Drawing on interviews and observational work with practicing U.K. plant scientists, this article uses Michel Callon's work as a tool to explore the issue of collaboration between academic science and business, in particular, calls by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council for a return to “public good” plant science. In an article titled “Is Science a Public Good?” Callon contributed to the debate about the commercialization of science by suggesting that commercialization and the public good need not be incompatible. Moving away from arguments that center on the effects (positive or negative) of business involvement in science, he suggested that analysts use another model, centered on “diversity.” This model allows us to ask what society might want from science, what public good science might look like, and how public good science can be ensured while also recognizing that science cannot be easily separated from the market.
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.2004. Research agendas work stream: Information summary and analysis paper. London: Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.
2.
Angrist, M., and R.M. Cook-Deegan .2006. Who owns the genome?New Atlantis11 (Winter): 87-96.
3.
Arrow, K.J. [1962] 2002. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, ed. P. Mirowski and E. Mirjam-Sent.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Balmer, B.1996. Managing mapping in the human genome project. Social Studies of Science26 (3): 531-73.
5.
Barry, A., and D. Slater.2002. The technological economy. Special issue , Economy and Society31 (2): 175-306.
6.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., and Pinch T.1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).2004. Review of BBSRC-funded research relevant to crop science. BBSRC report. Wiltshire, UK: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
8.
Blumenthal, D., N. Causino, E. Campbell, and K.S. Louis.1996. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine334 (6): 368-74.
9.
Boseley, S.2006. Concern over cancer group's link to drug firm. The Guardian, November 18, 1-2.
10.
Broothaerts, W., H.J. Mitchell, S. Weir, and L.M. Kaines.2005. Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria. Nature433 (7026): 629-33.
11.
Butler, D., T. Reichhardt, A. Abbot, D. Dickson, and A. Saegusa.1999. Briefing GM crops. Nature398 (6729): 651-56.
12.
Callon, M.1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology, & Human Values19 (4): 395-424.
13.
Callon, M., Law, J., and Rip, A.1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan.
14.
Calvert, J.2004. The idea of "basic research" in language and practice . Minerva42 (3): 251-68.
15.
---. 2006. What's special about basic research? Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (2): 199-220.
16.
Cohen, L., J. McCaulay, and J. Duberly.2001. Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values2 (2): 145-66.
17.
Collingridge, D.1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin's.
18.
Department of Trade and Industry.2004. Creating wealth from knowledge. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
19.
Edgerton, D.1996. Science, technology and the British industrial "decline," 1870-1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff , eds. 1997. Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.
21.
Gibbons, M., H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, S. Cott, and M. Trow.1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
22.
Gibbons, M., and B. Wittrock , eds. 1985. Science as a commodity: Threats to the open community of scholars. Essex, UK: Longman.
23.
Gieryn, T.F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
GM Nation.2003. GM nation?The findings of the public debate. http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_o9/ut_9_6.htm (accessed May 31, 2005).
25.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B. Wynne.2001. Wising up: The public and new technologies. CSEC report. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
26.
Hellström, T., and M. Jacob.2005. Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness: Discourses on science by Swedish strategic research bodies . Science, Technology, & Human Values30 (4): 443-67.
27.
Hmso.1993. Realising our potential: A strategy for science, engineering and technology. Cmnd. 2250. London: HMSO.
HM Treasury Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Department for Education and Skills (DfES).2004. Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014. London: HMSO.
30.
Is the university-industrial complex out of control?2001. Nature409 (6817): 119.
31.
Jacob, M.2003. Rethinking science and commodifying knowledge. Policy Futures in Education1 (1): 125-42.
32.
Kamara, M.W., C. Waterton, J. Taylor, and B. Wynne.2006. Imaginaries of science in UK plant genomics. Working paper, Lancaster University, UK.
33.
Kay, L.1993. The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and the rise of the new biology. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
---. 1998. Problematising basic research in molecular biology. In Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences , ed. A. Thackray, 20-38. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
35.
Kirk, S., and H. Kutchins.1992. The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
36.
Kleinman, D.L.2003. Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
37.
Knorr-Cetina, K.1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
38.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar.1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage .
39.
Mack, J.2004. Can complexity be commercialised? Nature Biotechnology22 (10): 1223-29.
40.
MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J.1985. The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
41.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon.2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Final report of the EU funded PABE research project. FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI). http://cesec.lancs.ac.uk/pabe/docs.htm (accessed January 11, 2008).
42.
Mirowski, P., and E. Mirjam-Sent , eds. 2002. Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Morris, N.2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva38 (1): 425-51.
44.
Nature Briefing.1999. Basic research holds key to weighing risks. Nature398 (22): 652-53.
45.
Nelson, R.R.1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy67 (3): 297-306.
46.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity.
47.
Oldham, P.2004. Global status and trends in intellectual property claims: Genomics, proteomics and biotechnology. CESAGen Series. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
48.
Packer, K., and A. Webster.1996. Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (4): 427-53.
49.
Palladino, P.2002. Plants, patients and the historian: (Re)membering in the age of genetic engineering. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
50.
Polanyi, M. [1958] 1998. Personal knowledge: Towards a post critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
51.
---. 1967. The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor.
52.
Rothschild Report.1971. The organisation and management of government research and development. Cmnd. 4814. London: HMSO.
53.
---. 1972. A framework for government research and development. Cmnd. 5046. London: HMSO.
54.
Royal Society.2003. Keeping science open: The effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science. London: Royal Society.
55.
Sheail, J.1992. Natural Environment Research Council: A history. Swindon, UK: NERC.
56.
Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie.1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
57.
Stehr, N.2004. Biotechnology: Between commerce and civil society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
58.
Stengel, K.2006. Academic-industry collaboration in the plant sciences: Boundary making and its effects. Working paper, Lancaster University, UK.
59.
Stilgoe, J., J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne.2005. The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
60.
Stirling, A.2005. Opening up of closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. Japan Journal for Science, Technology and Society, 14: 63-83.
61.
Thackray, A., ed. 1998. Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
62.
Turner, S.2002. Scientists as agents. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, ed. P. Mirowski and E. Mirjam-Sent, 362-86. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
63.
Webster, A.1989. Privatisation of public sector research: The case of a plant breeding institute. Science and Public Policy16 (4): 224-32.
64.
Ziman, J.2002. The microeconomics of academic science. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, ed. P. Mirowski and E. Mirjam-Sent , 318-40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
