Although Polanyi did not write directly on knowledge and science, he approached the issue obliquely in two instances in his The Great Transformation (1944). The first concerned the differential contributions and the concomitant hierarchy of ‘sciences’ during the Industrial Revolution. The second was his characterization of ‘political economy’ as a British ‘specificity,’ resulting from the historical origins of market economy as ‘capitalism without a labor market’. The first section of the paper will cover this theme. The second section will approach the question of how Polanyi’s work offers us analytical tools for approaching the question of knowledge. One concept, ‘fictitious commodity,’ and one discussion, the enclosures, are of relevance here. The prospects and limitations of applying the concept of ‘fictitious commodity’ to knowledge will first be taken up. For Polanyi, to qualify as ‘fictitious commodity’, the item concerned was supposed not to be produced for sale, but be treated as if it were. In our view, knowledge and science conform to this definition in some ways and not so in others. Polanyi’s discussion of the enclosures helps us to understand to what extent knowledge and science qualify as ‘fictitious commodity’. We contribute in two ways to the current state of scholarship. First, we approach knowledge as ‘commons’ and link Polanyi with the literature stemming from Elinor Ostrom. Second, Polanyi pointed out that, when one cannot change the direction of change, one could still affect the rate of change, and thereby reduce the ‘social cost’ of transition. The third section of the paper will address two current processes concerning knowledge and science and show how they can be specifically elaborated with above theoretical specifications in mind. First, we will take up the commodification of knowledge as manifest in (1) concepts such as ‘entrepreneurial and innovative university’, and (2) production of knowledge by way of specialized institutions in accordance with the definition of ‘fictitious commodity’, if not its true nature. In contrast, we will emphasize the ‘commons’ attribute of knowledge and science and its implications. This ‘tragedy of commons’ to do with the market-oriented transformation of institutions of higher learning and research begs for strategic countermoves. Then, we will address the consequences of the deliberate expansion and reinforcement of intellectual property rights that create ‘barriers to entry’ and serve to perpetuate uneven economic development. Polanyi’s argument in favor of affecting the rate of change is relevant here.