Changing Social Relations Between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges Venni Krishna

Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges Venni Krishna

To cite this version:

Venni Krishna. Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges. 2013. halshs-00910707

HAL Id: halshs-00910707 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00910707 Preprint submitted on 28 Nov 2013

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Prix Charles et Monique Morazé

Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges

Venni V. Krishna N°54 | november 2013

he social institution of science has evolved as one of the most powerful, highly inluential and sought out institutions. Knowledge as public good; peer review of science; prominence attached to open publications; and premium placed on professional recognition and scientiic autonomy remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries. Based on this ethos of science, the social institution of science evolved a unique social contract between science and society in the last six decades. As we enter the second decade of 21st century, the social institution of science is undergoing a major change. hree societal forces are responsible for the change: a) globalization; b) industrial and post-industrial society; and c) climate change. What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? And what implications this has for our contemporary and future society?

Working Papers Series

Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges

Venni V. Krishna

November 2013

The author Venni V. KRISHNA is Professor in Science Policy at the Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU), New Delhi, and Editor-in-Chief of Science, Technology and Society – An International Journal published by Sage Publications. He has a PhD in Sociology of Science from the University of Wollongong, Australia. With over 28 years of research and teaching experience he has published over 30 research papers and ive books. His publications include: Science, Technology and Difusion of Knowledge: Innovation Systems in Asia-Paci- ic (Edward Elgar, UK 2007); Scientiic Communities in the Developing Countries (Sage Publications, New Delhi 1997); Science and Technology in a Developing World (Kluwer Academic Press, he Netherlands). He was a consultant to UNESCO, Paris, for the World Science Report 1998; UNESCO Science Report 2005; World Social Science Report – Knowledge Divides, 2010; and to the ILO in 2001. He was a Council Member of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), USA. Since 2005-06, he is the correspondent for European Union network programs (ERAWATCH and Trend Chart Analysis) on innovation policies and research policies for India. Dr. Krishna held several visiting positions at FMSH in 1994-96; National University of Singapore in 2008-10; University of New South Wales in 2009-12; and Univer- sity of Western Sydney in 2004-05. Currently he is holding a Visiting Professorship at the Institute of Advanced Study, United Nations University, Yokohama, Japan. The text Charles and Monique Morazé Award Lecture, December 3, 2013. More information on the Charles and Monique Morazé Lecture : http://www.fmsh.fr/en/c/4104 Citing this document Venni V. Krishna, Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges, FMSH- WP-2013-54, november 2013.

Les Working Papers et les Position Papers de he Working Papers and Position Papers of la Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme the FMSH are produced in the course of ont pour objectif la difusion ouverte des tra- the scientiic activities of the FMSH: the © Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 2013 vaux en train de se faire dans le cadre des chairs of the Institute for Global Studies, diverses activités scientiiques de la Fonda- Fernand Braudel-IFER grants, the Founda- Informations et soumission des textes : tion : Le Collège d’études mondiales, Bourses tion’s scientiic programmes, or the scholars [email protected] Fernand Braudel-IFER, Programmes scien- hosted at the Maison Suger or as associate tiiques, hébergement à la Maison Suger, research directors. Working Papers may also Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme Séminaires et Centres associés, Directeurs be produced in partnership with ailiated 190-196 avenue de France d’études associés... institutions. 75013 Paris - France Les opinions exprimées dans cet article n’en- he views expressed in this paper are the http://www.fmsh.fr gagent que leur auteur et ne relètent pas author’s own and do not necessarily relect http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/FMSH-WP nécessairement les positions institutionnelles institutional positions from the Foundation http://wpfmsh.hypotheses.org de la Fondation MSH. MSH.

Abstract Social history of modern science, particularly the way it acquired social legitimacy clearly depicts the science and society relationships emerging from the time of Galileo. he social institution of science has evolved as one of the most powerful, highly inluential and sought out institutions. Knowledge as public good; peer review of science; prominence attached to open publications; and premium placed on professional recognition and scientiic autonomy remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries. Based on this ethos of science, the social institution of science evolved a unique social contract between science and society in the last six decades. As we enter the second decade of 21st century, the social institution of science is undergoing a major change. hree societal forces are responsible for the change: a) globalization; b) industrial and post-industrial society; and c) climate change. What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? And what implications this has for our contemporary and future society? hese are some of the important issues, which will be addressed in this essay, which has inspired the lecture given during the awarding of the Charles and Monique Morazé Prize 2013 to the international journal Science, Technology and Society published by Sage India. Keywords ethos of science; science; social institution of science; globalization; post-industrial society; climate change L’évolution des relations sociales entre science et société : déis contemporains Résumé L’histoire sociale de la science moderne, particulièrement la façon dont elle a acquis sa légitimité sociale, analyse les relations entre science et société telles qu’elles émergèrent depuis Galilée. L’institution sociale de la science est devenue au il du temps l’une des plus puissantes, l’une des plus inluentes et l’une des plus courtisées des institutions. La connaissance déinie comme bien commun, l’évaluation par les pairs, la prééminence des publications ouvertes, comme celle de la reconnaissance professionnelle et de l’auto- nomie scientiique ont constitué depuis trois siècles les traits distinctifs de la science. Cette éthique de l’institution scientiique a fourni la base du contrat social qui s’est établi entre science et société depuis six décennies. Mais alors que nous entrons dans la deuxième décennie du XXIe siècle, l’institution sociale de la science est en pleine transformation. Trois dynamiques sociétales expliquent ce changement : la mondialisation ; l’industrialisation et la post-industrialisation ; le changement climatique. Quels en sont les enjeux ? Jusqu’à quel point cette évolution est-elle signiicative? Jusqu’où l’institution sociale de la science en est-elle elle-même afectée ? Quelles implications ce processus aura-t-il sur la société contemporaine, et sur celle de demain ? L’essai qui suit tente d’éclairer ces importantes questions. Ce texte a servi de base à la conférence prononcée à l’occasion de la remise du Prix Charles et Monique Morazé 2013 à la revue internationale Science, Technology and Society, publiée par Sage India. Mots-clefs éthique de la science, science, institution sociale de la science, mondialisation, société post-industrielle, changement climatique

Content

Globalization and the changing social contract between science and society 7 Globalization 7 Social contract between science and society – post-war experience 8 Changing Social Contract between science and society – post-1990s 10 Public good to market good 11 Advancing knowledge to creation of wealth 11 Open science to secrecy and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 12 From peer evaluation to regulation by clients, markets and public at large 13 Academic science to entrepreneurial universities 13 Challenge of industrial and post-industrial societies 14 Rise of regulatory science and citizen science 14 Inclusive innovation – science and society at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ 16 Climate Change and the Challenge of Energy Research 17 Need for scientiic commons 18 Climate innovation centers 19 Concluding remarks 20 References 21

