1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 16, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 16, 2020

Responsive Science

Abstract

Regulatory capitalism depends heavily on science, but science faces epi-stemic critiques and crises of research integrity. These critiques and crises are outlined and then located within capitalism's general tragedy of commodification. Drawing on Marx's insights into the relationship between science, commodity production, and the machine age, the general tragedy of commodification is outlined. From here, the article shifts to discussing some well-known global public good problems relating to access to medicines and access to knowledge. The roots of these problems can be traced back to the way the institution of science has been bent toward processes of capital accumulation. The evidence we have from the history of science suggests that too often its research agendas have been set by capital and the demands of war-making capitalist states. The final part of the article considers whether the ideal of responsiveness might help us to reformulate the way in which we think about the responsibilities and duties of science. It focuses on human rights, citizen science, and the intellectual commons as potential sources of responsiveness. Responsiveness has been a fertile ideal for law and society theorists when it has come to theory building in law and regulation. It also has something to offer the debates around the crises of science.

Keyword(s): capitalism, commodification, intellectual commons, intellectual property, postnormal science, regulatory studies, responsive science
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-040220-065454
2020-10-13
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/16/1/annurev-lawsocsci-040220-065454.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-040220-065454&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ayres I, Braithwaite J. 1992. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Beck U. 1992. The Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity London, UK: Sage
  3. Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Guimarães Pereira Â, Ravetz J et al. 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge Tempe, AZ: Consort. Sci. Policy Outcomes
  4. Benoliel D. 2017. Patent Intensity and Economic Growth Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Ben-Yehuda N, Oliver-Lumerman A. 2017. Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation, and Organizational Response Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  6. Berg P. 2008. Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975—DNA modification secured. Nature 455:290–91
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biggeri A, Tallacchini M. 2018. Information and communication technologies, genes, and peer-production of knowledge to empower citizens’ health. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24:871–85
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonney R, Cooper BC, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T et al. 2009. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59:977–84
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd I. 2013. A standard for policy-relevant science. Nature 501:159–60
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Braithwaite J. 2008. Regulatory Capitalism: How It Works, Ideas for Making It Work Better Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  11. Braithwaite J. 2011. The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Rev 44:475–520
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown R, Carasso H. 2013. Everything for Sale? The Marketization of UK Higher Education London: Routledge
  13. Bryant MN. 1979. English language publication and the British traditional market agreement. Libr. Q. 49:371–98
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Caudill SD. 1987. Disclosing tilt: a partial defense of critical legal studies and a comparative introduction to the philosophy of the law-idea. Iowa Law Rev 72:287–358
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Charlesworth H. 2017. A regulatory perspective on the international human rights system. Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications P Drahos 357–73 Acton, Aust.: ANU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cole SA, Bertenthal A. 2017. Science, technology, society, and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13:351–71
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cook-Deegan R, McGuire AL. 2017. Moving beyond Bermuda: sharing data to build a medical information commons. Genome Res 27:897–901
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Coote JH, Joyner MJ. 2015. Is precision medicine the route to a healthy world. Lancet 385:1617
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Correa C. 2000. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries Geneva: South Cent.
  20. Daniels F. 1971. Utilization of solar energy—progress report. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 115:490–501
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Deere C. 2009. The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  22. Drahos P. 1996. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
  23. Drahos P, Braithwaite J. 2002. Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? London: Earthscan
  24. Ellul J. 1964. The Technological Society New York: Vintage Books
  25. Etzkowitz H, Rickne A. 2014. Citizen-driven innovation: stem cell scientists, patient advocates and financial innovators in the making of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Prometheus 32:369–84
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Eur. Sci. Found 2010. Fostering research integrity in Europe Exec. Rep., Eur. Sci. Found Strasbourg, Fr:.
  27. Fine B. 2012. Economic reproduction and circuits of capital. The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics B Fine, A Saad-Filho 111–17 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ford C. 2017. Innovation and the State: Finance, Regulation, and Justice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  29. Geiger C 2015. Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  30. Headrick DR. 1981. The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  31. Hilgartner S. 2012. Selective flows of knowledge in technoscientific interaction: information control in genome research. Br. J. Hist. Sci. 45:267–80
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hood C, Rothstein R, Baldwin R 2001. The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  33. Hope J. 2008. Biobazaar: The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  34. Hughes TP. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  35. Ilgen TL. 1983. “Better living through chemistry”: the chemical industry in the world economy. Int. Organ. 37:647–80
