Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Privatisierung von Wissenschaft?

  • Chapter
Wissenschaft in der Wissensgesellschaft

Zusammenfassung

Das Konzept der Wissensgesellschaft reflektiert nicht zuletzt die zunehmende Abhängigkeit der Gesellschaft von Wissenschaft. Das im Wissenschaftssystem produzierte Wissen und die Praktiken der Erzeugung solchen Wissens (Forschung) migrieren in immer mehr soziale Kontexte (Böhme and Stehr 1986: 8; Stehr 1994: 5–17). Diese Migrationen erfordern allerdings, dass Forschung und Forschungsergebnisse mit den anderen Kontexten kompatible Formen annehmen. Das geschieht gegenwärtig unter anderem dadurch, dass Forschungsprozesse als Dienstleistungen gehandelt oder Forschungsergebnisse in Waren verwandelt werden, d.h. durch eine Kommerzialisierung von Wissenschaft. Kommerzialisierung von Forschung und wissenschaftlichem Wissen — ihre Einordnung in Prozesse ökonomischer Verwertung — setzt Privatisierung voraus: Ein Akteur muss die Kontrolle über Forschungsprozesse oder wissenschaftliches Wissen erlangen, d.h. andere vom Zugang zu Wissen oder von der Nutzung des Wissens ausschließen können.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Agrawal, Ajay/ Henderson, Rebecca(2002): Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. In: Management Science 48.44–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Agres, Ted(2002): Euros for Discoveries? European scientists follow their US counterparts to the market. In: The Scientist 16.42

    Google Scholar 

  • Amann, Klaus/ Hirschauer, Stefan/ Kranz, Harald/ Lachmund, Jens/ Philipps, Wilfried/ Weingart, Peter(1985): Kommerzialisierung der Grundlagenforschung: Das Beispiel Biotechnologie. Bielefeld: Kleine-Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, Ashish/ Gambardella, Alfonso(1994): The Changing Technology of TechnologicalChange — General and Abstract Knowledge and the Division of Innovative Labor. In: Research Policy 23. 523–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barinaga, Marcia(1989): The Missing Crystallography Data. In: Science 245. 1179–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, Charles(1988): Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, Gernot(1974): Die soziale Bedeutung kognitiver Strukturen: Ein handlungstheoretisches Konzept der Scientific Community. In: Soziale Welt 25. 188–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, Gernot/ Stehr, Nico(1986): The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations. In: Gernot Böhme/ Nico Stehr(eds.): The Knowledge Society: The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations. Dordrecht: Reidel. 7–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradach, Jeffrey L./ Eccles, Robert G. (1989): Price, Authority and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms. In: Annual Review of Sociology 15. 97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, Peg(2002): A Scrap over Sequences, Take Two. In: The Scientist 16: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/may/prof020513.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Burk, Dan L. (1994): Misappropriation of trade secrets in biotechnology licensing. In: Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 4. 121–154 Buss, Klaus-Peter/ Wittke, Volker (2001): Wissen als Ware — Überlegungen zum Wandel der Modi gesellschaflticher Wissensproduktion am Beispiel der Biotechnologie. In: Bender, Gerd (Hrsg.): Neue Formen der Wissenserzeugung. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. 123–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambrosio, Alberto/ Keating, Peter (1988): „Going Monoclonal“: Art, Science, and Magic in the Day-to-Day use of Hybridoma Technology. In: Social Problems 35: 244–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Eric G./ Clarridge, Brian R./ Gokhale, Manjusha/ Birenbaum, Lauren(2002): Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. In: The Journal of the American Medical Association 287.473–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Philip(2001): Declaration of financial interests: Introducing a new policy for authors of research papers in Nature and Nature Journals. In: Nature 412. 751

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Jon(1995): Share and share alike isn’t always the rule in science; many researchers fail to share materials. In: Science 268. 1715–1718

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen(1983): The Hierarchy of the Sciences? In: American Journal of Sociology 89. 111–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Coriat, Benjamin/ Orsi, Fabienne(2002): Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content and problems. In: Research Policy 31. 14911507

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyranoski, David(2002): Japanese forum urges rethink over patents. In: Nature 415. 354

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, Partha/ David, Paul A. (1994): Toward a new economics of science. In: Research Policy 23. 487–521

