This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (22) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mirowski, P. Articles by Van Horn, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research

Reilly Center, University of Notre Dame, Mirowski.1{at}nd.edu

Robert Van Horn

University of Notre Dame, rvanhorn{at}nd.edu

The early 1980s constituted a watershed in science, mainly concerning the extent and nature of globalization and commercialization of scientific research, and its impact upon the university. Considerable debate has arisen about the sources of this transition, but aside from a few lone voices, the scholarly literature has neglected the concurrent rise of the contract research organization (CRO) and its role in the commercialization of scientific research. The CRO warrants wider attention as a modern paradigm of privatized science in the biopharmaceutical sector. In discussing the CRO’s technologies, the purposes they pursue, and the legal and policy initiatives that have fostered their rapid rise, we confront the wider implications of the modern regime of commercialized science for the future conduct of scientific research. We identify five areas of innovation: treatment of human subjects, control of disclosure, subjection of research tools to commercialization, redefinition of authorship, and re-engineering the goals of research.

Key Words: commercialization of science • contract research organization • ghost authorship • globalization of research • intellectual property • new economics of science

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 4, 503-548 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312705052103


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Sismondo Ghosts in the Machine: Reply to McHenry (2009) Social Studies of Science, December 1, 2009; 39(6): 949 - 952. [PDF]

				M. P. Jones Entrepreneurial Science: The Rules of the Game Social Studies of Science, December 1, 2009; 39(6): 821 - 851. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Prasad Capitalizing Disease: Biopolitics of Drug Trials in India Theory Culture Society, September 1, 2009; 26(5): 1 - 29. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Abraham and C. Davis Drug evaluation and the permissive principle: continuities and contradictions between standards and practices in antidepressant regulation. Social Studies of Science, August 1, 2009; 39(4): 569 - 598. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Sismondo Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, April 1, 2009; 39(2): 171 - 198. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Epstein The rise of 'recruitmentology': clinical research, racial knowledge, and the politics of inclusion and difference. Social Studies of Science, October 1, 2008; 38(5): 801 - 832. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Lenzer Truly independent research? BMJ, August 21, 2008; 337(aug21_1): a1332 - a1332. [Full Text]

				J. A. Fisher "Ready-to-Recruit" or "Ready-to-Consent" Populations? Informed Consent and the Limits of Subject Autonomy Qualitative Inquiry, September 1, 2007; 13(6): 875 - 894. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Mirowski Johnny's in the basement, mixin' up the medicine. Review of Angell, Avorn, and Daemmrich on the modern pharmaceutical predicament. Social Studies of Science, April 1, 2007; 37(2): 311 - 327. [PDF]

				M. Goodyear Learning from the TGN1412 trial BMJ, March 25, 2006; 332(7543): 677 - 678. [Full Text] [PDF]