he epistemological roots of science, in is an integral part of the professionalization of all its ramiications, can be traced to science. his process began in the developing Asia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, through world of Asia, Africa and Latin America from Greeks, Judeo-Christian, Arab and the middle and later parts of 20th Century.3 Tscholastic traditions. From Bachelard’s notion of he social history of modern science, particu- ‘epistemological break’ or Kuhnian notion of para- larly the way in which it acquired social legiti- digmatic shift for modern science began with the macy and utilitarian values clearly depicts the renaissance and reformation (14th to 16th Centu- science and society relationships fully emerging ries), which gave birth to historic igures such as from the time of Galileo Galilei.4 In 20th Cen- Galileo Galilei and Leonardo da Vinci. Another tury this relationship between science and society enveloping but a complimentary era followed relects in large measure Comtian positivism this development. Science as a body of systema- in its third stage. In a way it, ‘characterized the tic knowledge about nature and of universe from story of science from remote antiquity, but espe- the time of Copernicus Revolution and the age cially from the Renaissance and the Scientiic of Enlightenment (16th and 17th centuries) culmi- Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, as one nated into what historians of science termed as of steady accomplishment, a march of the intel- the 17th Century Scientiic Revolution. his era lect, achieving victories over myth and supers- for the irst time witnessed institutionalization of tition by a lengthy process of observation, trial, modern sciences in various professional societies error and eventually the codiication of laws and and bodies such as Academia dei Lincei, Rome theories’ (McLeod 1977: 152). Science, over a (1603); Leopoldina, Germany (1652); Royal period of time, acquired social legitimacy and Society, London (1660) French Academy of in the process came in conlict with the Church Sciences (1666) rechristened as Royal Academy and religion. his is well documented in the case of Sciences, France (1699); Russian Academy of Galileo who upheld and advocated Coper- of Sciences (1724) Dublin Academy of Science nican astronomy. Underlying the processes of (1735); and Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784), science gaining social legitimacy is the web of among others.1 It may be pointed out that that social relations between science, its practitioners, pre-cursor to these bodies is ‘Solomon’s House’ the knowledge it generated and the society. he of Bacon. Francis Bacon in his utopia New Atlan- element of rationality, truth and what has come tis (1627) painted the picture of future university to be known as objective knowledge was widely and science organization featuring knowledge a accepted and upheld by the society at large. Over cumulative process by community and experi- a period of time, it has come to be recognized as mentally testable organization. part of the culture, a perspective, an ideology and However, as inluential writings of Ben-David a viewpoint of society. (1971), Salomon (1979), among others2, draw As one Indian historian, argues, ‘science as our attention to the fact that it was not until 18th culture and as part of the social formation of and 19th Centuries that science and its activities society… is more wide-angled and takes in many pursued by professionals begun to acquire the facets involving interactions and osmosis’. he status of a profession. Scientists began to have ‘knowledge emerges from the combination of an career with regular emoluments, employment indigenous genesis together with transmission in research institutions, professional bodies and from other coexisting cultures, a transmission universities. Creation of university Chairs, Ph.D. which can involve some contestation and some training programmes, establishment of science negotiation. his process takes the form of cultu- societies, launching of professional journals and ral transactions, within a culture and between research laboratories as well as the advancement cultures. Knowledge, viewed either as a body of of systematic knowledge emerged and developed by mid 19th and early 20th Centuries. his process 3. See Gaillard, Krishna and Waast (1997) and Roland Waast (1996) 1. Students of Galileo founded the Accademia del Cimen- 4. As is well known in history of science Galileo came in to (Academy of Experiment) in Florence in1657. Colbert conlict with Catholic Church for his advocacy of Coper- founded the French Academy in 1666. In contrast to Royal nican astronomy of heliocentric system. Roman Inquisition Society, this academy was funded by the government. tried Galileo in 1633 and found him suspect of heresy and 2. here is a plethora of writings but two sources are sociolo- sentenced him to imprisonment. However it was converted gically interesting. See Barnes (1972) and MacLeod (1977) to house arrest in which he remained for the rest of his life.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 6/26 information or as theories of explanation, is part has changed as a result of various forces acting of this transaction’ (hapar 1999: 16-18). and inluencing it. he term science is being used Science as culture can be understood in two ways here in a rather broader sense of understanding and forms, both integral parts of society. ‘First of science as social system and its inluence on 6 in its own evolution and secondly in its accom- society by its application. modation by culture’ (Gillispie 1962: 89). In the As we have briely sketched what is otherwise intellectual debates of history and sociology of well known, the social institution of science science these two forms of science are seen as has evolved as one of the most powerful, highly ‘internal’ and ‘external’ for quite some time now. inluential and sought out institutions by the As Thomas Kuhn (1968: 76) pointed out, inter- governments, private and corporate business nal form of science is ‘concerned with the subs- enterprises and society at large. It is needless to tance of science as knowledge’ and external form elaborate here that the institution of modern relates to ‘the activity of scientists as a social science as it evolved over a period of more than group within a larger culture’.5 Another inluen- ive centuries is intimately associated with the tial sociologist who laid the foundations since material wealth, prosperity and in improving the mid 20th Century to explore and analyze science health, longevity and living standards and com- and society relations is Robert K. Merton. Exten- forts of our daily life-worlds. At the same time, ding the cultural foundations of science from a we cannot ignore the fact, at least in the public number of empirical studies of scientists in the perception that it is in some way or other is also 17th Century England and particularly the Royal associated with certain dangerous consequences Society, Merton may be credited to have also laid and dysfunctional impacts on society. the foundations of science as a social institution: he era of unbound optimism over science, pro- ‘Science is deceptively inclusive word which gress and development has come under recurrent refers to a variety of distinct though interrela- scrutiny since the 1970s. Whether it was Rachel ted items. It is commonly used to denote a set Carson’s Silent Spring (1962); Club of Rome of characteristic methods by means of which Report (1972) on Limits to Growth; or the cri- knowledge is certiied; a stock of accumula- tiques coming from scholars such as Ashis Nandy ted knowledge stemming from the application through his controversial volume on Science, of these methods; a set of cultural values and Hegemony and Violence – A Requiem for Moder- mores governing the activities termed scien- nity (1988) – these critiques clearly relected the tiic or any combination of the foregoing. We changing mood over science and society rela- are here concerned in a preliminary fashion tions. his critique progressed in the 1990s and with the cultural structure of science, that is has come into sharp focus in the last decade, par- with one limited aspect of science as an insti- ticularly with the impact of globalization. he tution’ (Merton 1972:66) enthusiasm and euphoria of globalization did not last long. Within a decade and a half of globali- his insight and perspective of science as culture zation, Joseph Stiglitz cautioned us with his most and science as integral part of a wider culture or inluential work on as a sub-system of society (among other sub- Globalization and its Discon- (2002) and followed it up by another new systems such as social, political, economic, mar- tents insight, ket etc) is seen as basic to our exploration of the he Price of Inequality: How Today’s Society (2012).7 America which was changing social relations between science and Endangers our Future society in this essay. he concern here is not just the science, science community and science as 6. It is rather pertinent here to point out that the concern social institution but also the impact of science on in exploring the changing relations between science and society is not just science per se but is seen in broader meaning society and vice versa. In other words, our concern and relevance context of technology and innovation. here will be on ways in which this institution of science are several ways by which scientiic research and systematic knowledge impacts society and this is also part of the 5. It is not the intention here to further explore internal and concern here. external spheres of science, which is rather interesting for 7. Similar crises are now gripping parts of European countries deeper social history of science. Kuhn’s passing reference is such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and others. Unemployment being used here to bring home the point that the subject rates among youth are high in many parts of Europe. here is matter of science and its social relations are integral parts of indeed a growing perception of how globalization phase has society and culture as one of the sub-systems. led to the present crises.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 7/26 seen as the most powerful and wealthiest among Globalization and the the industrially advanced countries, is now cha- changing social contract racterized by Stiglitz as the country with ‘most inequality, and the least equality of opportunity, between science and among the advanced countries. While mar- society ket forces play a role in this stark picture, politics has shaped those market forces’. It is quite Globalization obvious that science as social institution can- here are scholarly writings that support and not remain oblivious of the social reality of this as well as oppose globalization. here are other changing world painted by the Nobel Laureate. scholars in the past who have not considered it his disenchantment with globalization is in fact as a form of social force as only small parts of wide spread out in the developing world.8 While economy or segments of the population, both in these intellectual discourses set out a warning on developed and developing worlds, were touched the extent of crises unfolding upon our lives, one and impacted upon by globalization in the 1990s. source of inluential reports in the last decade Notwithstanding this stance, the fact remains has further jolted our imagination and earlier that the world economy, markets lows and crea- enthusiasm over optimism of science in addres- tive industries including science and technology sing societal problems confronting us. Series of are much more integrated today than ever before reports from the Inter Governmental Panel on in history. he impact of globalization, unders- Climate Change (IPCC) on the problems of cli- tood in terms of homas Friedman’s he World is mate change, in a large measure, drew attention Flat (2005) or in terms of the increasing interde- to how hyper industrialization and moderniza- pendence of nation states, is so pervasive that tion drives by all countries led us to this alarming it is diicult to deny or ignore its impact. Even situation that we are confronting today. though the concepts of nation state, sovereignty, national economy and even a sense of nationa- As we move into the second decade of 21st cen- lism are quite strong and manifest themselves in tury, the very fact that the main theme of this varying forms in our lives, there is an overarching essay is on changing relations between science impact of globalization that is diicult to ignore. and society raises several issues: What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? If so, what has really he impact of globalization is not conined to changed? Is it transforming the very social ins- mere social (world as global village via the infor- titution of science? What are the forces acting mation and communications technology revolu- upon this historic and most powerful social ins- tion) or economic (role of Transnational Corpo- titution? And what implications this has for our rations and the movement of global capital lows) contemporary and future society? hese are some or political spheres of our lives (global and UN of the main questions which will be addressed in regimes in security, international trade, environ- this essay. In doing so, it will be pertinent to deli- ment etc. binding on countries). Globalization mit the exploration here so as to make it mana- has penetrated deep into the very institution of geable given the limitations of space and time. science and technology since the last couple of In the light of what has been briely discussed in decades and has in fact already begun to trans- the preceding sections, we can see that there are form this very social institution of science that three major societal forces impacting the social has evolved over the last 300 to 400 years. he institution of science: a) the forces of globali- major point that is being advanced here in this zation; b) industrial and post-industrial forces; section is that the social contract between science and c) the impact of climate change and sustai- and society that has evolved in the post-war nability. hese are seen to be responsible for the period, embedded in the ethos of science as social changing relations between science and society. institution, is undergoing a major transformation. Let us begin with globalization and its impact on Before we get down to explore the features of science – society relations. transformation that is under way, it is pertinent here to spell what is meant by the social contract.9

9. he concept of social contract between science and society has become quite popular in the science policy writings. See Gibbons (1999); Guston (1992); Lubchenco (1998), Unesco 8. See Bardhan (2010) and Dreze and Sen (2013). (1998); Arie Rip (2007); and Forrester et.al (2002).