    Google Scholar 

  • David, Paul A. (1998): Communication norms and the collective cognitive performance of „invisible colleges“. In: Barba Navaretti, G./ Dasgupta, P./ Mäler, K.-G./ Siniscalco, D. (eds.): Creation and Transfer of Knowledge. Institutions and Incentives. Berlin: SpringerVerlag. 115–163

    Google Scholar 

  • David, Paul A. (2000): A Tragedy of the Public Knowledge `Commons’? Global Science, Intellectual Property and the Digital Technology Boomerang. Manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca(1989r): Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use. University of Chicago Law Review 56. 1017–1086

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca(1994): A Technological Policy Perspective on the NIH Gene Patenting Controversy. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 55. 633–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca(1997): Patenting Research Tools and the Law. In: National Research Council (ed.): Intellectual Property Rights and the Dissemination of Research Tools in Molecular Biology: Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences, February 15–16, 1996. Washington: National Academy Press. 6–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca(2001): Bargaining Over the Transfer of Proprietary Research Tools: Is this Market Failing or Emerging? Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper/ Zimmermann, Diane Leenheer/ First, Harry(eds.): Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 223–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry(1994): Knowledge as Property: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Debate over Academic Patent Policy. In: Minerva 32. 383–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry/ Stevens, Ashley J. (1998): Inching Toward Industrial Policy: The University’s Role in Government Initiatives to Assist Small, Innovative Companies in the United States. In: Etzkowitz, Henry/ Webster, Andrew/ Healey, Peter(eds.): Capitalizing Knowledge. New Intersections of Industry and Academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 215–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, Ludwik(1935): Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen(2000): Limits of change: cognitive constraints on „postmodernization“ and the political redirection of science. In: Social Science Information 39.439–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen(2001a): Producing Communities’ as a Theoretical Challenge. Paper presented at the TASA 2001 Conference, Sydney, Australia, Dec 13–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen(2001b): Scientific specialties as the (currently missing) link between scientometrics and the sociology of science. In: Davis, Mari/ Wilson, Concepciôn S. (eds.): Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics. Sydney, Australia, July 16–20th: BIRG, UNSW. 191–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, Warren O. (1965): The Scientific Community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, B. (1992): On Gene Patenting. In: New England Journal of Medicine 327. 664–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Michael A./ Eisenberg, Rebecca S. (1998): Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. In: Science 280. 698–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Rebecca/ Jaffe, Adam B./ Trajtenberg, Manuel(1998): University Patenting amid changing Incentives for Commercialization. In: Barba Navaretti, G./ Dasgupta, P./ Mäler, K.-G./ Siniscalco, D. (eds.): Creation and Transfer of Knowledge. Institutions and Incentives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 87–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Diana(1995): Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge. In: Industrial and Corporate Change 4. 401424

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, Stephen(1997): Access to Data and Intellectual Property: Scientific Exchange in Genome Research. In: National Research Council (ed.): Intellectual Property Rights and the Dissemination of Research Tools in Molecular Biology: Summary of a Workshop held at the National Academy of Sciences, February 15–16, 1996. Washington: National Academy Press. 28–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, Stephen(1998): Data Access Policy in Genome Research. In: Thakray, Arnold(ed.), Private Science — Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 202–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, Eric von (1987): Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. In: Research Policy 16. 291–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Richard/ Thursby, Mary(2001): Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. In: The American Economic Review 91. 240–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp, J. P. (1991): Experimental Use as Patent Infringement — the Impropriety of a Broad Exception. In: Yale Law Journal 100. 2169–2188

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevles, Daniel J. (1998): Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Beyond: The Political Economy of Patenting Life. In: Thakray, Arnold(ed.): Private Science — Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiley, Thomas D. (1992): Patents on Random Complementary-DNA Fragments. In: Science 257. 915–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin(1984): Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin/ Mulkay, Michael(1983): Introduction: Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science. In: Knorr-Cetina, Karin/ Mulkay, Michael(eds.): Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London: SAGE. 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, Kristian/ Schultz, Maiken(1993): Informal Collaboration in Research-andDevelopment: The Formation of Networks across Organizations. In: Organization Studies 14. 189–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas(1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas(1972): Postskript-1969 zur Analyse der Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. In: Weingart, Peter(Hrsg.): Wissenschaftssoziologie I. Wissenschaftliche Entwicklung als sozialer Prozeß. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum Fischer. 287–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. (1977a): Preface. In: Kuhn, Thomas S. (ed.): The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. IX-XXIII

