Glossary Budapest, world science capital 1. From science to innovation • A German chemist’s double life • The science-tech convergence • The symbiosis of pure and applied science • Staying ahead of the pack • Open house or closed shop? • The big three get together 2.The trio that calls the tune • A global snapshot of scientific trends • All eyes on El Niño • Former USSR: halting the brain drain • CHINA: a market-minded contender • Latin America: a tough transition • Brazil: a bridgehead to the tropics • Science for citizens © Claude Henri Saunier Glossary Applied research. Research aimed at developing practical applications to basic research. Basic research. Experimental or theoretical investigation undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view. Innovation. The introduction of a new technique, product or production process. Innovation can take two forms. The first, referred to as incremental innovation, aims to improve a product or launch a new one by making slight adaptations. The second, more radical and much rarer, enables the development of a new sector, like biotechnologies. Invention. The devising of a new product, process or system. Know-how. Confidential, practical, unpatented, technical knowledge, professional experience and accumulated skills for the production and distribution of commodities and services. Patent. A certificate of grant by a government of an exclusive right with respect to the use and sale of an invention for a limited period of time. R&D. Research work carried out by a company or group to conceive and develop new products. Technology. The practice of any or all of the applied sciences which have practical value and/or industrial use. The employment of tools, machines, materials and processes to do work, produce goods, perform services or carry out other useful activities. Transfer of technology. Process of transmitting and adapting technology to a different productive apparatus, generally through its export from a developed to a less-developed country. Venture capital. Companies that finance innovations by taking a stake in firms that don’t have enough capital or sufficient guarantees to obtain long- term loans for such endeavours. Such capital is lost if the enterprise goes bankrupt. Sources: OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Dictionary of Economics by Donald Rutherford, Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary, Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms “Science doesn’t interest me. It seems to me presumptuous, analytical and superficial. It disregards dreams, chance, laughter, feelings and dissent—all things I love.” Luis Buñuel, Spanish film-maker (1900-1983)

© Claude Henri Saunier Who owns science? Roland Waast and Sophie Boukhari, respectively, sociologist of science at the French Scientific Institute for Development in Co-operation, and UNESCO Courier journalist For many years, the political leaders and scientists of the great powers called the shots in science. “Leave it to us,” they said to citizens. “We’re working on your behalf, for your security and your prosperity.” This tacit contract between science and society has had its day. On the world economic battlefield, research is increasingly geared to the market and technological innovation. The frontiers are becoming blurred between laboratories, both public and private, and corporate marketing services. In a situation in which science is increasingly regarded as a commercial resource, how can it yield benefits for all? “What’s good for science is good for humanity.” Until the end of the Cold War, few people dared challenge this dictum originating in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and given greater force after the Second World War. Despite the threat of the nuclear holocaust which it had made possible, science was widely seen as a beneficial force. In both East and West, it was invested with a sacred mission—to guarantee the security and prosperity of nations. In the United States, the wealthy leader of the “free world”, the idea took root after 1945 that people should trust the state and the scientists, and that spending on basic (and military) research should be unlimited. It was argued that pure science would inevitably have applications that would contribute to progress and social welfare. Universities and major sources of funding, such as the National Science Foundation and the various branches of the armed forces, were left to decide on research priorities. In France, people were also expected to trust the authorities, which opted for a more dirigiste approach. The state decided policy and chose strategic areas, and then administered and funded on an ad hoc basis executing agencies such as the National Centre for Scientific Research and the Atomic Energy Commission. These two models, which had the advantage of leaving scientists with a degree of independence, were widely followed elsewhere in the world. They boosted basic research, which produces new knowledge with a wide range of applications. But they also served to rubber-stamp massive public spending for military and civil purposes. And in this tacit agreement between scientists and society there was a geographic and democratic deficit, in the sense that science developed largely in a few urban centres as part of a national framework, and ordinary citizens were never consulted. The direction of research was largely decided by political and scientific elites and the “military-industrial complexes” of a few big powers. But the last 20 years have seen major changes in the world of research. The state has lost its capacity for initiative. Belief in progress is giving rise to doubts and controversies. The prestige of science, like that of state technocracies, has faded. Its main preoccupations increasingly take account of private-sector interests, which these days fund and carry out two-thirds of all research in some industrialized countries. This new situation has several causes. In the 1970s, the benefits of science and