William B. Lacy

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS, AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ACADEMIC CAPITALISM: Defining the Public Good to Promote University–Industry Relationships

The theory of academic capitalism explains how federal, state, and university policies and people have expanded university–industry relationships (UIRs) and the commercialization of knowledge. These changes represent a profound shift in the way university research is expected to contribute to the public good. Because university administrators are responsible for creating organizational policies and infrastructures that are consistent with their organizational mission and with federal and state laws, it is critical to analyze how university administrators assess UIRs in relation to public-interest scientific research. Our in-depth interviews at six prominent land-grant universities with 59 key administrators having oversight responsibilities for agricultural biotechnology research programs and UIRs reveal how administrators justify their role in promoting UIRs. They tend to interpret their universitys mission to contribute to the public good in a way that is conducive to encouraging UIRs and to commercializing research discoveries. Their rationale emerges within a context of having to justify their budgets to state governments.

Industry Perceptions of University-Industry Relationships Related to Agricultural Biotechnology Research*

Following a rise in university-industry relationships (UIRs), scholars began questioning the efficacy of those relationships, as well as whether industry and university research interests and integrity are being compromised. Although many of these studies focus on the university, few examine the perspectives of industry participants. We conducted intensive interviews with 63 managers and scientists at agricultural biotechnology companies involved in UIRs related to agricultural biotechnology. Our analysis of their comments reveals nuanced critical perspectives of UIRs and creative ideas for reforming policies and practices. Industry representatives listed many advantages of UIRs, but some also expressed an interest in reforming policies to preserve a public-interest emphasis for university research. We conclude by considering the structural relationships that may explain the industry representatives critical evaluations and by identifying policy implications.

The Two Cultures of Science: Implications for University-Industry Relationships in the U.S. Agriculture Biotechnology

Partnerships between U.S. universities and industries have existed for several decades and in recent years have become generally more varied, wider in scope, more aggressive and experimental and higher in public visibility. In addition, in the last few decades, public and private interests have advocated for government policies and laws to globally promote the commercialization of university science. This paper examines the persistence or convergence of the two cultures of science and the implications of this commercialization for university-industry relationships in agriculture biotechnology. The perceptions and values of over 200 U.S. university and industry scientists, managers and administrators who participate in or oversee research collaborations in agricultural biotechnology were analyzed. The findings revealed that the participants in these research relationships continue to perceive very distinct cultures of science and identify a wide range of concerns and disadvantages of these partnerships. Several actions were discussed to ensure that the two cultures serve complementary roles and that they maximize the public benefits from these increasing collaborations.

Agricultural Biotechnology, Socioeconomic Issues, and the Fourth Criterion

Introduction n n n n nThe Fourth Criterion n n n n nFarmers, Rural Communities, and the Food System n n n n nAgribusiness and Industry n n n n nConsumers n n n n nScience and Technology Transfer n n n n nDeveloping Countries and the Global Economy n n n n nStrategies for Incorporating the Fourth Criterion n n n n n nKeywords: n nagricultural biotechnology

Constructing “Disinterested” Academic Science Relational Work in University–Industry Research Collaborations

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.

The “independent” investigator: how academic scientists construct their professional identity in university–industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations

Purpose – University–industry relationships raise concerns about the influence of commercial interests on academic science. In this paper, we investigate how academic scientists who collaborate with industry understand their professional identity in relation to their research money and the notion of scientific “independence.” n nDesign/Methodology/Approach – We conducted in-depth interviews with 84 scientists and 65 administrators from 9 U.S. universities. The scientists do research in the field of agricultural biotechnology and collaborate with industry. The administrators have oversight responsibility for academic research, university–industry collaborations, and technology transfer. n nFindings – We find that our respondents are wary of industry funding but believe that it has an appropriate place in academic research. Typically, industry money is treated either as seed money for preliminary research or as flexible funding that supplements the core, essential competitive grants academic scientists obtain from public agencies. We find that academic scientists talk about the mix of public and private funds in their research funding portfolios in ways that aim to construct an “independent” investigator professional identity. n nOriginality/Value – Our study is a case of how money is inscribed with meanings in institutional settings. It contributes to scholarship in economic sociology of work by revealing how money is used by academic scientists to signal their alignment with institutionally sanctioned professional norms and by administrators to evaluate scientists work.