Social contract between science contribution to the advancement of knowledge and society – post-war experience is very much part of the norm of disinterestedness. Scientists expect nothing else but recogni- Social contract10 is a tacit understanding between tion from the institution of science. Organized actors and it is a trust reposed on a body or an scepticism institution for the service it renders in the inte- signiies the very notion of doubt or a rest of general public and society at large. Social scientiic temper as it is seen both a methodolo- contract in terms of trust evolves over a period of gical and an institutional mandate. Scientists are time and is not a sudden development. It may be expected to suspend judgment or details about manifested in different forms and contexts. It may their research till the facts are at hand. hey need to scrutinize beliefs about scientiic facts in terms remain in a speciic context, country or region or might spread across countries and cultures. of empirical and logical criteria. ‘In modern tota- Indeed it may be seen as a social principle that is litarian society, anti-rationalism and the centrali- zation of institutional control both serve to limit legitimized as it inds acceptance. It may become binding and socially acceptable though it may the scope provided for scientiic activity’ (Merton not have a legal sanction. That being the case, 1972:78). As he goes on to explain: the social institution of science evolved certain he ethos of science is that efectively toned norms and ethos of science, which provided a phi- complex of values and norms which is held losophical, and moral underpinning to the social to be binding on the man of science. he contract that has evolved in the post-war period. norms are expressed in the form of prescrip- tions, proscriptions, preferences and permis- As pointed out earlier, Merton’s (1972) pionee- sions. hey are legitimized in terms of insti- ring research on science as social institution, so tutional values. hese imperatives, transmitted far, remains one of the most important but an by precept and example and reinforced by idealistic explanation of social contract between sanctions are in varying degrees internalized science and society based on certain ethos of uni- by the scientist, thus fashioning his scienti- versalism, communalism, disinterestedness and orga- ic conscience or, if one prefers a latter-day nized scepticism. phrase, his superego. Although the ethos of Universalism exempliies impersonal character science has not been codiied, it can be infer- of science for the acceptance or rejection does red from the moral consensus of scientists not depend on the social or personal attributes. expressed in use and wont, in countless wri- Careers in science are open to talents based on the tings on the scientiic spirit and in moral indi- professional recognition. Communalism ethos is gnation directed toward contraventions of the antithetical to secrecy and property rights. ‘Intel- ethos (Merton 1972:66-67; 1942 original). lectual property’ is limited to that of professional recognition and esteem that the community of From a Mertonian perspective, the ethos of science as social institution bestows upon indi- science, that is, institutional imperatives, is viduals and groups. ‘The institutional conception derived from the goal of science and the methods, of science as part of public domain is linked with which is the systematic production of knowledge that we call science.11 ‘The mores of science pos- the imperative for communication of indings. sess a methodologic rational but they are binding, The pressure for diffusion of results is reinforced by the institutional goal of advancing the bounda- not only because they are procedurally eficient, but because they believed to be right and good. ries of knowledge and by the incentive of recogni- They are moral as well as technical prescrip- tion which is, of course, contingent upon publications’ (Merton 1972: 68). In a somewhat similar tion’ (Merton 1972:74). Disinterestedness draws vein, Michael Polanyi argued for freedom and attention to passion for knowledge, idle curiosity, autonomy of science institution in his inluential altruistic concern for the beneit to humanity and work Republic of Science (1962). Community society at large. Competition and recognition for of scientists is organized and works according to the same principles that is found in economic 10. It may be pointed out that I am not the irst to use this notion of social contract between science and society. One can ind a small number of very inluential writings 11. In 1957 in another inluential article on scientiic prior- in science and public policy that has employed this term of ity struggles in science Merton mentioned about two more social contract between science and society. For instance, See norms: of originality and counter balancing norm of scientiic Ben Martin (2003); Guston (1992); Gibbons (1999) humility.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 9/26 production12, the ‘free cooperation of inde- to make products and innovations. hey would pendent scientists’ and is a ‘special case of coor- in the process, of course, make proit for the dination by mutual adjustment’. As pointed out investments made in converting this knowledge. by Guston (1992:4), for Polanyi the freedom and Governments will continue to fund scientiic success of science ultimately hinge on this social research from public purse to ill the gap between contract. ‘The Republic of Science realizes the the public good of science and the private good ideal of Rousseau, of a community in which each of industry and business enterprises. hey would is equal partner in a General Will’. As the citizens do this as they have the responsibility for defense, in Rousseau’s explanation of Will, scientists are national security, public health, safety, creating subjected to a General Will represented by scien- infrastructure etc. Wherever there are market fai- tiic opinion. The submission leaves each free but lures governments would step in to fund science each is also obliged and devoted to the ideals of in the public interest. hese features together with scientiic work (Polanyi 1964: 64).13 In a Webe- the ideals of Merton and Polanyi remained as rian sense the social institution of science drawn the cornerstone of the scientiic enterprise in the by Merton and Polanyi exempliies an ideal insti- post-war era. As pointed out earlier, these ideals tution of science and the way in which scientiic and ethos of science manifested in varying forms knowledge is constituted and produced. Under- and contexts of scientiic research organizations lying the social institution of science is conside- around the world. In sum, they represent and rable autonomy assigned to science. However, deine the social contract between science and one should note that the perspective of science as society. Drawing upon historical experience of social institution governed by ethos with consi- science and society relations, Ben Martin (2003) derable autonomy guaranteed by governments is draws attention to some important guiding posts, not without ideological moorings and political which have cemented the social contract of orientations.14 science in the post-war era. his contract acquired legitimacy in the orga- At the conclusion of Second World War, Van- nization of science encompassing universities, nevar Bush15 was given the charge to produce a public and private research laboratories, science report to plan post-war organization of science councils and science academies. Actors in these and technology in the United States of America. institutions produced systematic knowledge and As it turned out, this report became an historic advanced the state of scientiic knowledge yiel- document called Science: The Endless Frontier ding societal beneits. hey would also train scien- (1945), often referred to as Vannevar Bush Social tists and engineers, doctors and a range of profes- Contract for science in USA. What we know as sionals needed by the society and industry. It is for ‘science-push’ or linear model of innovation16 that this reason that the State and governments in the guided scientiic research in the post war era was public interest funded scientiic research but did set out in the Bush report. As Ben Martin (2003: not normally interfere with research autonomy. 9) points out, ‘the clear implication of the model Scientiic knowledge production was by and large was that if, government put money into the basic regulated by a peer system, which is controlled by research end of the chain, out from the other end of the institution of science. the chain would eventually come beneits in terms of wealth, health and national security, although As Gibbons (1999) noted, industrial and business enterprises would normally produce science as well as take basic scientiic knowledge produced 15. Vannevar Bush in 1941 became advisor to American in various institutional segments and applies it President Roosevelt as he was appointed as the Director of the Oice of Scientiic Research and Development (OSRD) that played a signiicant role in the Second World War via 12. see Guston (1992) who discusses the social contract of Manhattan Project. science invoking Robert Merton and Michael Polanyi. 16. he social contract of Vennevar Bush guided US post- 13. Actually quoting from Guston (1992) for one inds no war scientiic research with a focus on basic research. his better way of expression than he does. should not be taken to suggest purely fundamental research. 14. In a way, Robert Merton, Michael Polanyi and various On the other hand military oriented, weapons oriented and other scholars such as Karl Popper, who wrote an inluential all types of long term and short term basic research was book, Open Society and Its Enemies, were clearly aware of the promoted in US within the overarching Bush doctrine. he way in which institution of science progressed under Nazi linear model of innovation that this doctrine advocated be- Germany and scientiic research governed and directed by came popular in one form or other all over Europe and in Soviet Marxism under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Asia in countries like India.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 10/26 what form those beneits would take and when Changing Social Contract between they would materialize was unpredictable’. As he science and society – post-1990s further went on to specify, Bush’s social contract With the onset of contemporary phase of globa- laid down various principles of science organi- lization from the 1990s, a deinite cleavage emer- zation: a) high level of autonomy for science; b) ged in the social institution of science. he social decision on which areas of science should be fun- contract that emerged immediately after the ded be left to scientists; c) peer review to allo- Second World War, which legitimized autonomy cate resources for research; and d) basic research of science and considerable public funding for best suited to be carried out in universities. research for almost ive decades, begun to weaken. In substance, the essential features of social Ethos and norms of science such as public good contract between science and society that we of knowledge; peer evaluation and peer review of have seen above manifested in other institutions science from groups within the discipline-based in Europe and Asia. For instance, he Humboldt scientiic elite; social control of science exercised model of organizing modern universities, which by the social institution of science; prominence combined teaching and research functions in the attached to open science which was conducive same institutional sphere for the irst time, is refer- to the advancement of knowledge; premium red as he Humboldt Social Contract (Ben Martin placed on professional recognition and rewards; 2003). his model spread all over Germany and and various other values which remained the hall to other countries. Here also the government mark of science begun to transform under the assumed the main responsibility to fund univer- impact of globalization. sity-based research with considerable autonomy. In 1994 six science policy experts led by Michael In France, even though Grandes Ecoles and uni- Gibbon from the Sussex university’s Science versities to some extent concentrated on tea- policy Research Unit put forward a thesis to ching, the full time basic research was delega- argue that the academic science and the ethos of ted to specialized science organizations such as science as social institution characterized as Mode National Centre for Scientiic Research (CNRS). -1 knowledge is undergoing a transformation to In essence, the principles of social contract were post-academic science system they called Mode widely prevalent and lourished through out post- -2.19 As well known physicist and science policy war era until mid 1990s. For instance, Aubert Guy analyst, John Ziman (1996: 752) remarked, ‘aca- (1995) the Director–General of CNRS in 1995, demic science is undergoing a cultural revolu- remarked ‘until recently we have lived with the tion. It is giving way to “post-academic’ science dogma that it was necessary to support the deve- which may be so different sociologically and phi- lopment of knowledge’. It was only after 1990s losophically that will produce a different type of that transformations began to occur in France.17 knowledge’. There are several other inluential scholars20 who shared the view that the contract In Britain the social contract was upheld by the between science and society is changing fast. In Haldane Principle, which advocated that the the light of this brief review on social transfor- government would fund scientiic research but mation of science and society relations, let us see scientists will be left with considerable autonomy what is at stake? What is actually changing or as to how to spend their research money on ields transformed over the last two decades or so? of research. he decisions on research were left to the scientiic community and research councils. Funding research universities were left with considerable autonomy until about 1970s and 1980s when Rothschild’s Report begun to have 19. Mode -1 is characterized as academic science pursued some impact on science.18 Similar situation pre- in universities and science organisations; disciplinary; ho- mogeneity; autonomy; and traditional quality control (peer vailed in large science organizations in Australia, review). Where as, mode -2 is characterized as emerging Canada, New Zealand, India and South Africa. from context of application; transdisciplinary, heterogeneity; relexivity and subject to accountability; and controlled by 17. See Vavakova (1998) novelty quality control. 18. his report advocated the ‘customer - contract’ principle 20. See Ben Martin (2003). It may also be pointed out that which raised accountability and at the same attempted to re- various scholars questioned Gibbons et.al mode-1; and orient the then existing pattern of funding scientiic research mode-2 formulations. See Godin (2000); Pester (2003); and in the UK. Shinn (2003).

