The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The Rôle of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization
Abstract
The sociological study of boundary-work and the political-economic approach of principal-agent theory can be complementary ways of examining the relationship between society and science: boundary-work provides the empirical nuance to the principal-agent scheme, and principal-agent theory provides structure to the thick boundary description. This paper motivates this complementarity to examine domestic technology transfer in the USA from the intramural laboratories of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). It casts US policy for technology transfer in the principal-agent framework, in which politicians attempt to manage the moral hazard of the productivity of research by providing specific incentives to the agents for engaging in measurable research-based innovation. Such incentives alter the previously negotiated boundary between politics and science. The paper identifies the crucial rôle of the NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) as a boundary organization, which mediates the new boundary negotiations in its routine work, and stabilizes the boundary by performing successfully as an agent for both politicians and scientists. The paper hypothesizes that boundary organizations like OTT are general phenomena at the boundary between politics and science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100 · Cited by 3,660
Self-citationScale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-01759-110208 · Cited by 2,254
Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.422 · Cited by 626
Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., & McNie, E. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108 · Cited by 568
Self-citationPohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., et al. (2010) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/030234210x496628 · Cited by 555
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012 · Cited by 303
Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127018805345 · Cited by 150
Rycroft-Malone, J., Wilkinson, J. E., Burton, C. R., Andrews, G., Ariss, S., Baker, R., Dopson, S., Graham, I., Harvey, G., Martin, G., et al. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-74 · Cited by 132
Use‐inspired science: making science usable by and useful to decision makers
Wall, T. U., McNie, E., & Garfin, G. M. (2017) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1735 · Cited by 120
Grainger, A. (2009) · Land Degradation & Development · doi:10.1002/ldr.898 · Cited by 56
Guston, D. H. (2003) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/147154303781780335 · Cited by 32
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Guston, D. H.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-111
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W1973952109
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
