Commercializing science: nineteenth- and twentieth-century academic scientists as consultants, patentees, and entrepreneurs

Abstract

The collection of essays introduced in this article contributes to the debate on the commercialization of academic science by shifting the focus from institutional developments meant to foster university technology transfer to the actions of individual scientists. Instead of searching for the origins of the ‘entrepreneurial university,’ this special issue examines the personal involvement of academic physicists, engineers, photographic scientists, and molecular biologists in three types of commercial activity: consulting, patenting, and full-blown business entrepreneurship. The authors investigate how this diverse group of teachers and researchers perceived their institutional and professional environments, their career prospects, the commercial value of their knowledge and reputation, and their ability to exploit these assets. By documenting academic scientists’ response to market opportunities, the articles suggest that, already in the decades around 1900, commercial work was widespread and, in some cases, integral to academics’ teaching and research activity.

Keywords:

• Science commercialization
• regimes of knowledge production and diffusion
• academic entrepreneurship
• academic consulting
• academic patenting

Acknowledgements

This special issue builds on the conference ‘Academic entrepreneurship in history,’ held in Ghent, Belgium, on 12–13 March 2015. We wish to thank Kenneth Bertrams, Matteo Serafini, Eric Vanhaute, and Christophe Verbruggen for their help in organizing the event, and all conference participants for the stimulating discussions. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee for the valuable comments and to Martin Collins for his generous assistance and encouragement.

Notes

1. E.g. Berman, “Not Just Neoliberalism”; Bud, “From Applied Microbiology to Biotechnology”; Mody, The Long Arm of Moore’s Law; Mok, The Quest for Entrepreneurial Universities in East Asia.

2. Contributions that also cover nineteenth-century developments include Carlsson et al., “Knowledge Creation”; Kargon and Knowles, “Knowledge for Use”; Rosenberg and Steinmueller, “Engineering Knowledge.”

3. Clark, Academic Charisma; Wakefield, The Disordered Police State, chapter 3.

4. Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge; Gibbons, “Higher Education Relevance”; Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science; Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons. “Mode 2 Revisited.”

5. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, “The Triple Helix-University-Industry-Government Relations”; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, “Emergence of a Triple Helix”; and numerous subsequent publications.

6. Pestre, “Production of Knowledge”; Pestre, “Regimes of Knowledge Production”; Marcovich and Shinn, “Regimes of Science Production and Diffusion.”

7. Marcovich and Shinn, “Regimes of Science Production and Diffusion,” 35.

8. Mirowski, Science-Mart, 91.

9. Mirowski, Science-Mart. On the privatization regime, see also, for instance, Berman, Creating the Market University; and Mowery et al., Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation.

10. E.g. Greenberg, Science for Sale.

11. Shapin, “Ivory Trade,” 19; see also Shapin, The Scientific Life and “Ivory Tower.”

12. E.g. Shane, Academic Entrepreneurship, chapter 3.

13. E.g. Andersen, Bek-Thomsen, and Kjærgaard, eds., ‘Focus: Follow the Money’.

14. E.g. Louis et al., “Entrepreneurs in Academe”; Perkmann et al., “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation.”

15. E.g. Fox and Guagnini, Laboratories, Workshops and Sites; Cahan, An Institute for an Empire.

16. E.g. Kargon, Science in Victorian Manchester.

17. For France, see, e.g. Paul, From Knowledge to Power; Nye, Science in the Provinces. For Germany, see Borscheid, Naturwissenschaft, Staat und Industrie; Cahan, “The Institutional Revolution”; Cahan, An Institute for an Empire.

18. Lenoir, “Revolution from Above.” See also, e.g. Laitko, “Friedrich Althoff und die Wissenschaft in Berlin.”

19. E.g. Lightman, “Lecturing in the Spatial Economy of Science”; Topham, “Scientific Publishing.”

20. Andersen, Bek-Thomsen, and Kjærgaard eds., ‘Focus: Follow the Money’.

21. Auger, “Régime de recherche utilitaire”; Sanderson, “Professor as Industrial Consultant”, Tweedale, “Geology and Industrial Consultancy”; Watson, “The Chemist as Expert.”