Public good to market good and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Historically speaking, public good in science, expressed similar changes in the goal direction which entails making scientiic discoveries and of research. For instance, Guy Aubert, the chief scientiic facts known and disseminated in the of CNRS in 1995 said, ‘it is necessary to rein- interest of public and welfare of the society at force our partnership with business irms and the large, played an important part. Public good ver- external world generally….Researchers should sus market good are based on two diferent oppo- recognize that in the present crisis it cannot be sing logics: that of open disclosure of research taken for granted that there will always be more and thus enabling free circulation of knowledge; money to develop knowledge or research… Until and that of suppressing information from rea- recently we have lived with the dogma that it ching the public for making a proit or regula- was necessary to support the development of 22 ting research based on market criteria and steer knowledge’. In the case of Germany, the fall of it towards commercialization of research. he Soviet Union and uniication of Germany after 1990s witnessed the beginning of the new ten- 1989 also signaled the end of the post-war social sion between these two logics in the organiza- contract between science and society. As Wein- tion and administration of scientiic research gart and Maasen (2007: 75-76) observe, ‘one of the world over. he tensions increased with the the latter’s central elements had been the insti- globalization and the rise of Transnational Cor- tutionalized trust in the self-regulating mecha- porations worldwide. Operating mechanisms of nisms of science assuring the prudent use of market driven commercial interests were applied public funds and the ultimate utility for the com- to regulate research in most public science orga- mon good of their expenditure. he erosion of nizations from 1990s. this leading principle gave way to a “new deal” between science and society, basically resting on R.A. Mashelkar, Director-General of India’s the idea of universities becoming both eicient largest science organization, Council of Scien- and organizational actors, largely governed by a tiic and Industrial Research (CSIR) in January managerial regime’. 1996 articulated new research policies called CSIR 2001: Vision and Strategy.21 These policies, In Australia, CSIRO’s National Research Flag- in effect, opened a new ‘paradigm’ signaling a ships initiative was launched in 2003 by consti- break with the past. This new policy became a tuting six national multidisciplinary programmes. road map and a strategy for future of CSIR opera- For the irst time CSIRO hired top professionals tive well into the present times. Mashelkar consi- from US Business Schools to design a new trajec- dered himself as the ‘CEO of CSIR’ and deined tory of commercialization in scientiic research. a new product and process for CSIR. ‘The new Research at CSIRO by 2002 was reorganized in product was research as a business. The new pro- terms of national ‘lagships’. A Deputy CEO of cess was doing research in a business like man- CSIRO stressed that while ‘lagships are about ner’ which in all its ramiications enthused the doing excellent science, they are also very much industry, corporate and business world through about delivery, about ensuring that the technol- creating a global R&D platform (Krishna 2007). ogy or outcome of the research is taken up and used’ (Krishna 2007). he Director General of French CNRS and the Chief of Australian Commonwealth Scientiic Advancing knowledge

21. CSIR set up a committee to examine the new context to creation of wealth for the re-organisation of CSIR under the Chairmanship of Scientiic communities and large science organi- R.A. Mashelkar, the then Director of the National Chemical zations have begun to give less and less impor- Laboratory, one of India’s leading laboratories in chemical and pharmaceutical research. he Committee’s report, ‘Cre- tance to the advancement of knowledge. hey are ating an Enabling Environment for Commercialization of reoriented towards ‘creation of wealth’ - an impor- CSIR Knowledge-base’, was submitted in 1993. he main tant ideological shift that has happened in the last recommendations were quite radical and clearly argued for couple of decades. here has been a corresponding re-organising the functioning of CSIR research on a commercial and corporate basis by creating marketing groups in 22. Guy Aubert’s interview in Les Echoes, 13 March 1995 each laboratory; investing in equity and allowing scientists as quoted in Banka Vavakova, ‘he new social contract be- to serve on corporate bodies and creating speciic institu- tween governments, universities and society: has the old one tional channels and mechanisms to foster commercialization failed?’, Minerva, 36, pp208-228. Actually the change began of research. in CNRS since the 1980s from President Mitterrand’s time.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 12/26 shift of emphasis from basic research to techno- research is spent on research into problems that logical innovation and commercialization. here only efect 10% of the world’s people’.23 Monsan- is nothing wrong in the creation of wealth from to’s ‘Terminator Gene’ is another example of how knowledge. Scientiic organizations in the post- scientiic research is being directed to maximise war era under the existing social contract have proit and increased market access for products. been involved in this process via a linear model of This has been happening since quite a long time innovation. But the problem under the emerging in corporate research. The radical change that has social contract, is that the operating principles of come about is in the large public research orga- science organizations are undergoing a transfor- nisations and universities, which are now partne- mation to mimic corporate R&D whose structure ring corporate R&D in a big way of relevance is with market and commercializa- he two changes, namely market good and creation of products. Value addition, proit and creation of wealth that are well entrenched in the ins- tion of wealth have become a primary goal, whilst titution of science have begun to have very serious the advancement of knowledge has taken a back implications for a number of developing countries. seat. Manifestation of this ideological change can For instance, the initial processes of institutiona- be observed in science organizations. lisation and professionalization of science that is During twelve years between 1984 and 1996 going on in several African countries is disrupted CNRS increased its contracts with irms almost in the face of radical changes that are taking place ten fold, from 350 to more than 3200. Assisted by in the social institution of science. a series of tax incentives and the focus of National Agency for Valorisation of Research (ANVAR) Open science to secrecy and on SMEs, CNRS partnerships with industry Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) received a good boost in the 1990s. In the last ICSU24 expressed serious concerns in 2005 with decade there have been recurrent drives towards regard to equity, access and challenges of univer- reorganisation and evaluation of French CNRS sality. 25 Its report noted that ‘end of Cold War and universities that led to massive protests has not brought, as some had hoped, an end to since 2008. National Research and Innovation concerns about the mobility of scientists and the Strategy was launched in 2009. In varying forms free low of science. Rather, traditional threat these are attempts to drive research more towards to mobility and Principle of Universality conti- innovation and market end of the R&D spectrum nue in many areas of the world in the form of for the creation of wealth. he National Agency state discrimination against scientists and repres- for Research created in 2005 to fund research on sion of research and communication’.26 here are competitive basis and Competitiveness Cluster some other serious developments, which indi- Policy came into operation in 2008. he same cate how open science is sacriiced. here is a year witnessed the reform of French universities. big move towards IPR, secrecy and patenting in For the irst time in history the governance of science, which has already taken deep roots in the public research in universities was changed to science system. Some notable developments are allow irms to get representation in the Board as follows: of Directors. here is a clear sign of shift away from the advancement of knowledge towards • On 8 February 2004, a body called Union of commercial interests not only in CNRS but also Concerned Scientists (UCS) in USA submit- in major science agencies in Germany, Australia, ted a petition to President George Bush to UK, Japan and India. his is not only going to restore scientiic integrity in policy making. have serious implications for the generation of Among 60 prominent scientists in UCS new knowledge but will impede the very progress there were 20 Nobel Laureates. hey charged of science. the US government for appointing experts on various science committees who did not have here are serious distortions in priorities of scientiic research taking place. For instance, 23. See ESRC (2003) UK’s Economic and Social Research Council’s 24. International Council of Scientiic Unions (ICSU) a (ESRC) program in science in society observes body operating within UNESCO that ‘ Global Forum for Health Research has 25. ICSU (2005), Science and Society: Rights and Responsibili- concluded that 90% per cent of the world’s health ties, 12 26. Ibid

professional competence and had conlicts From peer evaluation of interests. UCS has asked the US Envi- to regulation by clients, ronment Protection Agency to stop the sup- markets and public at large pression of data relating to public health and For a long time now, legitimation of scientiic honor disclosure of science information.27 facts and certiication of systematic knowledge • Indian traditional system of knowledge, (social control in science) was carried out by Yoga that is considered as an open source scientiic peers and the science institution. he method for a healthy life, is seriously threate- scientiic autonomy was preserved and sustained ned. According to information sources28 US by the institution of science in a number of ways. Patent and Trademark Oice has issued 150 Governments and public money though alloca- yoga related copyrights, 134 patents on yoga ted research funds did not interfere with research accessories and 2035 yoga trademarks. Not autonomy. With the onset of globalization, much surprisingly even Yoga mat is patented. of the peer evaluation and social control in science • Remedies based on traditional knowledge of is now being shifted to what sociologist Helga turmeric and neem are patented by the US and Nowotny has called ‘AGORA’ or ‘civil space’. European Patent Oices – but got revoked by Under the new social contract emerging, scien- Indian science organizations and civil society tiic results in biotechnology, biomedical science, groups. here are other cases such basmati pharmaceutical etc., are no more legitimized and rice, Darjeeling tea etc., and various natu- approved by laboratory or scientiic community ral and geographic foods and beverages are alone but also by diferent stakeholders in science, threatened from their synthetic bio-similars. particularly the corporate irms. his is a major shift-taking place in science institution. • Indian science agencies have established multidisciplinary teams to work on digitally cata- • Novartis in 1998 struck a deal with the loging 1,500 Yoga poses recorded in ancient Department of Plant and Microbial Gene- texts written in Sanskrit, Urdu and Persian. tics at the University of California, Berkeley, India will use the catalogue to block anyone USA for 25 billion US $. Under the agree- from obtaining patents on the 5,000-year-old ment, Novartis gets rights to negotiate and open knowledge on stretching, breathing and direct 33% of Department’s discoveries for meditating. Digital codiication of traditio- several years and overseeing also how the nal knowledge by CSIR is now a big research money is utilized. Ignacio Chapela and David programme to tackle bio-piracy from corpo- Quist vocally opposed the Novartis agree- rate research agencies. Bio-diversity registers ment from the Department. his initially led which catalogue important facts in the indi- to Chapela being denied tenure appointment genous systems of knowledge in medicine, by the university raising concern about aca- environment etc., are being documented in demic and scientiic freedom and the Prin- 29 all districts of India. ciple of Universality. • Movement towards open source knowledge • Corporates determine the content and direc- (pharma, software) and scientiic commons is tion of research at the MIT, USA via Whi- growing but the pace is very slow as big cor- tehead Institute of Biological Sciences since porations are blocking these eforts in various the 1990s. his is located on MIT campus. ways. • Clear signs are visible in France with the • IPR are designed to encourage innovation irms being represented in the advisory and protect invention. In doing so they block bodies of Universities under the new reforms public domain of science curbing scientiic introduced. progress and spread of science. Academic science to entrepreneurial universities Historically the academic science and universities have gone through two revolutions. First was

