Abstract
Justification for public funding of academic research is based on the linear model of technological advance first proposed by Francis Bacon. The model hypothesizes that government subsidized science generates new technology which creates new wealth. Mainstream economics supports Bacon’s model by arguing that academic research is a “public good.” The Bayh–Dole Act allows universities to privatize federally funded research and development (R&D) which is in direct conflict with the public good argument. Diminishing returns to university R&D, challenges to Bacon’s linear model and the labor exploitation of young scientists by research universities suggest that policy makers may want to reconsider the system for allocating federal R&D to universities and colleges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press.
Bacon, F. (1605). The Advancement of Learning, Chapter 2, Book 1.
Bloom, D., Canning, D. and Jamison, D. (2004). Health, wealth and welfare, Finance and Development 4(1), 10–16.
Eisenberg, R. and Nelson, R. (2002). Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension? Daedalus, Spring.
Eisenhower, D. (1961). Military-industrial complex speech. In Public Papers of the Presidents (pp. 1035–1040). Also available at http://www.lostpacket.net/
Fossum, D., Painter, L., Eiseman, E., Ettedgui, E. and Adamson, D. (2004). Vital Assets: Federal Research and Development at the Nation’s Universities and Colleges. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Gordon, R. (2000a). Does the new economy measure up to the great inventions of the past?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(4), 49–74,
Gordon, R. (2000b). Interpreting the “One Big Wave” in U.S. long-term productivity growth, Chapter 2. In B. van Ark, S. Kuipers and G. Kuper (Eds.), Productivity, Technology and Economic Growth. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gordon, R. (2003). Explaining productivity growth: Context, causes and implications, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2.
Griliches, S. (1986). Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970’s, American Economic Review 76, 141–154.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, C. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988, Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 119–127.
Kealey, T. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Mazumdar, K. (2003). Do standards of living converge? A cross country study, Social Indicators Research 64(1), 29–38.
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing, American Economic Review 70, 863–873.
Monastersky, R. (2004). Is there a science crisis? Maybe not, The Chronicle of Higher Education A10(July 9).
Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. and Ziedonis, A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980, Research Policy 30, 99–119.
Mowery, D., Sampat, B. and Ziedonis, A. (2001). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of university patents after Bayh–Dole, Management Science 48, 1.
Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. (1989). Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA.
Murphy, K. and Topel, R. (2003). Diminishing returns? The costs and benefits of improving health, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46(3), 109–116.
Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy 67, 297–306.
Noll, R. (1999). The business of college sports and the high cost of winning, The Miliken Institute Review, Third Quarter, 25–37.
Romer, P. Endogenous technological change, Journal of Political Economy 98, 71–102.
Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research with their own money? Research Policy 19, 165–174.
National Science Foundation (1986). Science Policy Study Background Report No. 1. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Shiller, R. (2000). Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, A. (1776). Wealth of Nations. A. Skinner, (Ed.). London: Penguin Press.
Stephan, P. and Levin, S. (forthcoming). Foreign scholars in U.S. science: Contributions and costs. In R. Ehrenberg and P. Stephan (Eds.), Science and the University. University of Wisconsin Press.
Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission (1990). The Delta Initiatives. Memphis, TN: Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission.
Thursby, J. and Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, Management Science 48(1), 90–104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Devaney, M. Government Subsidized Academic Research: Economic and Ethical Conflicts. J Acad Ethics 2, 273–285 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-2286-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-2286-2