22. Golan, Laws of Men and Laws of Nature; Gooday, “Liars, Experts and Authorities”; Hamlin, “Scientific Method and Expert Witnessing”; Arapostathis and Gooday, Patently Contestable; Lucier, Scientists & Swindlers; Smith and Wynne eds., Expert Evidence.

23. On product evaluations and endorsements, see Dienel, “Professoren als Gutachter,” and the additional studies cited in Joris Mercelis’ contribution to this special issue. On the provision of commercial testing and contract research services, see Auger, “L’université au service de l’industrie,” and Servos, “Engineers, Businessmen, and the Academy.” On academic scientists’ role as advisors to local and national governments, see references in n. 24 below. On the relationship between academic consulting and industrial research, see, e.g. Bertrams, “Converting Academic Expertise”; Marsch, Zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft; Reinhardt and Travis, Heinrich Caro; Sanderson, “The Professor as Industrial Consultant.”

24. E.g. Hamlin, A Science of Impurity; Scholliers, “Constructing New Expertise”; Warner, “How Sweet It Is.”

25. In the Netherlands, for example, the chemistry professors of Delft Institute of Technology and Amsterdam University generally had closer ties with industrial firms than their disciplinary colleagues at other academic establishments. See Homburg, Rip, and Small, “Chemici, hun kennis en de industrie.” For a case study that considers industrial chemical consulting in relation to a changing context, see, e.g. Misa, “Changing Market.”

26. On geology, see the above-mentioned publications by Tweedale and Lucier. On medical consulting, see, e.g. Swan, Academic Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry. On academics’ contribution to the development of new research and teaching technologies, see Joerges and Shinn eds., Instrumentation, and Wittje, “Simplex sigillum veri.”

27. Examples include Cookson and Hempstead, A Victorian Scientist and Engineer; Kargon, The Rise of Robert Millikan; Harwood, Technology’s Dilemmas, 58 and 138.

28. Simon, “Reinventing Discovery.”

29. Brock, Liebig; Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. On Thomson’s patents, see Anna Guagnini’s article in this special issue.

30. For Britain, see MacLeod and Radick eds., “Owning and Disowning Invention.”

31. Arapostathis and Dutfield eds., Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property.

32. Cahan, An Institute for an Empire, 243; Moseley, “The Origins and Early Years of the National Physical Laboratory.”

33. Fisk, Working Knowledge; Maestrejuan, “Managing Invention.”

34. Rasch, “Aud dem Weg zum Diensterfinder.”

35. Mowery and Sampat, “Patenting and Licensing University Inventions.”

36. Cassier and Sinding, “Patenting in the Public Interest.”

37. Mowery and Sampat, “University Patents”; Miller, “Intellectual Property and Narratives of Discovery/Invention.”

38. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science, II.”

39. Smith and Wise, Energy and Empire; Feffer, “Ernst Abbe”; Brock, Liebig; Morris, “Commerce and Academe”; Cassier, “Producing, Controlling, and Stabilizing Pasteur's Anthrax Vaccine.” Galvez-Behar, “Louis Pasteur, Entrepreneur.” For an example from a country that is not covered in this special issue, namely Italy, see Guagnini, “A Bold Leap into Electric Light.”

40. For two different perspectives on this supposed reluctance, see Etzkowitz, “Entrepreneurial Scientists,” and MacLeod, “Reluctant Entrepreneurs.”

41. Gustin, “Emergence of the German Chemical Profession,” 142–146; Klein, “Technoscience avant la lettre”; Carnino, L’invention de la science, chapter 6.

42. Perkmann et al., “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation”; Rothaermel, Agung, and Jiang. “University Entrepreneurship.”

43. Recent contributions to the substantial literature on biotechnology entrepreneurship in the U.S. include Rasmussen, Gene Jockeys; Smith Hughes, Genentech; and Yi, The Recombinant University.

44. See Wadhwani et al., eds., “Academic Entrepeneurship.”

45. On the former approach, see, besides the contributions to this special issue, also Morris, “Commerce and Academe.”

46. This was the meeting “Academic entrepreneurship in history,” held in Ghent, Belgium, on 12–13 March 2015. For the second group of articles, see Wadhwani et al. eds, “Academic Entrepreneurship.”

47. Kaataja, “University Researchers.”