Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists' Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents.
Saved in:
| Title: | Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists' Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Peifer, Jared L.1 (AUTHOR) jpeifer@baruch.cuny.edu, Johnson, David R.2 (AUTHOR), Ecklund, Elaine Howard3 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Business Ethics. May2021, Vol. 170 Issue 2, p253-267. 15p. 5 Charts, 2 Graphs. |
| Subject Terms: | Commercialization, Science & ethics, Moral attitudes, Economic sociology, Patents & ethics |
| Abstract: | Is the market civilizing or destructive? The increased salience of science commercialization is forcing scientists to address this question. Benefiting from the sociology of morality literature's increased attention to specific kinds of morality and engaging with economic sociology's moral markets literature, we generate competing hypotheses about scientists' value-driven attitudes toward patenting. The Civilizing Market thesis suggests scientists who prioritize universalism (i.e., concern for the welfare of all people) will tend to support patenting. The Destructive Market thesis, by contrast, suggests universalism will be correlated with opposition to patenting. We analyze survey data from biologists and physicists nested within academic organizations, which are nested within the following regions: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, and the USA. Employing multilevel analysis, we find correlational evidence to support the Destructive Market thesis. Universalism is associated with anti-patenting attitudes, suggesting scientists expect patenting to have deleterious effects on science and society. We end with a discussion of this article's implications for the moral markets literature, sociology of morality and business ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Is the market civilizing or destructive? The increased salience of science commercialization is forcing scientists to address this question. Benefiting from the sociology of morality literature's increased attention to specific kinds of morality and engaging with economic sociology's moral markets literature, we generate competing hypotheses about scientists' value-driven attitudes toward patenting. The Civilizing Market thesis suggests scientists who prioritize universalism (i.e., concern for the welfare of all people) will tend to support patenting. The Destructive Market thesis, by contrast, suggests universalism will be correlated with opposition to patenting. We analyze survey data from biologists and physicists nested within academic organizations, which are nested within the following regions: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, and the USA. Employing multilevel analysis, we find correlational evidence to support the Destructive Market thesis. Universalism is associated with anti-patenting attitudes, suggesting scientists expect patenting to have deleterious effects on science and society. We end with a discussion of this article's implications for the moral markets literature, sociology of morality and business ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01674544 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10551-020-04633-y |