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. (1977b): Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In: Suppe, Frederick(ed.): The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 459–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno/ Woolgar, Steve[1979] (1986): Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, Michael(1985): Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, Michael/ Keating, Peter/ Cambrosio, Alberto(1990): Patents and Free Scientific Information: Making Monoclonal Antibodies Property. In: Science, Technology and Human Values 15. 65–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Eliot(1997): Snipping Away at Genome Patenting. In: Science 277. 1752–1753

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, Robert P. (1996): Property rights theory and the commons: the case of scientific research. In: Frankel, Ellen/ Miller, PaulFred D. Jr./ Paul, Jeffrey(eds.): Scientific Innovation, Philosophy, and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 145–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. [1942] (1972): Wissenschaft und demokratische Sozialstruktur. In: Weingart, Peter(Hrsg.): Wissenschaftssoziologie I. Wissenschaftliche Entwicklung als sozialer Prozeß. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum Fischer. 45–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. [1942] (1973): The Normative Structure of Science. In: Merton, Robert K. (ed.): The Sociology of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 267–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz, Jon F./ Kriss, Antigone G./ Leonard, Debra G. B./ Cho, Mildred K. (2002): Diagnostic testing fails the test. In: Nature 415. 577–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, Michael(1974): Einige Aspekte kulturellen Wachstums in den Naturwissenschaften. In: Weingart, Peter(Hrsg.): Wissenschaftssoziologie II. Determinanten wissenschaftlicher Entwicklung. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. 76–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, Greg(1990): Writing Biology: Texts and The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature(2001): US universities body backs tighter rules on conflict of interests. In: Nature 413. 558

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen, Lita(1998): The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University. In: Science 279. 1460–1461

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. (1959): The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. In: The Journal of Political Economy 67. 297–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, Kathryn/ Webster, Andrew(1996): Patenting Culture in Science: Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility. In: Science, Technology & Human Values 21. 427–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, Keith(2000): Why European Union Funding of Academic Research Should be Increased: A Radical Proposal. In: Science and Public Policy 27.455–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael(1962): The Republic of Science. In: Shils, Edward(ed.): Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai, Arti Kaur (1999): Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science. In: Northwestern University Law Review 94. 77–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, Brian/ Webster, Andrew(1997): Regimes of Ordering: The Commerzialization of Intellectual Property in Industrial-Academic Collaborations. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9. 115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J. H. (1989): Computer Programs As Applied Scientific Know-How: Implications of Copyright Protection for Commercialized University Research. In: Vanderbilt Law Review 42. 639–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Nathan(1990): Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? In: Research Policy 19. 165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, Pamela(1990): Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions. In: Emory Law Journal 39. 1025–1154

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997): Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, Uwe(1988) Gesellschaftliche Teilsysteme als Akteurfiktionen. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 40. 619–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Science(1994): A showdown over gene fragments. In: Science 266. 208–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1995): Here and Everywhere — Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. In: Annual Review of Sociology 21. 289–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Adam(2002): Life beyond the walls. In: Nature (Naturejobs) 415. 7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, Nico(1994): Knowledge Societies. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer, Norman W. (1966): The Social System of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard(1994): Markets as Social Structures. In: Smelser, Neil J./ Swedberg, Richard(eds.): The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 255–282

    Google Scholar 

  • UBMTA(1995): The Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement. http://www.autm.net/UBMTA/master.html: Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Susan(2002): Lawmakers Curbs to Patent Power. In: The Scientist 16. 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max[1922] (1947): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard D. (1972): Black Boxism and the Sociology of Science: A Discussion of the Major Developments in the Field. In: Halmos, Paul(ed.): The Sociology of Science (Sociological Review Monograph 18). Keele: University of Keele. 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenthal, Helmut(2000): Markt, Organisation und Gemeinschaft als „zweitbeste“ Verfahren sozialer Koordination. In: Werle, Raymund/ Schimank, Uwe(Hrsg.): Gesellschaftliche Komplexität und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. 44–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, Steve(1982): Laboratory Studies: A Comment on the State of the Art. In: Social Studies of Science 12. 481–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuethrich, Bernice(1993): All Rights Reserved: How the gene-patenting race is affecting science. In: Science News 144. 154–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, John(2002): Real Science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jochen Gläser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Stefan Böschen Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gläser, J. (2003). Privatisierung von Wissenschaft?. In: Böschen, S., Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds) Wissenschaft in der Wissensgesellschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07783-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07783-1_3

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-13996-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-663-07783-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation