sci.research.careers

This article has been posted at /wordpress/?p=61


Should university science departments strive to become generators of
intellectual property that can be sold for profit or should they stick
to educating the young in scientific theory and methods?
A review by Michael Crow of Dan Greenberg's latest book Science for
Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism, seems
rather dismissive of Greenberg's conclusions.
I haven't read the book myself, but it appears that Greenberg sees the
current trend for universities to seek corporate funding and sell
intellectual property assests as representing "ethical erosion" of the
type he describes in his earlier Science, Money and Politics: Political
Triumph and Ethical Erosion.
Crow makes the fair point that universities have always been compromised
in the steps they take to remain solvent and takes Greenberg to task for
advancing an idealized view of the university.
Certainly, the blurb on Science for Sale does not suggest an especially
compelling book, concluding only that "the temptations of money will
always be a threat, and they can only be countered through the vigilance
of scientists, the press, and the public".
What remains unsaid is whether Crow or Greenberg sees any tension
between the universities' role as educators and their ambition to be
purveyors of patented inventions.
Greenberg states that:

"In the biomedical sciences, . production far exceeds job
openings"

and

"increasing numbers of American students are shunning scientific
training and the questionable opportunity to serve as scientific stoop
labor for grant-laden professors"

There seems to be little follow-up on the betrayal of students' hopes
that this represents.

This article has been posted at /wordpress/?p=61