27. ibid 29. ICSU (2005), Science and Society: Rights and Responsibili- 28. See http://1degreebio.org/blog/?bid=120 ties, p.14.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 14/26 when the process of teaching was institutionalized Challenge of industrial and th th some time around the 13 to 15 centuries (irst post-industrial societies academic revolution). he second was when the Humboltdian model of combining teaching and he second major factor considered here res- research was introduced for the irst time in the ponsible for changing social relations between Berlin University and later spread to Germany and science and society is the challenge of industrial across Europe and North America from the early and post-industrial societies. In a way these are 19th Century (second academic revolution). We two sides of the same coin. Science and tech- are now witnessing a third academic revolution of nology remain the main driving forces behind ‘Triple Helix’ or university-industry-government industrial and post-industrial societies. Rapid partnerships. Innovation and commercialization industrialization and modernization, in a large of academic research has now become an integral measure, meant to generate wealth from indus- part of the university governance and academic trial and post-industrial policies. Maximize proit policy along with teaching and research. Before and generate economic value from the application 1990s there was nothing like ‘entrepreneurial of science has been the motive behind govern- university’ but as Etzkowitz (2002) predicted, the ment policies and corporate business enterprises concept spread like a ‘wild ire’. here are various alike. here are several changes that have come structural changes that have come about, towards about in the science and society relations under entrepreneurial university and science. heavy industrialization and post-industrial policies involving science and technology strategies. • Science parks and innovation parks are now We will touch upon two recent developments. integral part of traditional universities. Beg- broke Science park at Oxford University; Rise of regulatory science St. Johns Innovation Centre and Incuba- and citizen science tor at Cambridge University; Science Park he last three decades beginning with the Bhopal (Tuspark) at Tsinghua University, Beijing; Gas Tragedy in India in 198430 and the Mad Cow and Science Park at IIT Madras are some Disease in UK in the late 1980s and early 1990s examples. witnessed a new phase in the relations between • With the introduction of Bayh-Dole Act in science and society to deal with hazards, risk and 1980, Technology Transfer Oices (TTOs) regulation of science and technology. It was no and incubation units have been established accident that Ulrich Beck titled his book Risk in all major universities in USA. TTOs are Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992). For now seen as a major source of revenue in US more than 25 years, Beck tried to diagnose the universities. question: how can social and political thought • Trans National Corporations and universi- and action in the face of radical global change be ties used to maintain some distance in the intertwined with modernity? Curiously, this was past. his is now fast eroding as most TNCs also the phase of growing information and com- have joint projects and programmes with munication technology revolution, publication of universities for commercialization and mar- results from the Human Genome Project and the ket exploitation of products coming out of rise of biomedical sciences and GM technologies. science research. Novartis case pointed out In the post-war era, how to deal with risk and above at the University of California is not uncertainty in new science and technologies an isolated case. Herbert W. Boyer and Stan- became a major issue of concern both for govern- ley Cohen’s scientiic research which led to ments and public at large. In 2003 the Bri- recombinant DNA technology and even- tish government had to confront a widespread tually led to formation of biotech company public distrust of science of genetically modiied Genentech (1976) is a ‘block bluster’ venture (GM) crops and foods. he evaluation of what on the US stock exchange. Universities entering into stock exchange in one form or other 30. In the recent history we have witnessed one of the major are a big change that has come about in the industrial disasters in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy in last decade and a half. India, which took away more than 4000 lives in 1984. While India was grappling with the industrial disaster to articulate policies for risk and hazards, Europe and North America was gearing up for a transition into the post-industrial society.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 15/26 is good and bad for health was no more coni- In Germany the moment conception takes place ned to science institution but also depended on life comes into being and hence scientists are AGORA – the civil society groups and citizens. not allowed to do research on stem cells. They In fact the Royal Society of London, for the irst can however import embryonic stem cells for time in 2000 recognized that public approval is research. In UK the concept of 14-day conceptus an important factor. he same was the case in (gap between fertilization and birth of embryo, France, Germany and many parts of Europe and fetus) before conspicuous cell differentiation Asia. hese developments have given rise to two appears was devised to allow research on up to modes of science and society relations, namely 14 days embryonic stem cells. USA under Bush regulatory science and citizen science. administration completely banned public funding for stem cell research on religious grounds. Deci- Whereas in regulatory science the government sions on safety standards on food additives, for bodies and political decision makers take a pro- automobile exhaust emissions, radiation by tele- active stand to directly intervene and take deci- communication towers and power plants, lead sions, in citizen science, representatives of civil levels and pollution levels in the atmosphere etc., society groups assume this role to take a inal are taken not necessarily based on any consen- call on decisions. With the history of strong sual scientiic opinion but by politically driven environmental movements in Europe and Asia, technical regimes concerned with science and green politics have come to assume an important technology regulation. Biotechnology has emer- role in science and society relations, particularly ged as the most contested research terrain, which in regulatory science. For instance, in late 1990s has led us to institutionalize regulatory science in ive governments in Europe including France had the interest of society at large. Leading scholars green parties, which played a signiicant role in like Francis Fukuyama has given a loud call for regulating science, particularly in the aftermath regulating biotechnology: of mad cow disease in the case of GMOs. What should we do in response to biotechno- When big science institutions such as European logy that, in the future, will mix great poten- Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) tial beneits with threats that are either phy- come out with mega scientiic experiments and sical and obvious or spiritual and subtle? he discovers ‘God Particle’ (that is Higgs boson par- answer is obvious: We should use the power of ticle), there is hardly any controversy and the the state to regulate it. And if that proves to world accepted it as one of the important disco- be beyond the power of any individual nation- veries. his is very much part of big science and state, biotechnology needs to be regulated on advancement of knowledge. It is not the same an international basis. We need to start thin- with embryonic stem cells research and bio-medi- king concretely - now - about how to build cal scientiic research regulation. Eight weeks and institutions that can discriminate between younger embryonic stem cells have the potential good and bad uses of biotechnology, and that to produce any cell type in the body. Diferent can efectively enforce those rules both natio- governments and cultures in Europe, North nally and internationally (Francis Fukuyama, America and Asia deine and regulate science he Chronicle of Higher Education 22 March here to take a decision for allowing research on 2002) stem cell. he ways in which decisions are made about scientiic research on stem cells depend Citizen science may be deined in several ways profoundly on political cultures, religious beliefs but it is being used here to point out a new and what government accepts on the basis of public mood. Traditional structures or the social and the EU, especially in relation to green and red biotech- nologies. An entire generation of novel institutions, such as contract of science of the post-war era has broken the European Food Safety Authority, its counterparts in the down in Europe, as elsewhere, by the late 1990s 25 EU member states, the UK Human Genetics Commis- for new technosciences.31 sion, the Commission de Génie Biomoléculaire in France, and the Gentechnikkommission in Austria, have been es- 31. ‘In Europe, traditional structures and procedures for de- tablished. he United States, on the other hand, is trying ciding which technological innovations to encourage, which to maintain its institutional status quo’. See the review of to forbid, and which to restrict broke down in the late 1990s Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the under the weight of issues such as mad cow disease and bio- United States by Sheila Jasanof. Princeton, NJ: Princeton technology. Today, a fascinating set of institutional experi- University Press, 2005 by Erik Millstone (http://www.is- ments in policymaking is underway in the United Kingdom sues.org/22.3/br_millstone.html

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54 Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 16/26 democratic locus or a pole of decision making industrial and post-industrial societies in these in science on matters concerning the impact countries. hese policies have led to increase in of science and technology on our daily lives. In income for a section of population. What is also contradistinction to public science, academic true is the fact that growth processes have also science and industrial research, citizen science is increased inequality between 1990s and 2010 the knowledge and analyses of science, technology for a vast majority of the population in these and society relationship advocated by the civil countries. society groups, NGOs, environmental groups and he euphoria surrounding globalization, indus- by people science movements (Krishna 1997).32 trialization and unprecedented economic growth The term however gained momentum after Alan has dampened in a large measure in the face of Irwin’s (1995) book, Citizen Science: A Study increasing evidence of growing, inequity and of People, Expertise and Sustainable Develop- worsening social indicators in the last ive years. ment. Alan rightly argued against the view that Kaplinsky (2007) in his inluential volume Glo- people are ignorant and that the knowledge of balization, poverty and inequality, drew attention - people is very signiicant even if it crosses scien to the impact of innovation under globaliza- tiic disciplinary lines and is based on personal tion with the metaphor of ‘glass as half empty’. and practical understanding. As argued elsewhere Innovation led to growth and prosperity but at (Krishna 1997), people science movements and the same time reduced the incomes of people civil society groups in India in the last three and increased inequality among lower sections of - decades have played a signiicant part in tende society. hree years later, Pranab Bardhan (2010), ring knowledge and analyses on the relations while assessing the economic rise of China and between science and society. These efforts have India, titled his inluential volume as Awakening inluenced the decision making in science and Giants – Feet of Clay – again drawing attention technology on environment, big dams, science to inequality under globalization. More recently, education, energy and GMOs.33 The success of Dreze and Sen (2013) have painstakingly pro- citizen science in India in placing temporary vided evidence to question the story of eupho- moratorium on the release of BT Brinjal in 2012 ria of globalization in their volume, An Uncer- is another important example that is relevant tain Glory, in the Indian context. here is some here.34 Public understanding of science (PUS) evidence in these writings in the case of India to as it emerged is no more concerned with merely argue that globalization has marginally improved popularization of science and science communi- the income of vast majority of poor people dur- cation. It has gone beyond this phase to become ing 1990 and 2010. However, the statistics do another important actor effectively intervening not reveal the social reality of poor people in dis- into national science and technology systems and tress for the lack of sanitation, access to health, decision-making in science. housing and nutritious food. he oicial igures Inclusive innovation – science of poverty line in India are so low that it hardly helps vast majority of poor to improve their liveli- and society at the ‘bottom hood in any signiicant manner.35 of the pyramid’ In the speciic case of India more than 85% of he rise of Asia propelled by the markets and the labor force nearly 500 million people are in growth rates of China and India in the last two the informal sector (informal employment in decades generated a good deal of wealth in these Asia is 65%; 48% in North Africa; 51% in Latin countries. his is not unrelated to science, technology and innovation policies in establishing 35. For instance, according to the Planning Commission rural poverty reduced from 42% to 33.8% in rural areas; and 32. See, Krishna (1997) 25.5% to 20.9% in urban areas between 2005 and 2010 re- 33. he large people science movement led by Kerala Shastra spectively. But these estimates are based on the controversial Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) in 1980s stalled the construction of Tendulkar methodology, which ixes poverty line of rural a big dam in the rainforest regions of Kerala. people at Rs.22.42 per person and Rs.28.65 in urban areas. 34. It is pertinent to point out that one is not taking an anti- Given the inlation rates of about 8 to 9% per annum during science stand. In the 1980s Sunderlal Bahuguna’s movement this period, it is diicult to imagine how people are coming on Chipko Andolan in the foot hills of Himalaya region in out of poverty whilst the income of middle and rich classes norther India led to a moratorium on felling of trees for 15 have witnessed considerable increase during the same pe- years. his policy still prevails currently in diferent form. riod.