technology began to be challenged, mainly by the environmental movement and in the developing world. After the Cold War ended, the strategic interests which had accounted for huge government expenditures changed and military spending dropped sharply. Then the United States noticed with alarm that Japan, where research was dominated by industry, was scoring in advanced sectors such as information technology, electronics and new materials. As economic interests came to the fore, the idea that business was much more effective in ensuring people’s welfare than the political and scientific establishment became widespread. In this struggle for competitivity, science lost its supremacy to technological “innovation” (The science-tech, The symbiosis, Staying ahead…). The main goal was to come up with new products and innovatory production methods. The power of a nation now depends on its economic performance—and therefore its capacity to innovate. All stakeholders, including the state and the universities, are supposed to strengthen this capacity. Research facilities have been rejigged to turn out new products more quickly and more cheaply (The big tree…). Scientists are valued less for their disinterestedness than for their feel for market efficiency. Barriers between public and private sectors have become blurred. Bridges have been built between the two which scientists cross in increasing numbers (A German chemist’s…). The difference has also become fuzzy between basic and applied research, which now interact continually (The symbiosis…). The synergy is especially close in high-tech companies, which account for 40 per cent of private sector industrial R&D in the rich countries. These trends, which have developed with the globalization of world trade, have strengthened the grip of the big three—the United States, Europe and Japan—on research (Scientific trends). Some Asian countries, such as China (China), are boosting their capacity for innovation, but whole regions are being left out. Science outside the big three countries registered significant advances at the beginning of the century—in medicine, agriculture, natural sciences and economics—and then grew strongly in new independent states. In the past few years, research activity has diminished in some Latin American countries. It has collapsed in the former Soviet bloc countries and is subject to “desertification” in black Africa. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), by volume and as a percentage of GDP (US billion PPP*) Year GERD GERD (% of GDP) 1990 387.7/ 425.7** 2/2.2** 1992 428.58 1.8 1994 470.4 1.4 * Purchasing power parity ** Low and high estimates caused by changes in the former USSR Source: World Science Reports, UNESCO Meanwhile, research is being partly globalized itself as international co-operation grows (again, mainly between the big three and between Asian countries), if only because government spending on research has been cut in each country (El Niño). The upheavals which have affected the world’s 4.5 million or so scientists and engineers have set off lively debate. By trying to make science serve the market, is there not a risk of depriving most of humanity of its benefits? By forcing universities and state-funded laboratories to increase their profitability, might we not kill off basic research, where the public sector plays a key role? How can we fight abuses of patenting, which is no longer limited to protecting the applications of research but now extends to “privatizing” certain discoveries? How can we fight the emergence of a culture of secrecy which threatens the free flow of knowledge (Open house…)? How can we prevent whole areas of research from being neglected, with only a few “technological pathways” being explored, when more and more firms are trying to establish monopolies by imposing their standards? In the era of genetics and the virtual, how can we build ethical safeguards and reconcile the precautionary principle with that of maximum profitability? All these questions should spur international decision-makers to once more promote truly universal scientific activity (see Budapest). They should also draw public opinion into a debate that must be held about the funding and aims of research (Science for citizens). But before that can happen, people need to know what’s really happening.

Budapest, world science capital Despite its astonishing progress and social and economic impact, science is currently facing a crisis of confidence and investment, as well as a debate about its ethics. UNESCO and the International Council for Science (ICSU) are organizing a conference in Budapest from June 26 to July 1, 1999, to discuss these and other issues. The gathering, called “Science for the 21st Century: a New Commitment”, will turn the city into the temporary world capital of science. According to UNESCO’s Director-General, Federico Mayor, the meeting, the first at this level for 20 years, will enable “scientists, decision-makers and other stake-holders to address the major issues at the interface between science and society together and negotiate a new social contract.” Bodies like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) and the World Bank, along with Nature magazine and experts from all scientific fields, will have six days of discussions culminating in the adoption of two documents: a Declaration on Science, which will stress a political commitment to scientific progress, and a Science Agenda—Framework for Action, which will encourage scientific organizations to promote development and environmental improvement. ICSU’s Executive Director, Jean-François Stuyck-Taillandier, says that the most ground-breaking feature of the Budapest meeting is that scientists will come face to face with public and private sector decision-makers. “We want to improve the public’s perception of science, show that much has been done, and that much remains to be done, but that we can’t do everything because there are ethical issues to be considered.” http://helix.nature.com/wcs/