Government subsidized academic research: Economic and ethical conflicts [Book Review]

Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (3):273-285 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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 Bacons 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 Bacons 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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics, academic freedom and academic tenure.Richard T. De George - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (1):11-25.
Financial interests and research bias.David B. Resnik - 2000 - Perspectives on Science 8 (3):255-285.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
23 (#626,176)

6 months
2 (#1,015,942)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Irrational Exuberance.Robert J. Shiller - 2001 - Princeton University Press.
The advancement of learning.Francis Bacon - 1851 - New York: Modern Library. Edited by G. W. Kitchin.
The Advancement of Learning.Francis Bacon & G. W. Kitchin - 1958 - London: Everyman's Classic Library in Paperback. Edited by G. W. Kitchin.
The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.T. Kealey - 2001 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 13 (4):117-120.

View all 6 references / Add more references