America; 72% in Sub-Saharan Africa; 15% in and various other developing countries to bridge developed countries)36. Some 500 million people a diferent kind of ‘divide’. in India and China will migrate to urban areas in Inclusive innovation and science and society rela- the coming two decades.37 One can characterize tions at the bottom of the pyramid have given a this as a ‘Great Transition’ in Asia. big boost to scientiic and technological plura- It is not just an issue of creating sustainable mega lism. A new perspective to bring together tradi- urban cities, but the problem for India and China tional and modern science in agriculture, health, is how can we create employment and sustainable manufacturing and a number of other activities livelihoods for over three quarter billion people has demonstrated the potential for sustaining living in non-urban regions? Can we arrest urban livelihoods of people. low? High technology and ‘big science’ projects that are talked about in India and China are unli- Climate Change kely to have immediate or medium term solutions and the Challenge to these parts of Asia for people in the informal economy. Whilst the fruits of these high techno- of Energy Research logy and big science need to be extended or even Climate change and rising Co2 levels, is the third down scaled to link up to these regions, one is major social force that is posing diferent type looking towards new perspective or a paradigm of challenges to science and society relations. of sustainable development and inclusive innova- Much of the problem in inding solutions to cli- tion to address the problem of rural-urban migra- mate change issues seems to fall beyond mere tion and informal economy. science and technology factors into science and society relations. hese encompass complex sets The new paradigm that is emerging is known of relations between industrially developed Nor- as inclusive innovation. It refers to different thern versus developing South countries; between types and forms of innovation activities or per- emerging BRICS versus North38; between BRICS formance by which we can get more for lesser versus rest of the developing world; and between cost and which could cater and meet the needs small developing and very vulnerable countries and demands of more people. Local knowledge such as in the Paciic39 and Indian Ocean versus systems are blended with science and technology neighboring large countries. his is quite appa- and are deployed to scale up their use in manufac- rent from the outcome of Bali Action Plan, Kyoto turing and designing a variety of needs for people Protocol and the three UN Framework Conven- at the bottom of the pyramid. Inclusive innovation on Climate Change meetings at Copenha- tion may or may not be R&D based and need not gen, Cancun and Durban. here are four major always mean technological innovation. Inclusive challenges that are crucial and which have come innovation also means institutional, individual, into sharp focus: social, business and organizational innovation manifested in micro-enterprises. In all its ramii- 1. here is a clear realization now than ever cations, inclusive innovation has led to an alter- before that our mode and pace of hyper native science and society relations anchored at industrialization and modernization process the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. There are now suc- is unlikely to be sustainable from the pers- cessful models and institutional operating mecha- pective of climate change issues. In a number nisms at the ground level. Jaipur foot and hand; of ways this reminds us of the ‘Club of Rome’ Barefoot College, Arvind Eye Clinic, Narayana Report on Limits to Growth; Hrudalaya, National Innovation Foundation 2. One of the most contested issues that have and Honeybee Network, among others, are good come to surface since the Bali Action Plan examples of what the future holds for a vast between developed North and developing majority of people in India in the informal sector. countries of South is the framework on here is indeed a big movement of actors, agencies and institutional initiatives in India, China 38. When we speak in North versus South terms, we include developed countries such as Australia in the North group. 36. Based on ILO and World Bank reports. 39. One is referring to countries such as Palau, Marshall 37. According to some current estimates and reports from Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru etc., in the UN Population Division of the Department of Social and Paciic and small countries like Mauritius and Maldives in Economic Afairs the Indian Ocean.

‘Common But Diferentiated Responsibi- However, to limit our discussion from this large lities’ (CBDR). Diferentiated responsibi- climate change canvass, let us consider two lity is based upon the historical responsi- examples from energy related problems. hese are bility of States and difering capacities of speciically chosen to throw light on how science States or countries to address climate change. and society relations in energy related issue has Hence the distinction made between Annex the prospect of opening up a window for addres- 1 countries (most of North countries) and sing the issue, though in a small way. Non-Annex 1 countries, in the South. Dif- ferent capacities that command science and Need for scientiic commons technology factors are at the core of this issue. Building national capacities in low carbon inno- Industrialized nations have the scientiic and vation in energy technologies is emerging as one technological capacity to address climate of the major solutions to address the problem of change both through mitigation and adapta- Co2 emissions. Nuclear energy is capital intensive tion. Developing South countries do not have and demands a high level of local and national the same command and capacity. Historically technological capability to manage it. For a num- speaking who has contributed to the carbon ber of reasons only a small number of countries build up in the atmosphere and who bene- have evolved the capacity to harness this techno- ited from it most? Much of the responsi- logy. However, it was considered as appropriate bility and onus lies on these countries is an to address climate change problems before Fuku- issue which is being contested; shima disaster. In any case, the entry barriers and 3. Closely related to this is the contested issue political hurdles are so high that it is diicult to of economic calculations of carbon emis- be adopted by several developing countries. sions in the atmosphere based on per capita Much of the ‘know how’ and ‘know why’ in basis rather than country based calculations. renewable and clean technologies (photo voltaic Countries with large populations such as and thin ilms, wind power technologies, advance China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, among biofuel, hybrid technology for automobiles, bat- others, are negotiating this issue which is not tery operated cars, among others) is located in the acceptable to Northern developed countries industrially advanced countries of Europe, North as it will tilt the balance of CBRD in favor of America and Japan. Here intellectual property developing world; rights (IPRs), patents and international techno- 4. he fourth issue is related to technology logy transfer regimes play a very signiicant part transfer from North to South. Leaving emer- in the deployment of renewable and clean tech- ging economies such as BRICS, which have nologies to small and poor developing countries. considerable science and technology capacity, In the present circumstances, renewable energy the main issue of technology transfer involves technologies in wind, solar, bioconversion etc., the bulk of developing world in Africa, Latin seems quite relevant. However, as the following America, Caribbean, Asia and Paciic etc. table 1 shows, more than 95% of the relevant Some initiatives such as Clean Develop- patents in renewable energy technologies, indi- ment Mechanism (CDM), which involves cating innovation potential, is concentrated in Annex 1 countries to invest in projects lea- Europe, North America and Japan. ding to emission reduction in Non-Annex Aftermath of 2008 inancial crises almost all 1 countries, did not lead to any technology developed countries is banking on evolving glo- transfer. Given scientiic and technical capa- bal competitiveness in renewable energy and city of North to tackle climate change pro- green technologies. It is unlikely that they would blems, the issue of relevant technology trans- give away or transfer energy eiciency techno- fer to small and poor South and developing logies (for example such as LED) to developing countries is the most important factor in countries. Reeling under recession, developed addressing the problem. A new paradigm of countries like Japan have identiied green tech- climate change cooperation in technology nologies as new sources to improve their econo- transfer for these countries seems an impor- mies. As Nelson (2007) at length argued, inter- tant avenue. national agencies responsible for climate change governance must ind suitable institutional

Table 1: Patent holding of renewable energy technologies in the world 2007

Renewable energy Wind power patents Auto pollution Photovoltaic patents patents - % - numbers control patents - % - %

EU: 36% EU 162 Japan 38% Japan 38% USA: 20% USA 29 EU 48.9% EU 30% Japan: 19.8% India 2 USA 8% USA 35% BRICS: 6.5% China 2 BRICS 0.7% BRICS 5% N= 1068 N= 196 N= 2000

mechanisms for administering ‘scientiic com- vative technology among SMEs’.41 Neighboring mons’. In this speciic case, a number of crucial countries could beneit by joining in such CIC patents and knowhow could be obtained from the on cooperative basis to optimize scarce resources market by a UN regime on climate change and for establishing technological capacities. Without place it in the pool of ‘scientiic commons’. he establishing technological capacities in some cru- developing and poor countries can access these cial sectors of renewable and clean energy, inclu- technologies. BRICS may not qualify for this ding energy eicient technologies, it will become category but it will help a vast majority of nations diicult to even absorb technologies under inter- in Africa, Asia, Paciic and Latin America. national technology transfer. Crossing this hurdle remains the main problem in several developing Climate innovation centers countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Where as OECD countries invest around 2.5% For instance there are potential cases of science average of GDP on R&D, emerging economies cooperation via CICs on problem or themes. In (BRICS) spend around 1% to 1.5% of GDP. Vast the case of China, India, Indonesia and Australia majority of more than 65 developing countries coal will play a signiicant part (over 50% of total spend 0.1% to 0.5% of GDP. Given the low level energy needs) in the coming 40 years. he idea of scientiic and technological capacity in gene- of cooperative CIC in coal eiciency technolo- ral and climate related energy and innovation in gies (such as Carbon capture and storage - CCS, particular, a novel idea emerges for establishing Integrated gasiication combined cycle etc.,) will Climate Innovation Centers (CIC) based on be of paramount importance. For example, a mere cooperation among a group of countries to focus demonstration for a CCS plant would cost more 40 on certain critical themes and problem areas. than a billion US $ that is unlikely to be met by For instance, Kenya has already taken a lead to any single country. Technological cooperation establish CIC. As pointed out by its Prime Minis- among South countries, outside global climate ter, CICs are meant ‘speciically to achieve the platforms and regimes (such as the meetings of essential technological advancement and inno- Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban), seems more 40. he idea of Climate Innovation Centers was mooted by promising. India before Copenhagen conference. Later the idea gained here are various regional groupings such as importance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Bank, U.K. Department for In- ASEAN, SAARC in Asia; and Common Market ternational Development (DFID) and other international for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), agencies involved in climate change. See also Climate Inno- East African Community (EAC), Southern Afri- vation Centers – A new way to foster climate change technologies can Development Community (SADC) etc., in in the developing world, An InfoDev publication in collabo- Africa. With the exception of SAARC univer- ration with UNIDO and DFID, 2010, IBRD and World Bank (hereafter referred to as CIC report). It may be noted sity in New Delhi, (combined efort of South that this report does not mention about a group of countries Asian countries) no other country grouping coming together to form CIC. It mentions stand alone CICs seems to have established any joint research and by countries. Group of countries coming together is the pro- posal being mooted in this essay. 41. Ibid, p9

Table 2: Changing Social Contract Between Science and Society

Elements of existing social contract Elements of emerging social contract Science as part of culture and public good Science is becoming a part of commerce and market good

Primary objective of science being advancement Generating wealth has become much more of knowledge important

Peer evaluation and social control of scientiic External clients, market institutions interfere knowledge regulated by science institution. and inluence the goal direction of science.

