Ciencia, tecnología y valores: Axiología de la tecnociencia

Sciences and technologies in our lives: an axiological point of view
International Seminar “Scientific and innovative cultures: social progress”,
Madrid, Fundación Ramón Areces, 28-10- 2013
by Javier Echeverría (Ikerbasque, UPV/EHU)
and Armando Menéndez (Universidad de Oviedo)
Social appropiation of science and
technologies
Q
Q
Q
Q
Merton (1942): Science includes Epistemology, Methodology and Axiology . Laudan’s
reticular model (Science and Values, 1984).
Main way to promove scientific culture: Dissemination and social appropiation (and
use) of scientific and technological knowledge, not only science news (informations
about science). Scientific Education.
– Research as production of knowledge.
– Transfert of scientific knowledge to students, colleagues and organizations
– Dissemination of scientific knowledge (public understanding)
– Public (and private) use of scientific instruments (cloks, termometers, etc.).
– Technological development as production and distribution of technological
engines: social use of technological products as indicator of social appropiation
and progress
Social appropiation of scientific methods. Examples: Scientific Medicine, Politics of
Science (scientometrics, indicators, economics of science---), Nutrition
Transfert of scientific values to society and life. I will focus on that point: Scientific
Culture and Values.
Kuhn: scientific values
Q
Q
"What, I ask to begin with, are the characteristics of a good scientific theory?
Among a number of quite usual answers I select five, not because they are
exhaustive, but because they are individually important and collectively
sufficiently varied to indicate what is at stake. First, a theory should be
accurate […]. Second, a theory should be consistent […]. Third, it should have
broad scope […]. Fourth, and closely related, it should be simple […]. Fifth –a
somewhat less standard item, but one of special importance to actual scientific
decisions– a theory should be fruitful of new research findings […]. These five
characteristics –accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness– are
all standard criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a theory. […] Together with
others of much the same sort, they provide the shared basis for theory choice”
(The Essential Tension 1977, 331-332).
Evaluación científica del conocimiento.
–
–
Q
Peer System Review (Merton)
Epistemic values: Putnam
Otras evaluaciones del conocimiento (económica, social, política, medioambiental, moral, militar, religiosa, etc.)
Several epistemic values
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Accuracy, precision
Consistency (internal and external)
Generality
Simplicity
Fruitfulness
Verificability, falsability, testability
Empirical adequation
Truthlikeness
Truth (meta-value?)
Others: understanding, inteligibility, prediction, originality,
advancement, progress ...)
Peer system review
Q
The key of scientific practice:
– Ethos of science
– Communitary impacts
Q
Certificating and validating knowledge
– Utility, applicability
A procedure of (blind) evaluation
Q Users evaluation
Q Even system review: social impacts
Q
Science, technology and innovation
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
The emergence of technosciences and the imperative of innovating
(since 1980)
Technological innovation and social change. ICT, NBIC, BRAIN…
Relevance of innovative knowledge
– Innovation as a new criterium to evaluate scientific and
technological knowledge
Measuring R&D (Frascati Handbook), Measuring Innovation (Oslo
Handbook)
– Studies of innovation and Politics of Innovation
UE: From knowledge (European Knowledge Society) to innovation
(Union Innovation 2020, innovative societies, social innovation and
social progress)
Innovation as a new value
(European Union)
Q
Q
Q
Q
Aho Report 2006: “It is unacceptable that the current state aid rules for
I+D are based on the linear model of innovation when there is a broad
academic, govern and industry consensus that the model is wrong”
CE 2006: “The EU can only become comprehensively innovative if all
actors become envolved and in particular if there is market demand for
innovative products. This broad strategy needs to engage all partiesbusiness, public sector and consumers. This is because the innovation
process involves not only the business sector, but also public
authorities at national, regional and local level, civil society
organizations, trade unions and consumers”, COM (2006) 502 final,
pp. 3-4.
“All forms of innovation need to be promoted, for innovation comes in
many forms others than technological innovation, including
organisational innovation and innovation in services”, COM (2006)
502 final, p. 4
Union Innovation 2020, New Nature of Innovation (OECD 2010)
Hidden innovations
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
NESTA (2006), The Innovation Gap, and NESTA 2007, Hidden
Innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts.
Definition: “the innovation activities that are not reflected in traditional
indicators such as investments in formal R&D or patents awarded”
(NESTA 2007, p. 4).
NESTA distinguished between science-based innovation and
innovations non-based in scientific knowledge
Four kinds of hidden innovations, including social innovation.
UK Government, Nation Innovation (2008), p. 12: “Innovation
happens in all service and manufacturing sectors and in the public and
third sectors”.
Promoting the culture of innovation in society and life, not only the
scientific and technological culture.
Users Innovation
Eric von Hippel 1998 and 2005
(Democratizing Innovation)
Q Production, supply, distribution and use as
sources of innovation.
Q Scientists as users of scientific instruments
Q Leading users and innovation
Q
Prevalence of user-innovation in the
EU (Innometrics, 2009)
Q
Q
Q
Q
The findings show that a substantial minority of innovative firms in the
EU are involved in process and product modification (around 30%), and
more than half such firms involve users in support of their innovative
activities.
User innovation is also more or less evenly spread across industrial
sectors and across EU countries.
A clear message from the analysis undertaken in this report is that
firms engaged in user innovation can be classed as ìsuper-innovatorsî.
Compared to other innovative firms, they are more likely to introduce
new products, processes or services. They are also more likely to
initiate new organizational methods.
Table 3 reports the proportion of innovative firms that are user
innovators in the three categories discussed above. The results show
that of the 4,400 innovative firms in the 2007 IB survey 30.3% are User
Process Innovators, and 27.7% are User Product Innovators. In
contrast a much higher proportion of the 4377 innovative firms in the
2009 Survey are User Involvers: 53.1%.
The Culture of Innovation:
Other competences ans skills
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Entrepreneurship
Coworking: cooperation and competition
Technological competences
Communicational competences (marketing)
Innovation and Education: Learning by doing, by playing, by
interacting
Unssuccesful innovations (Castells, 90%). Laerning to loss.
Taking risks
Creating value (economic, social, cultural)
Evaluation of innovation processes, results and consequences
(innovation risks).
Innovation bareers
Value Networks (value chain, Porter) and stakeholders in an
innovation prcess
Users innovation (von Hippel)
Social Innovation and Social Progress
From sciences to technosciences
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Big Science (Solla Price), since II. World War
Technosciences: since 1980
Changes of the structure of scientific practice
National Systems of R+D+i
Scientific practice oriented by a plurality of
values: institutional values
Information and communication technologies
Techno-scientific revolution
Sciences, techniques, technologies and
technosciences
Techno-scientific Culture
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Queraltó 2003, 26-7: “lo que ha ocurrido es la integración total de
ciencia y tecnología” ... “el término tecnociencia describe ese
fenómeno de forma precisa”
Synthese of heterogeneous cultural traditions: scientists, technologists,
entrepreneurs, politicians (laws), armies ...
A mixed culture with structural problems
A mixed system of values
External values: social, cultural, ecological, moral, aesthetic, religious,
military, etc.
Scientific knowledge becomes a tool to innovate
Risks: Social lack of confidence towards several technosciences
Moral, social, political, ecological and religious conflicts
Different kinds of values
Q
Basic
Q
– Natural
Epistemic
Q Technological
Q Economic
Q Military
Q Juridical
Q
Political
– Cultural
Social
Q Ecological
Q Aesthetic
Q Religious
Q Moral
Q