【作者】 董金华；

【导师】 庞学铨；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 论文以二战以来美国科学技术与政治之间的社会关系为线索,探讨了两者之间契约关系的产生和发展过程,展现了在美国市场经济和民主政治的条件下,科技与政治之间所呈现的一种物质经济关系,体现为一种契约关系,这种契约关系一般表现为委托与代理。通常政治主体是科技活动的委托者和资助者,科技主体则充当受托者或代理者,承担着政治主体委托的研究项目和科技活动。而由于科学与技术之间多元的关系,导致了政治在处理科学、技术之间关系的差异。1944年下半年,即第二次世界大战结束前的那年,罗斯福总统要求当时的战时科学研究与开发局局长万尼瓦尔·布什预测科学在和平年代的作用。五年以后,布什报告中提出的基础科学与技术创新之关系的观点,成为战后几十年里国家科学政策的基础。布什用两句格言说明了关于基础研究的表述。第一句是“基础研究的实施不考虑实际结果”,这一句论述表明:基础科学一旦受命于不成熟的实际应用目标,就会断送它的创造力。布什看到了就研究目标而言,基础研究和应用研究之间存在着内在矛盾,进而认识到基础和应用研究内在的分离.如果说布什的第一句格言表达了战后范式的静态形式,那么他的第二句格言则为动态形式奠定了基础。他写道:“基础研究是技术进步的先驱”。这句话表明了这样一种观点:使基础研究远离应用的过早考虑是合适的,基础科学将被证明是技术进步的一个长远而强大的动力,因为应用研究与开发能把基础科学的发现转化为技术创新,以满足社会经济、国防、健康及其他需要。代表动态形式的一维图像是“线性模式”,即基础科学引起应用研究与开发;再依据创新是一种产品还是一种工艺,转到生产或经营。布什的基础科学与技术创新之间关系观点所含有的另外一层含义就是随着科学的进步,对基础科学投入的那些人,能通过技术转化过程将科学成果转化为技术创新,进而在技术方面得到回报。但是,近年来,这个战后的框架已经面临极大的压力。在冷战初期形成的科学界与政府间的联系开始瓦解。从更深的层次上讲,这是由于:战后人们对科学技术间关系的信念的减弱淡化了政府与科学问的契约关系。人们需要对基础科学与技术创新的关系有一个更为现实的认识。司托克斯对布什的观点进行了挑战。他认为,我们只有认识到布什观点的错误以后,才能重新建立政府与科学共同体之间的契约关系。司托克斯首先从分析科学研究中的认识与应用这两个目标入手,重申了在认识与应用之间有张力这一被广泛接受的观点,并引证了一个典型事例:巴斯德在一个世纪以前奠定的微生物学,既是基础研究,又是应用研究。从那时起,技术越来越多地以科学为基础——科研问题的选择和研究的方向常常由社会需要引起。根据这种科学技术相互作用的新观点,司托克斯建立了一个令人信服的模型,并通过对“应用引起的基础研究”的重要性的认识,建立起了政府与科学问的新型契约关系。戈斯顿的科技与政治问委托-代理者理论模型为我们分析这种契约关系提供了一个很好的理论工具。他指出,科学研究活动是依赖诚信与效益进行的;二战后的科学技术与政治之间的社会契约关系中所假定的诚信与效益是自由的科学研究的自动产品,它经受了忠诚、财经责任及科学家技术目标的诉求;直到20世纪80年代,各种科学不端行为和跌落的经济绩效打破了政治与科技间的这种信赖;为重构这种信赖和解决委托代理问题,科学家与非科学家必须在新的边界组织中携手合作;灵活的体制设计可创建政治与科技间稳定的伙伴关系。戈斯顿的委托者——代理者理论对于阐明科技与政治之间的契约关系具有重要意义,但仍然存在一定缺陷。论文最后结合中国的现实,探讨了如何构建科技与政治之间的和谐关系.由于论文主题所限,论文只分析了科技与政治之间的契约关系,而这对于构建科技与人类社会的美好未来来说是不够的。在当前情况下,一方面应该让产业界参与进来,另一方面也应该让广大民众参与进来。当前我国更应该在推进以科学为基础的自主技术创新政策,重视治理科研不端行为以及完善管理和监督机制方面做出更多的努力。而无论哪一方面的工作,都离不开产业界和公民的支持和参与.政治作为民众委托的代理方,不能离开民意,不能离开民众对科学的理解和支持;产业界作为促进科技发展必不可少的一支力量,离开产业界谈科技与人类社会的和谐发展也是不充分的。科技与政治的和谐发展需要四方力量的支持:科技、政治、产业、民众,这四种力量的汇合更能保证科技与政治之间和谐契约关系的实现。更多还原

【Abstract】 With a clue of the social relationship between science-technology and politics in the United States of America, this dissertation aims to explore the origin and the development of the social contractual relationship between the two factors mentioned above. It reveals that under the market economy and democratic politics in the United States, the material and economic relationship between science-technology and politics takes the form of contract, i.e. the relationship between the principal and the agent. The political subjects are usually the principals and supporters of the science-technology activities, while scientific and technological subjects are agents, who undertake the research program and science-technology activities given by the political subjects. And the pluralistic relationship between science and technology resulted in the fact that politics deals with the science and technology differently.Late in 1944, a year before the end of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush, director of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, to predict what the role of science will be in peacetime. Half a decade late, he expressed his views on the basic science and its relation to technological innovation in a report to the President, which became the foundation of the nation’s science policy for the postwar decades. Bush compressed these premises into two aphorisms. The first was that "basic research is performed without thought of practical ends." This expressed such a belief that the creativity of basic science will be lost if it is constrained by premature thought of practical use. Bush saw an inherent tension, and by extension, an inherent separation between basic and applied research in terms of the research goals. If Bush’s first aphorism laid the foundation for the static version of the postwar paradigm, then we may say that the second one, "Basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress", laid the foundation for the dynamic version. In the second aphorism, he expressed such a belief that if basic research is appropriately insulated from short-circuiting by premature considerations of use, it will prove to be a remote but powerful dynamo to technological progress as applied research may convert the discoveries of basic science into technological innovations to meet the full range needs of the society’s economy, defense, health, and so on. The one-dimensional image that represents this dynamic version of the postwar