No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
United in Separation: The Inventions of Gel Filtration and the Moral Economy of Research in Swedish Biochemistry, ca. 1950–1970
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 April 2014
Argument
The Uppsala school in separation science, under the leadership of Nobel laureates, The (Theodor) Svedberg and Arne Tiselius, was by all counts a half-century-long success story. Chemists at the departments for physical chemistry and biochemistry produced a number of separation techniques that were widely adopted by the scientific community and in various technological applications. Success was also commercial and separation techniques, such as gel filtration, were an important factor behind the meteoric rise of the drug company Pharmacia from the 1950s. The paper focuses on the story behind the invention of gel filtration and the product Sephadex in the 1950s and the emergence of streamlined commercially oriented separation science as a main activity at the department of biochemistry in the 1960s. The dynamics of this development is analyzed from the perspectives of moral economy and storytelling framed by the larger question of the social construction of innovation. The latter point is addressed in a brief discussion about the uses of stories like the one about Sephadex in current research policy.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Science in Context , Volume 27 , Issue 2: Science, Technology, Medicine – and the State: The Science-State Nexus in Scandinavia, 1850–1980 , June 2014 , pp. 249 - 274
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
References
Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet, and Fairley, Cory. 2009. “Moral Economies in Science: From Ideal to Pragmatic.” Minerva 47:147–170.Google Scholar
Benner, Mats. 2001. Kontrovers och konsensus: Vetenskap och politik i svenskt 1990-tal [Controversy and Consensus: Science and Politics in 1990s Sweden]. Nora: Nya Doxa.Google Scholar
Boyce, Mary E. 1996. “Organizational Story and Storytelling: A Critical Review.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 9 (5):5–26.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1987. “Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research.” Yale Law Journal 97 (2):177–231.Google Scholar
Eklund, Magnus. 2007. Adoption of the Innovation System Concept in Sweden. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Elzen, Boelie. 1988. Scientists and Rotors: The Development of Biochemical Ultracentrifuges. Enschede: Alfa.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Leydesdorff, Loet. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations.” Research Policy 29:109–123.Google Scholar
Fisher, William W. III. 1999. “The Growth of Intellectual Property: A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States.” Translation of “Geistiges Eigentum – ein ausufernder Rechtsbereich: Die Geschichte des Ideenschutzes in den Vereinigten Staaten.” In Eigentum im internationalen Vergleich: 18.-20. Jarhundert, edited by Siegrist, Hannes and Sugarman, David, 265–91. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. www.tfisher.org/ (last accessed November 11, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flodin, Per. 1979. “Per Flodin.” In 75 Years of Chromatography – A Historical Dialogue, edited by Ettre, L. S. and Zlatkis, A., 67–74. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Flodin, Per. 1998. “The Sephadex Story.” Polymer Engineering and Science 38 (8):1220–1228.Google Scholar
Frankelius, Per. 1999. Pharmacia and Upjohn: Erfarenheter från ett världsföretag [Pharmacia and Upjohn: Experiences from a Global Corporation]. Malmö: Liber Ekonomi.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[Heng]. 1965. “Magnifik invigningsshow hos Pharmacia [Magnificent Inauguration Show at Pharmacia].” Svenska Dagbladet [The Swedish Daily] September 16.Google Scholar
Hjerén, Stellan, and Porath, Jerker. 1976. “Biochemistry.” In Faculty of Science at Uppsala University, edited by Lars-Olof Sundelöf, 27–66. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hjertén, Stellan. 1977. “Arne Tiselius – pionjär i biokemisk metodologi” [Arne Tiselius – Pioneer of Biochemical Methodology]. Kemisk tidskrift [Chemical Journal] 11: no pagination.Google Scholar
Hjertén, Stellan. 2001. “Uppsala School in Separation Science: My Contributions and Some Personal Reflections and Comments.” In A Century of Separation Science, edited by Haleem, J. Issaq, 421–52. New York and Basel: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Ingman, Folke, and Brinkman, Udo A. Th.. 1990. Biochemical Separation and Analysis. Stockholm: NFR.Google Scholar
Janson, Jan-Christer. 1987. “On the History of the Development of Sephadex®.” Chromatographia 23 (5):361–365.Google Scholar
Kay, Lily E. 1993. “The Intellectual Politics of Laboratory Technology: The Protein Network and the Tiselius Apparatus.” In Center on the Periphery: Historical Aspects of 20th Century Swedish Physics, edited by Svante Lindqvist, 399–405. Canton MA: Science History Publications / USA.Google Scholar
Kay, Lily E. 1993. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kempinsky, Peter, Sjögren, Dan, and Sandred, Jan. 2011. Hundra år av erfarenhet: Lärdomar från VINNVÄXT 2001–2011 [A Hundred Years of Experience: Lessons from VINNVÄX, 2001–2011]. Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
Kohler, Robert E. 1994. Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lundgren, Anders. 1987. “Dextran som blodplasmasubstitut” [Dextran as Blood-Plasma Substitute]. In Vetenskap och läkemedel: Ett historiskt perspektiv [Science and Pharmaceuticals: A Historical Perspective], edited by Frängsmyr, Tore, 113–64. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Lundgren, Anders. 1999. “Naturvetenskaplig institutionalisering: The Svedberg, Arne Tiselius och biokemin” [Scientirfic Institutionalisation: The Svedberg, Arne Tiselius and Biochemistry]. In Vetenskapsbärarna: Naturvetenskapen i det svenska samhället, 1880–1950 [The Science Propagators: Natural Science in Swedish Society, 1880–1950], edited by Widmalm, Sven, 117–143. Hedemora: Gidlunds.Google Scholar
