As Reuters news published an article on Thursday March 31, 2011 (see link to article below) regarding the new rankings of scientific superpowers in the world, it blatantly challenged the success of the Western worlds social contract between science and government funding. The head of the group that conducted the study found that “in the five years from 2002 to 2007, global spending on research and development (R&D) had risen by almost 45 percent -- broadly in line with rising economic growth -- but in developing countries it had risen by 100 percent.” The article carried on to explain the increasing research and development should focus upon solutions to issues of global concern. The advantages to a nation that remains scientifically elite can be calculated by economic measures and most nations recognize the value of science and innovation within a society along with the governments role to foster development of science until it reaches the market. With science being tied so directly to economic gains it is no wonder that R&D has increased so drastically in the last few years; and more specifically the large increase within previously underdog nations such as Iran and Turkey.
This economic incentive for science is reflected in the work of Sheila Jasanoff in her book Designs on Nature. She explains the new wealth of nations as residing in its knowledge capacity and not its natural resources, creating “knowledge societies.” These knowledge resources form the foundation for economic and social development through the use of science and technology. However, she argues that as science becomes more aligned with economic and political power there will arise a widening gap between the government and the governed. This gap can be viewed as stemming from the distance between that direction which science is headed and the direction in which the public values place science, or the ability to include public engagement in policies surrounding the governance of science. While the values of a nation on certain issues may acknowledged through engagement with the public or under different contexts for pursuing certain science, on a global scale the value of science may be a prism of opinions. As more international researchers travel the globe to conduct their work, I am curious to see how the values embedded in science and the values of the public that shape what science gets done are altered in the process. For as people travel, ideas and values travel with them creating a constantly dynamic social stage to examine the social contract of governments to science funding and the anticipated return on investments. Will the large number of international researchers present in a country alter the direction that science research and development proceeds? Some have argued that the more emphasis placed on public values slows the development of science and technology, and as more values are introduced into society it should follow that the process of development, according to those theorists, would bottleneck. However, just as Jasanoff recognizes, the shift towards science as a nations most valuable resource will occur with political changes that may perhaps minimize the role of public values in the long term. Consider China and its totalitarian rule; which contrasts the United States democratic interest in social utility. It seems plausible that public values may be of little concern in the direction of science, technology and innovation within the Chinese boarders and so it would be no wonder that China leads the race in the developing world of science research that correspondingly supports economic incentives. Furthermore, the values engrained in the science policies of nations shape the identity of that nation. As such there is a completely different social contract within nations and as globalization strengthens itself to create a new international culture, one might see that with it will emerge a new social contract based upon an international identity yet to be determined.
No comments:
Post a Comment