Scientiic criteria/merit as the basis of evaluation. Social and economic interests play a role deter- mining priorities in research. Autonomy of science institution infringed. Autonomy of science institution sustained. Open knowledge as public good conducive for Secrecy is now institutionalized and accepted the advancement of knowledge and technical by scientiic community in the form IPR and progress patents. Patents impede progress of science. innovation centers for addressing nationally and the world. Following points emerge as a way of internationally challenging problems such as cli- concluding remarks. mate change. here is a good case for these grou- • he impact of globalization is not something pings to promote cooperative CICs. conined to mere political, economic and social institutions. hese economic and mar- Concluding remarks ket bound forces have penetrated deep into he social contract between science and society, the social institution of science and transfor- in the last couple of decades, has undergone med it so radically that we can now clearly such a dramatic transformation that it is dif- distinguish the existing social contract and icult to ind a parallel in the recent post-war the emerging social contract between science history. Since the end of cold war the pace of and society as shown below. scientiic research and science based innovation • Globalization has become a reality of society, has advanced quite rapidly. At the same time, economy and our daily life-worlds. How can socio-economic and political context of scientiic we rescue science institution from comple- research and science organization has undergone tely being overtaken by economic and market a radical change. he very foundation of science oriented forces of globalization? As Amartya as social institution, that has evolved over the Sen observed from an economic perspective, years is undergoing a transformation. he change we need to evolve mechanisms for maintai- is no less than a ‘cultural revolution’. As explored ning a ‘level playing ield’ between public above, three societal forces are responsible for the good and market good. We need to evolve changing relations between science and society: institutional mechanisms and policy instru- globalization; industrial and post-industrial poli- ments for ‘making globalization work for cies; and climate change. Given the limitations every one’ and not for few.42 of time and space, our exploration was limited to analyze some important features of change by selectively drawing upon countries, organiza- 42. Comments of Professor Amartya Sen in a debate with tions, actors and agencies from diferent parts of Joseph Stiglitz and Dr Manmohan Singh at FICCI seminar, New Delhi around 2003 at the launching of J. Stiglitz, book Globalization and its Discontents (2002)

• Public good as overarching principle in • Regulatory science and citizen science have organizing and funding research in several emerged as important actors in the demo- countries like India played a very signiicant cratization of science and society relation- part in enhancing endogenous scientiic and ships. Representatives of civil society should technological capabilities in the post-war be given more space in the governance of era. his needs to be maintained and parti- science and technology. here is a need for cularly strengthened in the context of deve- a new dialogue between professional bodies, loping and poor countries. Any dilution will scientiic societies and academies of science have serious implications for the underpri- and citizen science groups. vileged sections of society in the developing • Science and technology policies in the last countries. In industrially advanced countries, two decades, has increased income and public good in science research serves an wealth for a section of the people. his is quite important function of tackling societal chal- evident in countries such as India and others. lenges such as climate change and risk in Inclusive innovation is emerging as a new new technologies. Developing countries lack response to address the neglected domain of resources to devote too much emphasis on science and society relations at the ‘bottom these problems. of the pyramid’. here are several successful • Our experience in the past has shown that models in the case of India, China and other open knowledge has its own merits as it developing countries. But the challenge lies helps in solving many important practical in inding institutional and other avenues to problems and at the same time feeds in to replicate and difuse these success models. advancing newer knowledge thresholds and • Inclusive innovation should not be seen as paradigms. Some institutional safeguards merely ‘local’ and ‘indigenous’ traditional and various exceptions in the clauses gover- knowledge resources and skills that require ning patents have to be put in place in aca- improvements. Policies should aim at buil- demic and research organizations so as not to ding intermediary institutional mechanisms impede further progress of science. ‘To priva- to connect local and indigenous knowledge tize basic knowledge is a danger both for the traditions with formal and modern science advancement of science, and for the advance and technology institutions. of technology’ (Nelson 2004: 356). • Exploring problems underlying climate • Industrial and post-industrial policies have change with reference to renewable energy not only increased technological risks of issues has revealed a window of opportunity various kinds and intensities but it has crea- for developing countries in the form of new ted considerable measure of public mistrust of concepts such as ‘scientiic commons’ and science and fear of technology in the society. climate innovation centers (CIC). However, his is particularly true after the mad cow solutions to various climate change problems disease and GMOs oriented research. Fuku- seem to be beyond scientiic and technolo- shima disaster has led to diferent kind of fear gical issues in the domain of international and perception of risk. here is no doubt that cooperation and an attitude of conciliation these problems relating to risk and hazards in and negotiation between North and South. science and technology have to be dealt with One is reminded of Gandhi’s philosophical by systematic regulatory mechanisms. At observation, that ‘earth provides enough to the same time, curbing scientiic research by satisfy every man’s need but not for every magnifying ‘risk’ factors or bringing in irra- man’s greed’. tional and non-science issues will be dangerous for the progress of science. his has to References be dealt with scientiically and here comes the role of public understanding of science Bardhan, P (2010), Awakening Giants – Feet of (PUS), which should be expanded and ins- Clay, New Delhi: Oxford University Press titutionalized at diferent levels of science Barnes, B (1972), Sociology of Science – Sociology organization along with other institutional Readings, Great Britain: Penguin Books measures.

Ben-David, J (1971), he Scientist’s Role in Society, Contemporary Science Movements in India”, Englewood Clifs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall in Terry Shinn, J. Spaapen and V.V.Krishna (eds): Ben Martin (2003), ‘he changing social contract Science and Technology in a Developing Sociology of the Sciences Year Book 1995, for science and the evolution of the univer- World Dordrecht,he Netherlands : Kluwer Academic sity’, in Aldo Geuna, Amonon J. Salter and W. Publishers Edward Steinmueller (eds), Science and Innova- tion, Cheltenham UK, Northampton M.A. USA: Kuhn, T.S (1962), he Structure of Scientiic Revo- Edward Elgar lutions, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Carson, R (1962), Silent Spring, Boston M A: Lubchenco, J (1998) ‘Entering the Century Houghton Miin Company of Environment: A New Social Contract for Science’, (American Association of ESRC (2003) , ‘Science, technology and glo- Science Advancement of Science), Vol 279, 23 January balization’, London: ESRC Science in Society 1998. Programme. Mac-Leod (1977), ‘Changing perspectives in the Etzkowitz, H (2002), MIT and the Rise of Entre- social history of science’, in Ina Spiegel-Rosing preneurial Science, London: Routledge and D de Solla Price (eds), Science, Technology and Forrester J, Laura Potts, Steve Cinderby and Paul Society – A Cross Disciplinary Perspective, London: Rosen (2002), Changing science’s social contract?, Sage paper presented at the conference of the Euro- Merton, R.K (1972), ‘he Institutional Impe- pean Association for the Study of Science and ratives in Science’, in (original article 1942) in Technology (EASST), York, 2002 Barnes, B (1972), Sociology of Science – Sociology Gaillard. J, V.V.Krishna and Roland Waast (1997) Readings, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books, pp. Scientiic Communities in the Developing World, 65-79 New Delhi : Sage Publications Pestre, D (2003), ‘Regimes of knowledge produc- Gibbons (1999), ‘Sciences new social contract tion in society towards a more political and social with society’, Nature, 402, C81-C84, reading’, Minerva, 41(3), pp. 245-261 Gillispie, C.C (1962), ‘Science in the French Polanyi, M (1964), Science, faith and society, Revolution’, in Bernard Barber and W.Hirsch Chicago: Chicago University Press. First print (eds), he Sociology of Science, New York: he Free (1946) Press of Glenco Polanyi, M (1962), ‘he Republic of Science’, Godin, Benoit and Yves Gingras (2000), ‘he Minerva, 1(1), pp. 54-72 place of universities in the knowledge produc- Rip, Arie (2007), ‘A changing social contract tion’, Research Policy, 29(2), pp. 273-278 between science and society’, paper presented at Guston D.H. (1992), he Demise of the Social conference on Science and its Publics, 24-25 June, Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and 2007, Munich, Germany Non-modern World, Working Paper Number 19, Shinn, T (2003), ‘he triple helix and “new pro- Program on Science, Technology and Society, duction of knowledge” as socio-cognitive ieds’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in B.Joerges and H.Nowotny(eds), Social Studies ICSU (2005), Science and Society- Rights and Res- of Science and Technology: Looking Back Ahead, he ponsibilities, Paris: ICSU, Unesco Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press, pp103- Irwin, A. (1995), Citizen Science: A study of people, 116 expertise and sustainable development, Londong: hapar, R (1999) ‘History of Science and the Routledge Oikoumene’, in S.Irfan Habib and Dhruv Raina Krishna, V.V. (2007), ‘India’s CSIR, the CNRS in (eds), Situating the History of Science – Dialogues France and the CSIRO’, Innovation: Management with Joseph Needham, New Delhi: Oxford Univer- & Practice, (Australia) 9(2), pp.192-202, 2007 sity Press. Krishna, V.V.(1997) ‘Science, Technology and UNESCO (1998), ‘Toward a New Contract Counter Hegemony: Some Relections on the between Science and Society’, Executive

