Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science and Insights from Humanistic Disciplines

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management of Knowledge-Intensive Organizations

  • 492 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter investigates how academic KIOs can manage the boundary of regulation in bridging science to insights from humanistic disciplines. It examines (i) governance mechanisms of intellectual property policies in research consortia in which the private incentive, public responsibilities, and academic science norms coexist; (ii) factors that determine the scope of moral responsibilities that academic KIOs perceive. The internalization is a promising alliance design. The problem is to control claims of rights over inventions. The agency-based governance helps extend the trusteeship governance by unbundling property rights and ownership. By detaching and reconfiguring rights toward benefits, this direction is also consistent with the common good-based stakeholder theory. At the same time, the combination of moral identity and ownership determine the humanistic issues that KIOs perceive commitment.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

References

  • Argandona, A. (1998). Stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1093–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, N. S., Bercovitz, J., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Complementarity and evolution of contract provisions: An empirical study of IT service contracts. Organizational Science, 18(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banchoff, T. (2011). Embryo politics: Ethics and policy in Atlantic democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, B., Datlow, P., Felder, A., & Wolfram, M. (2011). Dealing with joint intellectual property ownership in the US and Germany. DAJV Newsletter, 36, 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedlebos, R., Cassiman, B., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Looy, B. V. (2012). Co-ownership of intellectual property. Patent Statistics for Decision Making, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekker, R., & Updegrove, A. (2013). IPR policies and practices of a representative group of standard-setting organizations worldwide. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2001). Government versus private ownership of public goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1343–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buse, K., & Walt, G. (2002). The World Health Organization and global public-private health partnerships: In search of ‘good’ global health governance. In M. R. Reich (Ed.), Public-private partnerships for public health (pp. 169–195). Cambridge, USA: Harvard Center for Populations and Development Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C. J., Hilton, B., & Millar, C. (2004). Emerging business systems. New Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C. J., & Millar, C. J. M. (2005). Knowledge entanglement. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contreras, J. L. (2011). Bermuda’s legacy: Policy, patents, and the design of the genome commons. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 12(1), 61–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Deegan, R. (2007). The science commons in health research: Structure, function, and value. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C. M. (2014). Multilateral agreements and policy opportunities. In M. Cimoli, G. Dosi, K. E. Maskus, R. L. Okediji, & J. H. Reichman (Eds.), Intellectual property rights: Legal and economic challenges for development (pp. 417–433). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craswell, R., & Schwarts, A. (1994). Foundatoins of contract law. New York: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1983). The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelberg, A. B., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2016). Use the Bayh-Dole Act to lower drug prices for government healthcare programs. Nature Medicine, 22(6), 576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Expert group report on role and strategic use of IPR in international research collaborations (Working Paper). Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, E. A. (1998). Farnsworth on contracts. New York: Aspen Law & Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, T. L. (2001). Ethics and governance: Business as mediating institution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis, H., Salter, B., & Waldby, C. (2009). The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science: Regenerative medicine in transition. New Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (2006). Intellectual property rights for governance in and of innovation systems. In B. Andersen (Ed.), Intellectual property rights: Innovation, governance and the institutional environment (pp. 311–343). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, L. (2015). Imperfect bundling in public–private partnerships. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 17(1), 136–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. (2003). Incomplete contracts and public ownership: Remarks, and application to public-private partnerships. The Economic Journal, 13, C69–C76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value in public–private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunneman, H. (2010). Viable alternatives for commercialized science. In H. Radder (Ed.), The commodification of academic research (pp. 307–336). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, A. O. (2002). Public-private partnerships: Illustrative examples. In M. R. Reich, (Ed.), Public-private partnerships for public health (pp. 19–39). Cambridge, USA: Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumineau, F., Frechet, M., & Puthod, D. (2011). An organizational learning perspective on the contracting process. Strategic Organization 9, 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macher, J. T., Mowery, D. C., & Hodges, D. A. (1998). Reversal or fortune? The recovery of the US semiconductor industry. California Management Review, 41(1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2009). The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization Science, 20(6), 1034–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Wulf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R. P., & Locke, L. A. (1990). Co-ownership of patents: A comparative and economic view. Journal of Patent and Trademark Office Society, 72, 586–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (2001). The US national innovation system after the Cold War. In P. Laredo & P. Mustar (Eds.), Research and innovation policies in the new global economy: An international comparative analysis (pp. 15–46). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munzer, S. (1990). A theory of property. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Cancer Institute & National Human Genome Research Institute. (2014). Revision 01-16-2014: The cancer genome atlas program: Human subjects protection and data access policies. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Collaborative mechanisms for intellectual property management in the life sciences. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E. (2018). Knowledge corruption and governance in academic knowledge-intensive organizations: The case of molecular mutations research. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(1), e1698. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1698.

  • Oxford Academic Health Science Network and Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC). (2015). The intellectual property implications of open access drug discovery. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey, Q. A. (2017). Expanding access to medicine and promoting innovation: A practical approach. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 24(2), 162–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, S., Samii, R., & van Wassenhove, L. K. (2006). Constructive partnerships: When alliances between private firms and public actors can enable creative strategies. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 738–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1993/1999). The law of peoples. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 529–564). Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M. J., Breitenstein, A. G., & Roberts, C. S. (2002). The ethics of public–private partnerships. In M. R. Reich (Ed.), (pp. 67–85).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryckaert, V., & Van den Broeck, K. (2008). IMEC industrial affiliation program (IIAP) as IPR model to set up nanotechnology research and patenting. World Patent Information, 30, 101–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schitz, P. W. (2014). Optimal ownership of public goods reconsidered. Economic Letters, 125(1), 21–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherer, P. D., & Leblebici, H. (2015). Governance in professional service firms: From structural and cultural to legal normative views. In B. Hinings, D. Muzio, J. Broschak, & L. Empson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of professional service firms (pp. 189–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682393.013.10.

  • So, A. D., Sampat, B. N., Rai, A. K., Cook-Deegan, R., Reichman, J. H., Weissman, R., & Kapczynski, A. (2014). Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the U.S. experience. In M. Cimoli, G. Dosi, K. E. Maskus, R. L. Okediji, & J. H. Reichman (Eds.), Intellectual property rights: Legal and economic challenges for development (pp. 202–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigloe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The European Patent Office’s Economic and Scientific Advisory Board (ESAB). (2015). ESAB statement on the possible introduction of a grace period in Europe. Munich: European Patent Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K. (1982). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1948). The declaration of human rights. New York: The General Assembly of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakili, K., & McGahan, A. M. (2016). Health care’s grand challenges: Stimulating basic science on diseases that primarily afflict the poor. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1917–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broeck, K., & Ryckaert, V. (2006). Case study: IMEC-nanopatents. Presentation slide at IMEC patents & industry-science relations. file:///D:/REFERENCE/CHAP%207%20IP/IMEC%20IP%20POLICY%20iprworkshop_vandenbroekand_ryckaert_en.pdf.

  • World Health Organization. (2014). The end TB strategy. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2015). A global action framework for TB research. Geneva: WHO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization. (1994). Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, Annex IC of the Marrakesh agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston Cancer Policy Institute, Somerville, MA, USA

    Ellie Okada

Authors
  1. Ellie Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellie Okada .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Okada, E. (2019). Science and Insights from Humanistic Disciplines. In: Management of Knowledge-Intensive Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97373-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation