The market for scientific lemons, and the marketization of science

  1. Jesús Zamora Bonilla 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Aldizkaria:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Argitalpen urtea: 2019

Alea: 34

Zenbakia: 1

Orrialdeak: 133-145

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.19508 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

La investigación científica se basa en la división del trabajo cognitivo: todo científico ha de confiar en que otros colegas hayan comprobado que los ítems que son considerados como conocimiento y que no pueden ser comprobados por él mismo son suficientemente fiables. Aplico aquí ideas del campo conocido como «economía de la información» (el estudio de las interacciones económicas en las que algunos agentes están mejor informados que otros) para analizar los incentivos de los científicos para producir ítems de conocimiento de una calidad «adecuada», bajo el supuesto de que una gran parte lo que observan en su investigación empírica no está disponible para los lectores de un artículo. También discuto algunas críticas a la «mercantilización» de los estudios sobre la ciencia.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Akerlof, George A. 1970. The market for lemons. Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 84/3: 488–500.
  • Ballandone, Mathieu. 2012. New economics of science, economics of scientific knowledge and sociology of science: The case of Paul David. Journal of Economic Methodology, 19/4: 391-406.
  • Birchler, Urs, and Monika Bütler. 2007. Information economics. New York: Routledge.
  • Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. 2008. Against intellectual monopoly. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Coase, Ronald. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4/16: 386–405.
  • Fanelli, Daniele. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and metaanalysis of survey data. PLOS One. 4/5: e5738.
  • Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2016. Economics imperialism in social epistemology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 46/5: 443-472.
  • García, José A., Rosa Rodríguez-Sánchez, and Joaquín Fdez-Valdivia. 2017. The game between a biased reviewer and his editor. Science and Engineering Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9998-8.
  • Gintis, Herbert. 2009. The bounds of reason: game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
  • Gosden, Hugh. 2003. ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2: 87-101.
  • Hasselberg, Ylva. 2012. Demand or discretion? The market model applied to science and its core values and institutions. Ethics in Science and Environmental Policy. 12: 35-51.
  • Ioannidis, John P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine. 2: e124.
  • Kitcher, Philip. 1990. The division of cognitive labour. The Journal of Philosophy. 87/1: 5-22.
  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Laughlin, Robert. 2008. The crime of reason and the closing of the scientific mind. New York: Basic Books.
  • Mäki, Uskali. 2009. MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis. 70/1: 29-43.
  • Mallard, Graham. 2015. Bounded rationality and behavioural economics. London: Routledge.
  • Mirowski, Philip. 2011. Science-Mart: Privatising American Science: Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Nature (editorial). 2016. Reality check on reproducibility. May 26, 533: 437.
  • Sen, Amartya. 1991. Utility: Ideas and terminology. Economics and Philosophy. 7: 277-283.
  • Siebert, Sabina, Laura Machesky, and Robert Insall. 2015. Overflow in science and its implications for trust. eLife. 4 (sept 2015): e10825
  • Weisberg, Michael. 2017. New approaches to the division of cognitive labour. in Paul D. Magnus and Jacob Busch (eds.), New waves in philosophy of science. London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
  • Zamora Bonilla, Jesús. 2011a. The economics of scientific knowledge. In Uskali Mäki (ed.), Handbook of philosophy of economics, 759-798. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
  • Zamora Bonilla, Jesús. 2011b. Rationality in the social sciences: Bridging the gap. In Ian Jarvie and Jesús Zamora Bonilla (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Science, 721-738. SAGE: London.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet