Science and Technology Governance and Ethics - A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China

This book analyzes the possibilities for effective global governance of science in Europe, India and China. Authors from the three regions join forces to explore how ethical concerns over new technologies can be incorporated into global science and technology policies. The first chapter introduces the topic, offering a global perspective on embedding ethics in science and technology policy. Chapter Two compares the institutionalization of ethical debates in science, technology and innovation policy in three important regions: Europe, India and China. The third chapter explores public perceptions of science and technology in these same three regions. Chapter Four discusses public engagement in the governance of science and technology, and Chapter Five reviews science and technology governance and European values. The sixth chapter describes and analyzes values demonstrated in the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Chapter Seven describes emerging evidence from India on the uses of science and technology for socio-economic development, and the quest for inclusive growth. In Chapter Eight, the authors propose a comparative framework for studying global ethics in science and technology. The following three chapters offer case studies and analysis of three emerging industries in India, China and Europe: new food technologies, nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Chapter 12 gathers all these threads for a comprehensive discussion on incorporating ethics into science and technology policy. The analysis is undertaken against the backdrop of different value systems and varying levels of public perception of risks and benefits. The book introduces a common analytical framework for the comparative discussion of ethics at the international level. The authors offer policy recommendations for effective collaboration among the three regions, to promote responsible governance in science and technology and a common analytical perspective in ethics

The role of regional institutional entrepreneurs in the emergence of clusters in nanotechnologies

In the case of new technologies like nanotechnology, institutional entrepreneurs appear who have to act at different levels (organizational, regional, national) at the same time. We reconstruct, in some detail, the history of two cases, in Grenoble and in Twente/Netherlands. An intriguing finding is that institutional entrepreneurs build their environment before changing their institution. They first mobilize European support to convince local and national levels before actual cluster building occurs. Only later will there be reactions against any de-institutionalisation caused at the base location. The Dutch case shows another notable finding: when mobilizing support the entrepreneur will have to agree to further conditions, and then ends up in a different situation (a broad national consortium) than originally envisaged (the final cluster involved a collaboration of Twente with two other centres). In general, an institutional entrepreneur attempts to create momentum, and when this is achieved, he has to follow rather than lead it.INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEUR; DEINSTITUTIONALISATION; CLUSTER; LOCATION; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; PROMISE; NANOTECHNOLOGY

Reflections from Participants

The Road Ahead: Public Dialogue on Science and Technology brings together some of the UK’s leading thinkers and practitioners in science and society to ask where we have got to, how we have got here, why we are doing what we are doing and what we should do next. The collection of essays aims to provide policy makers and dialogue deliverers with insights into how dialogue could be used in the future to strengthen the links between science and society. It is introduced by Professor Kathy Sykes, one of the UK’s best known science communicators, who is also the head of the Sciencewise-ERC Steering Group, and Jack Stilgoe, a DEMOS associate, who compiled the collection

Technologie en innovatie in Vlaanderen: Prioriteiten.

Vlaanderen;

The Global Challenges of the Knowledge Economy: China and the EU

This paper addresses some of the challenges confronting the European Union and China as they build their knowledge economies, and their on-going and possible future actions to address such challenges. Fifty years after the creation of what became the European Union, we argue that there is an urgent need to develop a new European Lisbon Agenda, preparing the EU for globalization. A new and "outward-looking" Lisbon strategy would focus on three key areas: international trade in services, internationalization of research networking, and access to brains and talent. The paper shows that the success of the Chinese economy over the past three decades can be partially attributed to its ability to absorb globally advanced technology and huge flows of foreign investment, its large pool of knowledge and talent, and its enactment of a policy framework that provides incentives to domestic and foreign firms to innovate - a strategy very much reminiscent of Europe's own internal Lisbon agenda. To move further, China needs to overcome the obstacles of regional disparities, transform its industry and deepen industry-academy linkages, which are also unavoidable tasks for the sustainable development of Europe. We contend that the scope for comparative studies of the EU and China, for mutual learning from each other's experience - even for joint initiatives - is substantial.Knowledge Economy, Industry-University Partnerships, Globalization, Internationalization, Highly Skilled Migration, European Union, China

Global Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Comparison of the Nanoethics Environments of the EU and China

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making

Emergence of nano S&T in Germany : network formation and company performance

This article investigates the emergence of nano S&T in Germany. Using multiple longitudinal data sets, we describe the complete set of research institutions and companies that entered this science-based technology field and the development of their inter-organisational networks between 1991 and 2000. We demonstrate that the co-publication network is a core-periphery structure in which some companies were key players at an early stage of field formation, whereas later universities and other extra-university institutes took over as the central drivers of scientific progress. Further differentiating among types of firms and research organisations, we find that in the co-patent network collaboration is most intense between high-technology firms and use-inspired basic research institutes. While many companies co-patent with several universities or other public institutes, some succeed in establishing almost exclusive relationships with public research units. It is shown that co-patent and co-publication ties are most effective at strengthening the technological performance of firms, that multiple interaction channels increase company performance, and that companies benefit from collaborating with scientifically central universities and institutes. --nanotechnology,network analysis,company performance,public research sector,innovation system,science industry cooperation,Germany