¿Ciencia abierta para intereses privados? la lógica de la ciencia abierta y la comercialización de la investigación
Open science for private interests? How the logic of open science contributes to the commercialization of research
Barra lateral del artículo
HTML
XML
PDF
FLIP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Los conflictos de intereses, los casos de fraude científico y las limitaciones a la investigación por las leyes de propiedad intelectual han llevado a cuestionar la idoneidad epistémica y de justicia social de la investigación financiada por la industria. El ideal de Ciencia Abierta –que promueve la transparencia, la colaboración y la rendición de cuentas– parece abordar las limitaciones de la investigación impulsada comercialmente. Sin embargo, el movimiento de Ciencia Abierta se centra en la investigación financiada con fondos públicos, alienta los lazos con el sector privado y crea nuevas estrategias para comercializar la ciencia. Así, la Ciencia Abierta termina contribuyendo a la comercialización de la ciencia y no a superar sus limitaciones; y la asimetría entre ciencia privada y pública, presente en la actual apelación a la ciencia abierta, termina comprometiendo los valores que promueve el ideal.
Palabras clave:
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Andrade, C. (2015). The primary outcome measure and its importance in clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(10), e1320-e1323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.15f10377
Bartling, S. y Friesike, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1
Bekelman, J., Li, Y. y Gross, C. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454-465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.4.454
Biddle, J. (2007). Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology, 21(1), 21-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720601125472
Biddle, J. (2014). Can patents prohibit research? On the social epistemology of patenting and licensing in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 14-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.12.001
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Doucet, M. y Sismondo, S. (2008). Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(8), 627-630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.022467
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78
Elliott, K. (2008). Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-ofinterest policies. Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance, 15(1), 1-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620701783725
Elliott, K. (2019). The kaleidoscope of citizen science. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, 9(1), 47-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/nib.2019.0017
EU Presidency. (2016). Amsterdam call for action on open science, [https://f-origin.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1244/files/ 2016/06/amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science.pdf ].
European Commission for Research and Innovation. (2016). Guidelines on open access to scientific publications and research data in horizon
Eurostat. (2018). The EU in the World, [https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-EX-18-001].
Fecher, B. y Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 17-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Fernández Pinto, M. (2017). To know or better not to: Agnotology and the social construction of ignorance in commercially driven research.
Science & Technology Studies, 30(2), 53-72.
Fernández Pinto, M. (2018). Democratizing strategies for industryfunded medical research: A cautionary tale. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 882-894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/699720
G8 Summit. (2013). Science Ministers statement, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g8-science-ministers-statement-london-12-june-2013].
Greenberg, D. (2007). Science for sale: The perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226306261.001.0001
Greenberg, D. S. (2001). Science, money, and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226241531.001.0001
Holman, B. y Elliott, K. (2018). The promise and perils of industryfunded science. Philosophy Compass, 13(2), e12544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12544
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195145836.001.0001
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Nueva York, NY: Prometheus Books.
Koskinen, I. Y Mäki, U. (2016). Extra-academic transdisciplinarity and scientific pluralism: What might they learn from one another? European DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0141-5
Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 419-444.
Kourany, J. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001
Leonelli, S. (2013). Why the current insistence on open access to scientific data? big data, knowledge production, and the political economy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467613496768
of contemporary biology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1-2), 6-11.
Levin, N., Leonelli, S., Weckowska, D. et al. (2016). How do scientists define openness? exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(2), 128-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616668760
Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djulbegovic, B. et al. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1167-1170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691187013
Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B. et al. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2(2), 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3
Markowitz, G. y Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and denial: The deadly politics of industrial pollution. California: Milbank Books on Health and the
Public.
Maurer, S. (2007). Open source drug discovery: Finding a niche (or maybe several). UMKC Latin American Law Review, 76, 405-434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1114371
McGarity, T. O. y Wagner, W. E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt Public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Merton, R. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Meskus, M., Marelli, L. y D’Agostino, G. (2018). Research misconduct in the age of open science: The case of STAP stem cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086
Murray R., P., Neylon, C., Pollock, R. y Wilbanks, J. (2010). Panton principles, principles for open data in science. Panton Principles,[https://pantonprinciples.org/].
National Science Board (2018). Science and engineer indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: NSF, [https://www.nsf. gov/statistics/
indicators/].
Nielsen, M. (2011a). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839452
Nielsen, M. (2011b). Open science now. TED talk, [https://www.ted.com/talks/Michael_nielsen_open_science_now].
OCDE. (2015). Making open science a reality. OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, 25. París: OECD Publishing, [https://
www.oecdilibrary. org/science-and-technology/making-open-sciencea-reality_5jrs2f963zs1-en].
Oreskes, N. y Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Nueva York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Phelps, L., Fox, B. A. y Marincola, F. M. (2012). Supporting the advancement of science: Open access publishing and the role of mandates. Journal of Translational Medicine, 10(13), 34-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-10-13
Powell, M. y Colin, M. (2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 325-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467609336308
Proctor, R. N. (2011). Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520950436
Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7zw87p
Resnik, D. B. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309782.003.0004
Royal Society (2012). Report 02/12 DES2482. Science as an open enterprise, [https://royalsociety.org//media/policy/projects/sape/2012-06- 20-saoe.pdf ].
Sappington, T. W., Ostlie, K. R., DiFonzo et al. (2010). Conducting public-sector research on commercialized transgenic seed. GM Crops & Food, 1(2), 55-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.1.2.10833
Schroeder, R. (2007). E-research infrastructures and open science: Towards a new system of knowledge production? Prometheus 25(1), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020601172860
Sidler, M. (2014). Open science and the three cultures: Expanding open science to all domains of knowledge creation. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 81-85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_5
Sismondo, S. (2007). Ghost management: How much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286
PLoS Medicine, 4(9), 286.
Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.001
(2), 109-113.
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101047
Slaughter, S. y Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Smith, R. (2003). Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: Uneasy bedfellows. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1202-1205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1202
Turner, E., Matthews, A., Linardatos, E. et al. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Unesco. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and Promotion of open access. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf ].
Unesco. (2015). Unesco science report: Towards 2030, [https://en. unesco.org/unescosciencereport].
Waltz, E. (2009). Under wraps. Nature. Biotechnology, 27(10), 880-882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1009-880
Wise, N. (2006). Thoughts on the politicization of science through commercialization. Social Research, 73(4), 1253-1272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2006.0040
Wylie, A. (2015). A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology. En F. Padovani, A. Richardson y J. Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies (pp. 189-210). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10
Citado por
