Summary The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the British Royal Society's science diplomacy taxonomy has received much criticism. Some argue that there is a lack of empirical evidence to underpin the taxonomy's three science diplomacy dimensions. This particularly applies to the third dimension, science for diplomacy, and its effectiveness. Others criticise the taxonomy for painting the picture of compliant scientists who would discard their academic ideals to support foreign policy objectives. Against the backdrop of these two points of criticism, this study investigates if scientists are willing to support political objectives through science collaborations. It also examines under which conditions science for diplomacy is effective. Using the epistemic community approach, expert interviews and a case study, the study argues that science for diplomacy is effective if it is promoted by a close-knit epistemic community and shows that scientists oppose the instrumentalisation of scientific collaboration for political purposes.
Developments in international relations and military doctrines after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have raised a number of issues related to the production, transfer and use of military technology. Part of the response to asymmetric or other threats depends on the exploitation of relevant skills in support of research, development and production; on the efficient organization of such activities at the national and multinational levels; and on sharing the outputs with friendly states and allies. Military research and development (R&D) is the most expensive and basic phase in the creation of a new weapon platform. The 'revolution in military affairs', which some see as more of a constant evolution, is a process that today is identified with 'network-centric' military solutions, of which the war in Iraq in 2003 has been called the first operational test. The Iraq war effort benefited from the breakdown of the barrier between civil and military technology in the fields of communications, information technology and sensors. There has been a shift in emphasis from traditional military R&D of defined weapon platforms towards greater military exploitation of science and technology (S&T). This is referred to as 'S&T-based military innovation', implying cooperation with as well as direct and long-term military support -- through defense ministries, armed services and related research organizations -- for basic research, applied research and exploratory technology development to achieve and support future military capabilities. The USA and the UK are examples of nations with a national S&T-based military innovation policy. Despite their differences, both policies reflect the overlap between what are considered civil and military S&T areas. In the USA the implementation of S&T-based military innovation has been standard procedure at least since World War II. The UK is a major European military producer and the one where a new emphasis on S&T-based military innovation has been most clearly demonstrated. In spite of the European Security and Defense Policy, there is no coordinated European S&T-based military innovation policy. This is partly because the inclusion of defense as an EU task is only recent and partly because of the overlapping and unclear boundaries between the pillars of the organization. Another difficulty is national competition within Europe and attempts to preserve national skills rather than pool them. However, there are changes under way that might constitute steps towards the establishment of a more coordinated European, or even EU, S&T-based military innovation policy. Should such a policy be formulated, the enlargement of the EU in 2004 may bring both S&T benefits and competitive drawbacks. It is also open to question whether European S&T will be sufficient to meet EU capability ambitions. Exploiting foreign S&T for EU military innovation would enhance national S&T-based military innovation and multinational research programs. There are three long-term implications of a shift towards EU S&T-based military innovation: for data and transparency; for research ethics; and for finding a political balance between cooperation, competition and technology controls among both friends and foes. The data and transparency problem -- a general problem in military and security studies -- is further complicated by S&T-based military innovation. The ethical problem is basically an individual problem mainly for non-military actors involved in S&T-based military innovation. The neutral aspect of S&T and the many uncertainties with regard to its potential military use will involve difficult considerations for actors, especially if transparency remains low. The problem of finding an acceptable political balance between the free sharing of S&T results and trying to gain commercial and technological advantages over military competitors -- both friends and foes -- while at the same time implementing technology transfer controls in order to prevent or delay military innovation by potential enemies is likely to become an increasingly delicate task. Adapted from the source document.
The article focuses both on account technology as a factor in the twentieth-century relations of the United States and Europe and a view of transatlantic history through the lens of technology. It describes the trajectory of modernization through technology in certain characteristically transatlantic contexts – including the Cold War role, the advancement in military technologies and the international political competition. It demonstrates that technology development in many ways, provides structure for transatlantic cooperation and acting as a force reshaping political relations.
This expanded and updated edition of Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art revisits the use of complexity theory across the social sciences and demonstrates how complexity informs approaches to various contemporary issues in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, widening social inequality, and impending social and ecological catastrophe wrought by global warming. The book reviews complexity theory in the practice of the social sciences and at their interface with ecological science. It outlines how social theory can be reconciled with complexity thinking and presents a review of the way research can be done using complexity theory. The book suggests how complexity theory can be used to understand and evaluate governance processes, particularly with regard to social inequality and the climate crisis. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is also examined through a complexity lens, reviewing how complexity thinking has been employed in relation to the pandemic and how implementing a complexity framework can transform health and social care. The book concludes with a call to action and the use of complexity theory to inform critical thinking in the education system.
