Reconsidering Renormalization
- 1 August 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Social Studies of Science
- Vol. 36 (4), 565-597
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706058581
Abstract
Contemporary polemics and scholarship tend to portray post-1980 research universities as exotic, abnormal, or ‘new’ because they embrace private intellectual property. This paper examines this sense of ‘newness’ by comparing two discourses - the university patent policy debates of 1910-39 and the Bayh-Dole debates of 1976-80 - and focuses on the interpretive flexibility of four institutions or tropes: ‘intellectual property’, ‘the university’, ‘the university inventor’, and ‘the public interest’. I argue that ‘intellectual property’ meant roughly the same thing in 1940 and 1980. However, ‘the university’ and ‘the university inventor’ changed subtly to accommodate a dramatic shift in the meaning of ‘the public interest’, which (by 1980) reflected the notion of a nationalized economy and a concern with federal deregulation. This suggests that the ‘newness’ of the contemporary research university has little to do with Merton’s norm of communism.Keywords
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1998
- Knowledge as property: The Massachusetts Institute of technology and the debate over academic patent policyMinerva, 1994
- Profiting from knowledge: Organisational innovations and the evolution of academic normsMinerva, 1991
- The Population Ecology of OrganizationsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1977
- The Kilgore BillScience, 1943
- UNIVERSITY PATENTSScience, 1933
- Patents Are EthicalScience, 1933
- University PatentsScience, 1933
- Should Scientific Discoveries Be Patented?Science, 1932
- Patents and University Research, Austrian War-Time Inventors to be Paid, and moreScientific American, 1932