Research On The Social Contractual Relationship Between Science-technology And Politics

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