科技發(fā)展取向的管理

　　城市 : FR - Paris

　　分組簡介 與會者列表 文件 科技發(fā)展首先應該歸咎于它自身的動力，因為科學進步自身便能催生新的問題，而技術(shù)、方法、工具的進步也能夠刺激對新領(lǐng)域的探索，但科技發(fā)展也越來越受到政治、經(jīng)濟和社會的影響。政治的影響力在中國與西方關(guān)系中顯得尤為明顯：西方希望通過科技霸權(quán)保持先進，保持較高的生活水平和對自然資源的支配能力；而中國則一心希望重返大國行列，重新找回它的威信和在世界民族之林中的地位。

　　經(jīng)濟同樣是決定因素，科學研究和技術(shù)創(chuàng)新中很大一部分是由企業(yè)的經(jīng)濟利益導向的。社會因素同樣具有決定性，舉個簡單的例子，人類與自然關(guān)系的不和諧就需要我們迅速地改變生產(chǎn)和消費的方式。從這些意義上講，科技發(fā)展的取向就是重大政策取向，這些政策將深刻影響民生，影響全社會的未來。根據(jù)民主的理想，這種取向的確定應該付諸廣泛的公民討論。事實上，不管在哪種政體下，公民們多數(shù)時候都與這個議題無緣。這一方面是因為科技議題太過復雜和專業(yè)，普通民眾通常被認為難以得其門而入，另一方面是因為科技發(fā)展的取向通常在企業(yè)，尤其在國際大企業(yè)中決定，而這已經(jīng)超出了完全是主權(quán)國家的傳統(tǒng)政治范疇。

　　本組討論將分析中國和歐洲決定科技發(fā)展取向的方式及其后果。同時本組也將探索一種新的科學和社會間的契約。

　　與會者列表：

　　Ladies :

　　DE LA RUPELLE Maëlys

　　HO Mae-Wan

　　SAXL Ottilia

　　Gentlemen :

　　AUBERT Jean-Eric

　　BEC Louis

　　CALAME Matthieu

　　FAROULT Elie

　　GAUDIN Thierry

　　GOU Hua (茍驊)

　　HAVAS Attila

　　HRONSZKY Imre

　　KLUVER Lars

　　KORDON Claude

　　SIGURDSON Jon

　　VAN DER ZEE Frans

　　YANG BaoFeng (楊寶峰)

　　YAN Guangmei (顏光美)

　　ZHANG Zhilin (張志林)

　　ZHAO Jun (趙君)

　　軸心人物 : CALAME Matthieu, YAN Guangmei (顏光美)

　　主持 : FAROULT Elie

　　評論員 : GAUDIN Thierry

　　后勤支持 : AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES, CLEP Bénédicte

　　論題文件

　　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.