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Inst. Med 1994. Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  37. Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med 2:8e124
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Irwin A. 2018. No PhDs needed: how citizen science is transforming research. Nature 562:480–82
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kane G. 2008. Internet and open-access publishing in physics research. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age C Eisner, M Vicinus 48–52 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kojeunikov AB. 2004. Stalin's Great Science: The Times and Adventures of Soviet Physicists London: Imp. Coll. Press
  41. Krikorian G, Kapczynski A 2010. Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property New York: Zone Books
  42. Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  43. Lancet 2017. Editorial: research integrity—Have we made progress. Lancet 389:1771
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P 2015. The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE 10:6e0127502
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lathe WC, Williams JM, Mangan ME, Karolchik D 2008. Genomic data resources: challenges and promises. Nat. Educ. 1:32
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Levi-Faur D. 2017. Regulatory capitalism. Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications P Drahos 289–302 Acton, Aust.: ANU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lokuge B, Drahos P, Neville W 2006. Pandemics, antiviral stockpiles and biosecurity in Australia: What about the generic option. Med. J. Aust. 184:16–20
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Macmillan F. 2018. “Love is blind, and lovers cannot see”: resisting copyright's romance. Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property H Ullrich, P Drahos, G Ghidini 1–22 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Maillart T, Zhao M, Grossklags J, Chuang J 2017. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow? Revisiting Eric Raymond with bug bounty programs. J. Cybersecur. 3:81–90
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mann SP, Donders Y, Mitchell C, Bradley VJ, Chou MF et al. 2018. Advocating for science progress as a human right. PNAS 115:10820–23
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Marx K. 2011. 1906. Capital Vol 1: New York: Dover Publ.
  52. Maskus KE, Reichman JH. 2004. The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. J. Int. Econ. Law 7:279–320
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Maurer JH. 1981. Fuel and the battle fleet: coal, oil, and American naval strategy, 1898–1925. Nav. War Coll. Rev. 34:60–77
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Renders J, Behrens WW 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind New York: Universe Books
  55. Merton RK. 1942. The normative structure of science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations267–78 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Nonet P, Selznick P. 1978. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law New York: Harper & Row
  57. North DC. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  58. Organ. Econ. Co-Op. Dev. (OECD) 2017. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The Digital Transformation Paris: OECD Publishing
  59. Picketty T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  60. Plomer A. 2015. Patents, Human Rights and Access to Science Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  61. Quinn P. 2018. Is the GDPR and its right to data portability a major enabler of citizen science. Glob. Jurist 18:20180021
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ravetz JR. 1999. What is post-normal science. Futures 31:647–53
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Readings B. 1997. The University in Ruins Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  64. Rhoten D, Powell WW. 2007. The frontiers of intellectual property: expanded protection versus new models of open science. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:345–73
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Roffe P, Tansey G, Vivas-Eugui D 2006. Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines London: Earthscan
  66. Saltelli A, Funtowicz S. 2017. What is science's crisis really about. Futures 91:5–11
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sandler T. 1999. Intergenerational public goods: strategies, efficiency and institutions. Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century I Kaul, I Grunberg, MA Stern 20–50 New York/Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Sell SK. 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. Selznick P. 2008. A Humanist Science: Values and Ideals in Social Inquiry Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  70. Spellberg B, Guidos R, Gilbert D, Bradley J, Boucher HW et al. 2008. The epidemic of antibiotic-resistant infections: a call to action for the medical community from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46:155–64
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Stallman RM. 2002. Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman J Gay Boston, MA: GNU Press
  72. Stevens H. 2015. The politics of sequence: data sharing and the open source software movement. Inf. Cult. 50:465–503
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A 2014. The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 109:1–9
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Taleb NN. 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable New York: Random House
  75. Thornton M. 2012. Privatising the Public University: The Case of Law Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  76. Turner GM. 2008. A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality. Glob. Environ. Change 18:397–411
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Tusikov N. 2017. Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  78. Ullrich H. 2016. The political foundations of TRIPS revisited. TRIPS Plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles H Ullrich, RM Hilty, M Lamping, J Drexel 85–129 Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  79. UNAIDS 2000. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic Geneva: UNAIDS
  80. Velásquez G, Boulet P. 1999. Globalization and Access to Drugs. Perspectives on the WTO/TRIPS Agreement—Health Economics and Drugs Series, No. 007 (Revised). Geneva: World Health Organ.
  81. Vermeir K, Margócsy D. 2012. States of secrecy: an introduction. Br. J. Hist. Sci. 45:153–64
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Woolf PK. 1988. Deception in scientific research. Jurimetrics 29:67–95
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Yergin D. 1977. Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State London: Andre Deutsch
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-040220-065454
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error