论题：科技发展取向的管理

　　科技发展取向的管理

　　城市 : FR - Paris

　　分组简介 与会者列表 文件 科技发展首先应该归咎于它自身的动力，因为科学进步自身便能催生新的问题，而技术、方法、工具的进步也能够刺激对新领域的探索，但科技发展也越来越受到政治、经济和社会的影响。政治的影响力在中国与西方关系中显得尤为明显：西方希望通过科技霸权保持先进，保持较高的生活水平和对自然资源的支配能力；而中国则一心希望重返大国行列，重新找回它的威信和在世界民族之林中的地位。

　　经济同样是决定因素，科学研究和技术创新中很大一部分是由企业的经济利益导向的。社会因素同样具有决定性，举个简单的例子，人类与自然关系的不和谐就需要我们迅速地改变生产和消费的方式。从这些意义上讲，科技发展的取向就是重大政策取向，这些政策将深刻影响民生，影响全社会的未来。根据民主的理想，这种取向的确定应该付诸广泛的公民讨论。事实上，不管在哪种政体下，公民们多数时候都与这个议题无缘。这一方面是因为科技议题太过复杂和专业，普通民众通常被认为难以得其门而入，另一方面是因为科技发展的取向通常在企业，尤其在国际大企业中决定，而这已经超出了完全是主权国家的传统政治范畴。

　　本组讨论将分析中国和欧洲决定科技发展取向的方式及其后果。同时本组也将探索一种新的科学和社会间的契约。

　　与会者列表：

　　Ladies :

　　DE LA RUPELLE Maëlys

　　HO Mae-Wan

　　SAXL Ottilia

　　Gentlemen :

　　AUBERT Jean-Eric

　　BEC Louis

　　CALAME Matthieu

　　FAROULT Elie

　　GAUDIN Thierry

　　GOU Hua (苟骅)

　　HAVAS Attila

　　HRONSZKY Imre

　　KLUVER Lars

　　KORDON Claude

　　SIGURDSON Jon

　　VAN DER ZEE Frans

　　YANG BaoFeng (杨宝峰)

　　YAN Guangmei (颜光美)

　　ZHANG Zhilin (张志林)

　　ZHAO Jun (赵君)

　　轴心人物 : CALAME Matthieu, YAN Guangmei (颜光美)

　　主持 : FAROULT Elie

　　评论员 : GAUDIN Thierry

　　后勤支持 : AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES, CLEP Bénédicte

　　论题文件

　　MANAGEMENT OF TECHNIC AND SCIENTIFIC CHOICES VIEWED FROM EUROPE

　　1-Political goals of research and innovation

　　In the field of scientific and technic choices, it is not exagerated to say that Europe has more questions than answers.

　　1-1-The first issue raised by the Green Book of the European Commission is that of coherence in diversity. Europe now comprises 27 countries, most of which speak different languages, and in some of of them several tongues are in use. After World War Two, Europe was built upon the strong idea that economic trade would bring peace between people that had been destroying each other for a century. Experience has shown that this bet was correct, but cultural diversity subsisted. It is even considered by most Europeans as a richess to be preserved. Nevertheless, concerning research, this diversity does not facilitate exchange; and Europe is led to take specific dispositions to make scientific curriculums the same everywhere and to stimulate exchange and mobility of scientists between the different Member States.

　　1-2-Another issue, more scarcely addressed, is that of defining or delimiting research. It can seem fastidious to ask ourselves what is to be researched and what is not. But when looking back at history, this question then makes complete sense. After World War Two, and the extraordinary display of resarch’s power that was the nuclear weapon, the issue of determining the area of research, in order to better understand and control the resources dedicated to it, was raised at OECD level. This work, called “Frascati Manual”, started (without being officially displayed as such) from military needs. Those needs, indeed, are very broad and cover most types of activities. Not only physics and chemistry (which had been used to make weapons) and biology (which could be used to make some more), but also health, mechanics, aeronautics, materials, and… communications. To cite a single example: isn’t Internet an extension of Arpanet, a network built at DARPA’s command to facilitate and accelerate communications between centers working for American department of defense?

　　1-3-However, artistic activities, those of craft, or even knowledge of natural ecosystems, were neglected by the research system built from the 50’s to the 70’s. The only major exception is astrophysics, accepted as a research even though it had no military use. Hoever, from the 70’s onwards, civilian applications of military research became so numerous and important that this original definition was forgotten. Research officially became the intellectual support for economic competition while preserving the idea, dear to scientists, that “fundamental” research is indispensable because, as the Einstein example clearly shows, its applications cannot be foreseen and can be decisive.

　　1-4-Still, if economic competition has replaced military rivalries to motivate and justify funding research, those are nonetheless two expressions of the will for power. Now as in the past, the end of research and innovation is power. Military power yesterday, economic power today. Will it always be so? That is where the big interrogation mark of our future lies.