008). Culture and markets: How economic sociology conceptualizes culture. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619(1), 114–129.

Livne, R. (2014). Economies of dying. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 888–911.

Longest, K. C., Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). Position and disposition: The contextual development of human values. Social Forces, 91(4), 1499–1528. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot045.CrossRef

Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Miles, A. (2015). The (Re)genesis of values. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 680–704.

Miles, A., & Upenieks, L. (2018). An expanded model of the moral self: Beyond care and justice. Social Science Research, 72, 1–19.

National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Oshinksy, D. M. (2005). Polio: An American story. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology of Transfer, 26(1/2), 99–114.

Peifer, J. L., Johnson, D. R., & Ecklund, E. H. (2019). The moral limits of the market: science commercialization and religious traditions. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(1), 183–197.

Persson, B. N., & Kajonius, P. J. (2016). Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(6), 610–619.

Ponizovskiy, V., Grigoryan, L., Kühnen, U., & Boehnke, K. (2019). Social construction of the value–behavior relation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(934), 1–12.

Quinn, S. (2008). The transformation of morals in markets: Death, benefits, and the exchange of life insurance policies. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3), 738–780.

Reich, A. D. (2014). Contradictions in the commodification of hospital care. American Journal of Sociology, 119(6), 1576–1628.

Schilke, O., & Rossman, G. (2018). It’s only wrong if it’s transactional: Moral perceptions of obfuscated exchange. American Sociological Review, 83(6), 1079–1107.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711–728.

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20.

Schwartz, S. H. (2019). Reliability. Retrieved 22 April, 2019, from https://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/4/3.html.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.

Sismondo, S. (2008). How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine, 66(9), 1909–1914.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. L., Johnson, D. R., & Barringer, S. (2014). Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 1–35.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur'squadrant:Basicscienceandtechnologicalinnovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.

Tavory, I. (2011). The question of moral action: A formalist position. Sociological Theory, 29(4), 272–293.

Vaisey, S., & Miles, A. (2014). Tools from moral psychology for measuring personal moral culture. Theory and Society, 43(3–4), 311–332.

Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6(2), 283–311.

Vermeulen, P., Ansari, S., & Lounsbury, M. (2016). Understanding “failed” markets: Dissonance in attempts to price the priceless child? In J. Gehman, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 37–68). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., & Cohen, W. M. (2003). Working through the patent problem. Science, 299(5609), 1021.

Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Yue, L. Q., Wang, J., & Yang, B. (2018). Contesting commercialization: Political influence, responsive authoritarianism, and cultural resistance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–31.

Zelizer, V. (1978). Human values and the market: The case of life insurance and death in 19th-century America. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(3), 591–610.

Zelizer, V. (1981). The price and value of children: The case of children's insurance in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1036–1056.

Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Titel: Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents
verfasst von: Jared L. Peifer
David R. Johnson
Elaine Howard Ecklund
Publikationsdatum: 08.10.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04633-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Opening Constructive Dialogues Between Business Ethics Research and the Sociology of Morality: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium

Adam Smith and Catholic Social Teaching

Constrained Morality in the Professional Work of Corporate Lawyers

The Morality of “new” CEO Activism

From Credit Risk to Social Impact: On the Funding Determinants in Interest-Free Peer-to-Peer Lending

Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach

Premium Partner