paradigm is a "linear model," with basic research leading to applied research and development. Then according to whether the innovation is of a product or a process, applied research can be converted into production or operation. And Bush’s view of the relationship between fundamental science and technological innovation contains an additional element, i.e. those who invest in basic science research will capture its return in technology as the achievements in scientific research are converted into technological innovation by the processes of technology transfer.But in recent years this postwar framework has come under intense pressure. The contract between science and the government reached in the early years of the cold war has become unstuck. At a deeper level the postwar bargain has been undermined by the weaknesses in the postwar beliefs about the relationship between science and technology. We need a more realistic view of the relationship between basic science and technological innovation. Donald E. Stokes makes a challenge to Bush’s view. He maintains that we can rebuild the relationship between government and the scientific community only when we understand what is wrong with Bush’s view. Beginning with an analysis of understanding and use in scientific research, Stokes recasts the widely accepted view that tension exists between understanding and use, citing as a model case the fundamental yet use-inspired studies by which Louis Pasteur laid the foundations of microbiology a century ago. From then on, technology has been increasingly science-based——with the choice of problems and the conduct of research often inspired by societal needs. Based on this revised, interactive views of science and technology, Stokes builds a convincing mode that by recognizing the importance of use-inspired basic research we can frame a new compact between science and government.D. H. Guston presented a model of principal-agent theory between science-technology and politics, which provides us with a good theory tool to analyze this kind of contractual relationship. He contends that research activities are complemented by depending on integrity and productivity. After World War II, the theory of "social contract for science" assumed that integrity and productivity were the automatic products of unfettered scientific inquiry which has undergone the requirements of loyalty, financial-monetary duty and scientist’s technology aims. Until 1980s, kinds of scientific research misconducts and the falling economic achievements have broken up the trust between politics and science. In order to reconstruct this trust and solve the problems of delegation, scientists and non-scientists must collaborate in new boundary organizations. And flexible system design can create steady partnerships between politics and science. Guston’s principal-agent theory is of great significance to clarify the interactive relationship between science-technology and politics. Yet there are still some defects in his theory.In the end of this paper, the author discusses how to construct the interactive relationship between science-technology and politics based on the current situation in China. Constrained with the scope of the subject, the author just made an analysis of the contractual relationship between science-technology and politics, which is surely insufficient for constructing the bright future of science-technology and the human being. In the author’s view, currently the government should make the policy to promote independent technology innovation based on scientific research. And also great efforts should be made to deal with scientific misconduct and improve the administration and monitor. It is essential for both the industry and the public to participate these activities. For that politics as the agent of the public should represent the public’s opinion. And the industry is an important factor to propel the development of science and technology, so it is impossible for science-technology and the human being to develop without the participation of the industry. To sum it up, the harmonious development of science-technology and politics depends on the following four factors: science-technology, politics, the industry and the public. With these four factors, contractual relationship between science-technology and politics can be assured.更多还原