Many books instruct readers on how to use the tools of policy analysis. This book is different. Its primary focus is on helping readers to look critically at the strengths, limitations, and the underlying assumptions analysts make when they use standard tools or problem framings. Using examples, many of which involve issues in science and technology, the book exposes readers to some of the critical issues of taste, professional responsibility, ethics, and values that are associated with policy analysis and research. Topics covered include policy problems formulated in terms of utility maximization such as benefit-cost, decision, and multi-attribute analysis, issues in the valuation of intangibles, uncertainty in policy analysis, selected topics in risk analysis and communication, limitations and alternatives to the paradigm of utility maximization, issues in behavioral decision theory, issues related to organizations and multiple agents, and selected topics in policy advice and policy analysis for government
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
The article analyzes the state of education and science through the prism of socio-economic and ethical problems in modern Russian society. The subject of the research is the contents of the sections of St. Petersburg International Economic Forum devoted to education, science and personal development. Some speeches of iconic participants were analyzed. The theoretical basis of the research was the works of domestic and foreign authors of the socio-philosophical and sociological directions. The methodological basis consists of the general philosophical principles of consistency, conformity, completeness, complementarity, determinism and verification. The study used such socio-philosophical methods as a method of historical and logical unity in social cognition, specifically historical, historical-retrospective, and comparative historical. The main findings of the study: the main orientation in modern Russian society is the effectiveness of business development without a focus on public interests; the main task formulated for other social spheres and contradicting the proper: what exactly politics, society, education, science should give to business. Economy and business, being one of the spheres of society, should ensure the development of the country and welfare of the people. The key to the development of the country and welfare of the people is science and education, which, cannot be regarded as a source of income. The existing substitution of goals will lead to irreversible consequences. Measures to remedy the situation can only be taken by power; to which people delegated authority, defining the main purpose of their activities directed towards the growth of people`s welfare and the prosperity of the country.
Thomas Carlyle famously called economy the 'dismal science.' In fact, technocratic views are often used as foundations for the existence of wide worldviews or ideologies. This relationship can be observed in the early writings of Ludwig von Mises around the First World War. Although Mises was, at all times in his career, explaining and describing economic processes, his writings acquire a decisive political-narrative emphasis in Nation, State, and Economy (1919). As we will try to show, his attempts to ground political solutions in epistemology go far beyond economic scientific work. Can 'true science' serve as a foundation for an ideology? By analysing his political thought (1907-1919), it is argued that Mises shifted in this respect as a reaction against the First World War. Socialism, according to Mises, is based on ideological choices devoid of solid scientific foundations. However, we will argue that Mises is, in the end, conceptually mimicking the socialists he criticizes, notably in both ideologies' claim that they represent a 'true science.' Mises himself seemed more or less aware of this fact. ; Ficou celebre a expressão de Thomas Carlyle de que a economia é a 'ciência funeste.' Na verdade, bases tecnocráticas são frequentemente utilizadas como fundações de ideologias ou vastas mundivisões. Podemos observar um bom exemplo disso nas primeiras obras de Ludwig von Mises, escritos na altura da Primeira Guerra Mundial. Apesar de Mises ter explicado e descrito fenómenos económicos durante toda a sua carreira, as suas obras adquirem uma ênfase decisivamente política e narrativa em Nation, State, and Economy (1919). Como tentaremos demonstrar, as suas tentativas para fundamentar soluções políticas na epistemologia vão muito além da ciência económica. Será que uma 'verdadeira ciência' pode servir de fundação para uma ideologia? Através de uma analise do seu pensamento político, argumentaremos que Mises, em reacção à Primeira Guerra Mundial, mudou nesse aspecto. Segundo Mises, o Socialismo baseia-se sobre escolhas ideológicas sem qualquer tipo de fundações científicas. No entanto, conforme argumentamos Mises, no final, está a espelhar conceptualmente os socialistas que ele crítica, nomeadamente quando ambas as ideologias dizem representar uma 'verdadeira ciência.' Mises parecia estar mais ou menos consciente desse facto.
The perception that international environmental interests have encroached upon the political sovereignty of certain nations is addressed. An overview of traditional conceptualization of political authority within international relations is presented, emphasizing the increase of popular participation at the international level, especially within the context of developing responses to environmental degradation. It is maintained that the proliferation of scientific approaches to addressing global environmental problems may offer the most significant challenges to national sovereignty. Despite the potential benefits of scientific methods for resolving environmental difficulties, several factors that have delayed certain nations' acceptance of such proposals are identified, eg, the uncertainty of scientific models. Scientists' role in augmenting the international community's awareness of the serious threat posed by global climate change is then considered. Several recommendations for increasing the international community's acceptance of scientific methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in addition, sovereign nations are urged to acknowledge the authority of scientific research. J. W. Parker