Summary of the Report of the North American Meeting held in advance of the World Confe- rence on Science, Kananaskis Village, Alberta (Canada), 1-3 November 1998 Vavakova, Banka (1998) , ‘he new social contract between governments, universities and society: has the old one failed?’, Minerva, 36, pp208-228 Waast, Roland (1996), 20th Century Science: Beyond Metropolis, volumes 1-7, Paris: ORS- TOM Editions Weingart, Peter and Sabine Maasen (2007), ‘Elite hrough Rankings – he Emergence of the Eneterprising University’, in R.Whitley and J.Glaser, he Changing Governance of the Sciences: he Advent of Research Evaluation, Dordrecht,he Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media BV Ziman (1996), ‘Is science losing objectivity?’, Nature, Vol 382, 28 August 1996

Working Papers : la liste

Hervé Le Bras, Jean-Luc Racine Marc Fleurbaey, he Facets Antonio De Lauri, Inaccessible & Michel Wieviorka, Natio- of Exploitation, FMSH- Normative Pluralism and Human nal Debates on Race Statistics: WP-2012-11, may 2012. Rights in Afghanistan, FMSH- towards an International Com- WP-2012-21, september 2012. Jacques Sapir, Pour l’Euro, parison, FMSH-WP-2012-01, l’heure du bilan a sonné : Quinze Dominique Méda, Redéinir le février 2012. leçons et six conclusions, FMSH- progrès à la lumière de la crise éco- Manuel Castells, Ni dieu ni WP-2012-12, juin 2012. logique, FMSH-WP-2012-22, , FMSH- octobre 2012. maître : les réseaux Rodolphe De Koninck & Jean- WP-2012-02, février 2012. François Rousseau, Pourquoi Ibrahima hioub, Stigmates et François Jullien, L’écart et l’entre. et jusqu’où la fuite en avant des mémoires de l’esclavage en Afrique Ou comment penser l’altérité, agricultures sud-est asiatiques ?, de l’Ouest : le sang et la couleur FMSH-WP-2012-03, février FMSH-WP-2012-13, juin de peau comme lignes de fracture, 2012. 2012. FMSH-WP-2012-23, octobre 2012. Itamar Rabinovich, he Web Jacques Sapir, Inlation moné- of Relationship, FMSH- taire ou inlation structurelle ? Danièle Joly, Race, ethnicity and WP-2012-04, février 2012. Un modèle hétérodoxe bi-secto- religion: social actors and poli- riel, FMSH-WP-2012-14, juin cies, FMSH-WP-2012-24, Bruno Maggi, Interpréter l’agir : 2012. novembre 2012. un déi théorique, FMSH- WP-2012-05, février 2012. Franson Manjali, he ‘Social’ and Dominique Méda, Redeining the ‘Cognitive’ in Language. A Progress in Light of the Ecologi- Pierre Salama, Chine – Brésil : Reading of Saussure, and Beyond, cal Crisis, FMSH-WP-2012-25, industrialisation et « désindus- FMSH-WP-2012-15, july décembre 2012. trialisation précoce », FMSH- 2012. WP-2012-06, mars 2012. Ulrich Beck & Daniel Levy, Cos- Michel Wieviorka, Guilhem Fabre & Stéphane Du concept mopolitanized Nations: Reima- de sujet à celui de subjectiva- gining Collectivity in World Risk Grumbach, he World upside tion/dé-subjectivation, FMSH- Society, FMSH-WP-2013-26, down,China’s R&D and inno- WP-2012-16, juillet 2012. february 2013. vation strategy, FMSH- WP-2012-07, avril 2012. Nancy Fraser, Feminism, Capi- Xavier Richet, L’internationali- talism, and the Cunning of His- sation des irmes chinoises : crois- Joy Y. Zhang, he De-nationali- tory: An Introduction, FMSH- sance, motivations, stratégies, zation and Re-nationalization of WP-2012-17 august 2012. FMSH-WP-2013-27, février the Life Sciences in China: A Cos- 2013. mopolitan Practicality?, FMSH- Nancy Fraser, Can society be WP-2012-08, avril 2012. commodities all the way down? Alain Naze, Le féminisme critique Polanyian relections on capita- de Pasolini, avec un commentaire John P. Sullivan, From Drug Wars list crisis, FMSH-WP-2012-18, de Stefania Tarantino, FMSH- to Criminal Insurgency: Mexican august 2012. WP-2013-28, février 2013. Cartels, Criminal Enclaves and Criminal Insurgency in Mexico Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane halia Magioglou, What is the and Central America. Implica- Zuber, Climate policies deserve a role of “Culture” for conceptua- tions for Global Security, FMSH- negative discount rate, FMSH- lization in Political Psychology? WP-2012-09, avril 2012. WP-2012-19, september 2012. Presentation of a dialogical model of lay thinking in two cultural Marc Fleurbaey, Economics is Roger Waldinger, La politique contexts, FMSH-WP-2013-29, not what you think: A defense of au-delà des frontières : la sociologie mars 2013. the economic approach to taxa- politique de l’émigration, FMSH- tion, FMSH-WP-2012-10, may WP-2012-20, septembre 2012. Byasdeb Dasgupta, Some Aspects 2012. of External Dimensions of Indian

Economy in the Age of Globali- siècle (Espagne, Italie), FMSH- Franck Varenne, Chains sation, FMSH-WP-2013-30, WP-2013-40, août 2013. of Reference in Compu- april 2013. ter Simulations, FMSH- Angela Axworthy he ontologi- WP-2013-51, GeWoP-4, Ulrich Beck, Risk, class, crisis, cal status of geometrical objects in october 2013. hazards and cosmopolitan solida- the commentary on the Elements rity/risk community – conceptual of Euclid of Jacques Peletier du Olivier Galland & Yannick and methodological clariications, Mans (1517-1582), FMSH- Lemel, avec la collaboration FMSH-WP-2013-31, april WP-2013-41, août 2013. d’Alexandra Frenod, Com- 2013. ment expliquer la perception des Pierre Salama, Les économies inégalités en France ?, FMSH- Immanuel Wallerstein, Tout émergentes, le plongeon ?, FMSH- WP-2013-52, GeWoP-5, octo- se transforme. Vraiment tout ?, WP-2013-42, août 2013. ber 2013. FMSH-WP-2013-32, mai 2013. Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Guilhem Fabre, he Lion’s share : Christian Walter, Les origines L’exil comme expérience, FMSH- What’s behind China’s economic du modèle de marche au hasard en WP-2013-43, septembre 2013. slowdown, FMSH-WP-2013-53, inance, FMSH-WP-2013-33, Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Exi- october 2013. juin 2013. liance : condition et conscience, Venni V. Krishna, Changing Social Byasdeb Dasgupta, Financia- FMSH-WP-2013-44, sep- Relations between Science and lization, Labour Market Flexi- tembre 2013. Society: Contemporary Challenges, bility, Global Crisis and New Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), FMSH-WP-2013-54, november Imperialism – A Marxist Perspec- Exil et post-exil, FMSH- 2013. , FMSH-WP-2013-34, juin tive WP-2013-45, septembre 2013. 2013. Alexandra Galitzine-Loum- Kiyomitsu Yui, Climate Change in pet, Pour une typologie des objets Visual Communication: From ‘his de l’exil, FMSH-WP-2013-46, is Not a Pipe’ to ‘his is Not Fuku- septembre 2013. shima’, FMSH-WP-2013-35, juin 2013. Hosham Dawod, Les réactions irakiennes à la crise syrienne, Gilles Lhuilier, Minerais de FMSH-WP-2013-47, sep- guerre. Une nouvelle théorie de la tembre 2013. mondialisation du droit, FMSH- WP-2013-36, juillet 2013. Gianluca Manzo, Understan- ding the Marriage Efect: Changes David Tyield, he Coal Renais- in Criminal Ofending Around sance and Cosmopolitized the Time of Marriage, FMSH- , FMSH- Low-Carbon Societies WP-2013-48, GeWoP-1, WP-2013-37, juillet 2013. octobre 2013. Lotte Pelckmans, Moving Torkild Hovde Lyngstad & Memories of Slavery: how hie- Torbjørn Skarðhamar, Unders- rarchies travel among West Afri- tanding the Marriage Efect: can Migrants in Urban Contexts Changes in Criminal Ofending (Bamako, Paris), FMSH- Around the Time of Marriage, WP-2013-38, juillet 2013. FMSH-WP-2013-49, GeWoP- Amy Dahan, Historic Overview 2, octobre 2013. FMSH- of Climate Framing, Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund & WP-2013-39, août 2013. Yannick Lemel, Lifestyles and Rosa Rius Gatell & Stefania Social Stratiication: An Explora- Tarantino, Philosophie et genre: tive Study of France and Norway, Rélexions et questions sur la FMSH-WP-2013-50, GeWoP- production philosophique fémi- 3, octobre 2013. nine en Europe du Sud au XXe

Position Papers : la liste

Jean-François Sabouret, Mars Antonio Sérgio Alfredo Gui- Samadia Sadouni, Cosmopo- 2012 : Un an après Fukushima, marães, Race, colour, and skin litisme et prédication islamique le Japon entre catastrophes et rési- colour in Brazil, FMSH- transfrontalière : le cas de Maulana lience, FMSH-PP-2012-01, PP-2012-04, july 2012. Abdul Aleem Siddiqui, FMSH- mars 2012. PP-2013-08, septembre 2013. Mitchell Cohen, Verdi, Wagner, Ajay K. Mehra, Public Security and Politics in Opera. Bicen- Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Étu- and the Indian State, FMSH- tennial Ruminations, FMSH- dier l’exil, FMSH-PP-2013-09, PP-2012-02, mars 2012. PP-2012-05, may 2013. septembre 2013. Timm Beichelt, La nouvelle poli- Ingrid Brena, Les soins médi- tique européenne de l’Allemagne : caux portés aux patients âgés inca- L’émergence de modèles de légiti- pables de s’autogérer, FMSH- mité en concurrence ?, FMSH- PP-2013-06, avril 2013. PP-2012-03, mars 2012.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.fmsh.fr - FMSH-WP-2013-54