Lundin, Per, Stenlås, Niklas, and Gribbe, Johan, eds. 2010. Science for Welfare and Warfare: Technology and State Initiative in Cold War Sweden. Sagamore Beach MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Anders, and Maskell, Peter. 2002. “The Elusive Concept of Localization Economies: Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of Spatial Clustering.” Environment Planning 34:429–449.Google Scholar
Marzec, Morgan. 2007. “Telling the Corporate Story: Vision into Action.” Journal of Business Strategy 28 (1):26–36.Google Scholar
Moberg, Erik. 1970. “‘Ny’ biokemi växer fram: Industrikontakter vidgas.” [‘New’ biochemistry emerging: Contacts with industry are broadened]. Dagens Nyheter [Daily News], December 7.Google Scholar
Nelund, Rasmus, and Norus, Jesper. 2003. “Competencies and Opportunities: Building an Island of Innovation Apart from Europe's Innovative Centre.” In The Regionalisation and Globalised Innovation: Locations for Advanced Industrial Development and Disparities in Participation, edited by Hilpert, Ulrich, 191–207. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nordlund, Christer. 2011. Hormones of Life: Endocrinology, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Dream of a Remedy for Sterility, 1930–1970. Sagamore Beach MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Norgren, Lennart, Markusson, Nils, and Granat, Jennie. 2002. “ Ekonomiska effekter av STU/NUTEKs forskningsfinansiering – exemplet bioteknikforskning [Economic Effects of Research Funding by STU/NUTEK – The Example of Biotechnology Research]. In Effekter av VINNOVAs föregångares stöd till behovsmotiverad forskning: Fyra effektanalyser av insatser under perioden 1975–2000 [Effects of Funding of Goal-Oriented Research by VINNOVA's Predecessors: Four Analyses of Endeavours in the Period 1975–2000], edited by Friborg, Göran, separate pagination. Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
Norus, Jesper. 2006. “Building Sustainable Competitive Advantage from Knowledge in the Region: The Industrial Enzymes Industry.” European Planning Studies 14 (5):681–696.Google Scholar
Nybom, Thorsten. 1997. Kunskap, politik, samhälle: Essäer om kunskapssyn, universitet och forskningspolitik 1900–2000 [Knowledge, Politics, Society: Essays on Epistemology, Universities and Research Policy, 1900–2000]. Hargshamn: Arete.Google Scholar
Pettersson, Ingemar. 2012. Handslaget: Svensk industriell forskningspolitik 1940–1980 [The Handshake: Swedish Industrial Research Policy, 1940–1980]. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teknik- och vetenskapshistoria, KTH.Google Scholar
Porath, Jerker. 1978. “Separation Methods and Arne Tiselius.” Hormonal Protein and Peptides 5:159–85.Google Scholar
Porath, Jerker. 1979. “Jerker Porath.” In 75 Years of Chromatography – A Historical Dialogue, edited by Ettre, L. S. and Zlatkis, A., 323–330. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Porath, Jerker. 2001. “Half a Century of Struggling with Molecular Sieving and Affinity Chromatography.” In Chromatography: A Century of Discovery 1900–2000, edited by Gehrke, Charles W., Wixom, Robert L., and Bayer, Ernst, 460–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Nicolas. 2004. “The Moral Economy of the Drug Company: Medical Scientist Collaboration in Interwar America.” Social Studies of Science 34 (2):161–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rich, Giles S. 1972–1973. “Laying the Ghost of the ‘Invention’ Requirement.” American Patent Law Association Quarterly Journal 26:26–45.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Palmer. 1971. “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century.” Past and Present 50:76–136.Google Scholar
Tiselius, Arne. 1956. “Samhället och den grundläggande forskningen” [Society and Fundamental Research]. In Tekniken och morgondagens samhälle [Technology and the Society of Tomorrow], 223–240. Stockholm: Tidens förlag.Google Scholar
Tunlid, Anna. 2008. “Den nya biologin: Forskning och politik i tidigt 1960-tal” [The New Biology: Research and Politics during the Early 1960s]. In Vetenskapens sociala strukturer: Sju historiska fallstudier om konflikt, samverkan och makt [The Social Structures of Science: Seven Historical Case Studies about Conflict, Collaboration and Power], edited by Widmalm, Sven, 99–135. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Waluszewski, Alexandra. 2004. “A Competing or Co-Operating Cluster or Seven Decades of Combinatory Resources? What's Behind a Prospering Biotech Valley?” Scandinavian Journal of Management 20: 125–150.Google Scholar
Weinberger, Hans. Nätverksentreprenören: En historia om teknisk forskning och industriellt utvecklingsarbete från den Malmska utredningen till Styrelsen för teknisk utveckling [The Network Entrpreneur: A Story about Technological Research and Industrial Development from the Malm Commission to the Agency of Technological Development]. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teknik- och vetenskapshistoria, KTH.Google Scholar
Widmalm, Sven. 2004. “The Svedberg and the Boundary between Science and Industry: Laboratory Practice, Policy, and Media Images.” History and Technology 20 (1):1–27.Google Scholar
Widmalm, Sven. 2006. “A Machine to Work in: The Ultracentrifuge and the Modernist Laboratory Ideal.” In Taking Place: Locating Science, Technology and Business Studies, edited by Fors, Hjalmar, Houltz, Anders, and Baraldi, Enrico, 59–80. Sagamore Beach MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Widmalm, Sven. 2008. ”Forskning och industri under andra världskriget” [Research and Industry during the Second World War]. In Vetenskapens sociala strukturer: Sju historiska fallstudier om konflikt, samverkan och makt [The Social Structures of Science: Seven Historical Case Studies about Conflict, Collaboration and Power], edited by Widmalm, Sven, 55–97. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Rauno, et al. 1995. “Tribute to Professor Stellan Hjertén.” Electrophoresis 16 (1):1327–1336.Google Scholar