The work of scientists and doctors in advancing genetic research and its applications has been accompanied by plenty of discussion in the popular press—from Good Housekeeping and Forbes to Ms. and the Congressional Record—about such ...

The rapid commercialization of applied genetics in the mtd-1970s, accompanied by a sudden rise in academic-corporate partnerships, raised questions about the impacts these linkages have had on the social and professional norms of scientists. The extent and pattern of faculty tnvolvement in commercialization of biological research is largely an unexplored area. This article provcdes a quantitative assessment of the linkages between biology faculty in American uncverscties and the newly formed biotechnology industry. The results of thes study, covering the period 1985-88, (...) show that academic scientists responded en masse to participating in the commercialization of genetecs research by estabhshmg formal associations with many of the new biotechnology compances. A data base consisting of 889 U.S. and Canadian biotechnology companies and 832 sccentcsts who had formal ties to them was developed over a four-year period. The patterns of academic-corporate Icnkages are revealed by institution. Three universities with the most commercially active faculty are Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. Of the 359 bcomedeca! scientists and geneteccsts who were members of the Nateonal Academy of Sceences, at minimum, 37% had formal ties with the biotechnology industry. (shrink)

Technological change is often seen as something that follows its own logic -- something we may welcome, or about which we may protest, but which we are unable to alter fundamentally. This reader challenges that assumption and its distinguished contributors demonstrate that technology is affected at a fundamental level by the social context in which it develops. General arguments are introduced about the relation of technology to society and different types of technology are examined: the technology of production: domestic and (...) reproductive technology; and military technology. The book draws on authors from Karl Marx to Cynthia Cockburn to show that production technology is shaped by social relations in the workplace. It moves on to the technologies of the household and biological reproduction, which are topics that male-dominated social science has tended to ignore or trivialise -- though these are actually of crucial significance where powerful shaping factors are at work, normally unnoticed. The final section asks what shapes the most frightening technology of all -- the technology of weaponry, especially nuclear weapons. The editors argue that social scientists have devoted disproportionate attention to the effects of technology on society, and tended to ignore the more fundamental question of what shapes technology in the first place. They have drawn both on established work in the history and sociology of technology and on newer feminist perspectives to show just how important and fruitful it is to try to answer that deeper question. The first edition of this reader, published in 1985, had a considerable influence on thinking about the relationship between technology andsociety. This second edition has been thoroughly revised and expanded to take into account new research and the emergence of new theoretical perspectives. (shrink)

In Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, Jan Golinski reviews recent writing on the history of science and shows how it has been dramatically reshaped by a new understanding of science itself. In the last few years, scientific knowledge has come to be seen as a product of human culture, an approach that has challenged the tradition of the history of science as a story of steady and autonomous progress. New topics have emerged in historical research, including: (...) the identity of the scientist, the importance of the laboratory, the role of language and instruments, and the connections with other realms of culture and society. Golinski has written a sympathetic but critical survey of this exciting field of research, at a level that can be appreciated by students or anyone else who wants an introduction to contemporary thinking in the development of the sciences. (shrink)

The bitter, public contest for priority over the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS was officially closed in 1987 with equal credit being awarded to two parties from opposite sides of the Atlantic. One was led by Robert C. Gallo of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute in the United States and the other was led by Luc Montagnier of the viral-oncology unit at the Pasteur Institute in France. Using citation counts from articles published (...) by the scientific community, a process of alloca tion of credit is examined and compared with this official settlement. A novel pattern emerges. It is found that the scientific community began to redistribute priority when the dispute became highly publicized and took little notice of the official settlement. This, along with the fact that Gallo has now officially been charged with misconduct by an investigative committee, may mean that Montagnier's team may eventually receive sole creditfor the discovery of the AIDS virus. The importance of examining priority disputes from many different angles and the potential for citation analysis in such cases are highlighted. (shrink)