SCIENCE for SOCIETY REMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Prof. Michał...

SCIENCE for SOCIETYSCIENCE for SOCIETYREMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER REMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER

AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORAND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

Prof. Michał KLEIBERProf. Michał KLEIBERMINISTERMINISTER

The LautenschlThe Lautenschlääger Research Prize 2005ger Research Prize 2005

ACCOUNTABILITY OF RESEARCH: ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION

SCIENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE

EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY –

DO WE HAVE IT, DO WE NEED IT?

MottoEither we take hold of the future or the future will take hold of us

Patrick Dixon

SCIENCE for SOCIETY SCIENCE for SOCIETY Michał KLEIBERMichał KLEIBER

The pursuit and diffusion of knowledge enjoy a place of distinction in European tradition, and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from creative contributions of researchers.

It is still generally accepted that supporting university education and different forms of research is a crucial element in advancing public good.

MESSAGE No. 1

MAKE RESEARCH ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC

BUT:Society will support research only as long as it feels it can trust the scientists and the institutions that employ them – accountability of research endeavor to the public is a crucial requirement in this regard, whereas integrity in the conduct of research is an important part of that accountability.

Society at large must be convinced that scientific activity is at its service.


HOWEVER:Scientists are no longer perceived exclusively as guardians of objective truth but also as defenders of their own (individual or group) interests in a media driven scientific marketplace.

THEREFORE:It is more important than ever that individual researchers and their institutions constantly assess the values that guide their research

UNFORTUNATELY: No established measures for assessing integrity in the research

environment exist Fostering responsible conduct in research must be done in a creative

way, otherwise it may be ineffective Institutional self-assessment appears to be a constructive and

promising approach to improving integrity of research.


ACCOUNTABILITY means much more than ethical behaviour, of course.

Since a significant percentage of research is funded with tax money, everyone using those funds has an obligation to explain to the public in understandable language how that money has been used.

The message may seem convincing but make no mistake:

A bottom line here may be that science should give up a part of its autonomy and transfer it to non-scientists!


HOWEVER, IS SOCIETY PREPARED

TO EXERCISE ITS INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE?

How we should talk the public into debating the ways to:

understand merits and scope of scientific inquiry

address in a non-biased way controversial issues

(GMO’s, stem cells, nuclear energy, religious

orthodoxy, ...)

deal with privacy of research data

. . . .


science dispenses both beneficial and adverse effects

science input is often limited to a short-term horizon

there are serious negative effects of compartmentalization of disciplines, hyperspecialization and brain drain

information overload becomes at places unmanageable, prompting ex cathedra pronouncements

large private companies may monopolize the information highways with the quality and objectivity of the data transmitted difficult to control

PROBLEMS TO BE OPENLY DEBATED


THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CREDIBILITY

PROBLEM SCIENCE FACES TODAY

IS BIGGER THAN EVER BEFORE.

THE PUBLIC APPEARS TO OFTEN QUESTION

WHETHER PROGRESS IN SCIENCE

BRINGS ABOUT ANY COHERENT INCREASE

IN WELL-BEING OF THE HUMAN RACE AT ALL.



SUGGESTIONS

OF A SCIENCE COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONER

There is no such thing as a ‘general audience’ and, consequently, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of science communication – different communication programs

should address the needs of different groups (education, age, economic status, familiarity with

specific technologies, local community needs

and interests,…)

SCIENCE ATTENTIVE AUDIENCE

those who express a high level of interest in particular science issues and

regularly seek relevant information, less than 10 % of the population in the developed countries

SCIENCE INTERESTED AUDIENCE

those who claim to have some interest about science issues but have casual access to relevant information, perhaps some 40 % of the population

RESIDUAL AUDIENCE

those who are neither interested nor informed about science issues


Public understanding of science is something different than appreciationof a research institution – a communication mistake made by manyresearchers wishing to enhance the reputation of their institution ratherthan to explain the phenomenon of public interest.

Scientists themselves must be involved in communication programs– in an era of sophisticated and complex science it is only them who

can make room for a much higher degree of connection acrossscience and society

Individual scientists and research institutions should be strongly encouraged to find ways to communicate all their findings – particularly important in health and environment sector


Communication programs should illustrate both processes and products of science, and relate it to the everyday environment

Communication programs should involve multimedia and interactivity

Evidence exists that in order to gain public support trust in research institutions is more important than knowledge about research results, risk factors involved in specific applications and even awareness of new developments

TRUST CAN ONLY BE WON IN THE COURSE

OF CONSTANT DIALOGUE WITH THE PUBLIC


A NEW CONTRACTREDEFINING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

Society has to be constantly trying to better understand science

Society has to work out better ways to foster and controlpublic expenditures on research

Science has to be constantly making every effort to evoke societal interest in it

Science has to be made more accountable

A key ingredient in trying to overcome the current crisis is


SCIENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – or how not to overlook opportunities and threats?

Is IST a slogan, an uncontrolled revolution or a controllable development?

IST: the means rather than the goal!

IST crucial for handling existing and creating new knowledge.

As in other sectors of public life, the use of IST has become a crucial factor in maximizing research benefits.

MESSAGE No. 2


PREDICTIONS Evolution of IT will continue to be characterized by rapid exponential

growth with the Net becoming truly ubiquitous and pervasive

IT will challenge traditional academic institutions by relaxing constraints of space, and time, and benefits of ‘monopoly’

IT will change dramatically the ways we handle storage of and access to data, information and knowledge thus elevating the importance of intellectual capital relative to physical and financial capital

IT will greatly influence the methodology of scientific endeavor

HOW WILL IT DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCE THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR AND HOW WILL THEY REDEFINE THE MISSION AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION?


THE IMPACT OF IT ON THE SCIENCE INSTITUTION

WILL BE PROFOUND TRANSFORMING

NOT ONLY ‘INTELECTUAL’ PART OF IT

(RESEARCH, EDUCATION, OUTREACH)

BUT ALSO ITS ‘ADMINISTRATIVE’ PART (STRUCTURE, FINANCES, GOVERNANCE).

THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF EMERGING

A GLOBAL „KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING” INDUSTRY.


The typical issues to be addressed are: How will e-learning affect traditional teacher-centered instruction? How will the idea of residential campuses be affected? How will tackling large-scale research problems be affected? How to be more effective in the planning, procurement and management

of ITIT infrastructure? How to handle new developments in regard to intellectual property,

copyright, instructional-content ownership or faculty contracts? How should the university address the evolving commercial marketplace

for educational services and content? Will the universities be forced to merge into larger ones (similarly to the

corporate world)? Will they find it necessary to outsource or spin-off many of its activities? What are the changes in national and European policies that are required

to keep the research institutions in step with evolving ITIT?


FOR AT LEAST A DECADE (OR SLIGHTLY LESS) THE PACE OF

CHANGE WILL BE RATHER SLOW

– INACTION AND PROCRASTINATION NOW

WOULD BE HIGHLY DENGEROUS

IN VIEW OF CERTAINTY OF RAPID ADVANCES IN IT

AND THE ‘NATURAL’ INABILITY OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION

TO CHANGE ITSELF FAST.


DO WE NEED EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY?

Institutional problem of EU science policy:

Rooted in unanswered question of Europe federalism/non-federalism which new European institutions (if any at all) should be created to respond to problems of science?

The European Council of Ministers for Research does not decide on anything relevant to European science policy – rather it tackles marginal issues of a rather particular instrument called FP.

There is no other political administrative body to debate questions of science policy in Europe.

MESSAGE No. 3


MORE GENERALLY

I DOUBT THAT SCIENCE POLICY NOWADAYS LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MAIN STREAM EUROPEAN POLITICS.

HOW SHOULD WE MAKE SCIENCE A POLITICALLY RELEVANT ISSUE?

IS AN INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF SCIENTISTS IN SHAPING EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY AN ANSWER?

IS THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL A STEP IN THIS DIRECTION?


Research

Education

Innovation

REI as inas in

AND IT DOES INDEED!AND IT DOES INDEED!It is up to us to see It is up to us to see

that it moves in the rigthat it moves in the righht directiont direction

α α ααα α ii


SCIENCE for SOCIETY REMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Prof. Michał...

Documents

Transcript of SCIENCE for SOCIETY REMARKS OF A CONCERNED RESEARCHER AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Prof. Michał...