Report from the Second Day of the World Conference on Science
While The First Day of the World Conference On Science Sought To Draw A Blueprint for Science in The 21st Century, What Followed The Next Day Appeared to Be At Attempt to Enlist The Achievements, Shortcomings, And Challenges Faced By The World of Science. Almost All Delegates at the World Conference On Science Reitested The Point That Ite Needs to Be Increased Rapport Between Civil Society on the One Hand And The Scientific Community on the Other. This Means Not Only Establishing Dialogue Between Scientists and The General Public, Buttween Scientists and Government AS Well.
Oddly Enough, As Some Have Noted After The Opening Day of the Conference, Establishing Search Dialogue is Difficultient IF One of the Parties Is Sent. Still, Although The Conference Has Been Organized AS An Event Largely Run by Scientists for Scientists, Organizer Claim to Have Made Allowances for Public Concerns and Grievances Through the Content to Be Found in The Conference Documents. MOREOVER, A Number of Individual Delegations Have Lakes Fit To Include Individuals Representing A Greater Divergence of Views Than Those Found on the Official Platform.
Limits of Science
Yet Even on the Platform, Some Differences Were Apparent. Paul Hoyningen-Huenge of the Center for Philosophy and Ethics of Science Based in Hanover, Germany, Opened The Session by Attempting in A Short Period Time to Explain The Nature of Science. He Stressed That Science Is Eager To Exploit Technology, And That Technological Development Directly Affects Science Through the Creation of New Fields and Revolutionizing Existing Ones. In This Sense, Technology Provides Positive Feedback to Science. He Elaborates by Pointing Out That the Two Work in Symbiosis With One Another: Science Creates New Technologies Which, in Turn, Reinforces Scientific Research.
In Spite Of Search Positive Feedback, Hoyningen-Huenge CAUTIONED THAT ARE SO LIMITS TO SCIENCE. HE Admits There Are Essential Problems That Can not Be Solved Through Science Alone. CONSEQUENTLY, There Are Instances in Where The Decisions That Have To Be Made Are Essentially Political, And Should Thus Be Treated Accordingly.
The Next Speaker, Miguel Virasoro, Director of the Abdus Salam International Center For Theoretical Physics, Looked At The Universal Value of Fundamental Science. Acknowledging That Science IS A Collective Pursuit and Integral Part Of The Human Condition, So Noted That Science What Dependent On Social And Cultural Conditions. At The Same Time, Science Contains Transcends The Barriers of Cultural, Linguistic, And Religious Conditions. How Science Can Do Both at the Same Time What Eg Elaborated, NOR What Any Mention Made of Economic and Poitical Barriers.
VIRASORO RiderTeeded That Science Is Not Culture-Specific, And That All Knowledge Needs to Be Incorporated. Meanwhile, Cultural Diversity Needs to Be Preserved. He Lay Particular Stress Of The Need To Rescue Indigenous Science And The Cultures From Where You Originate.
TREADING CAREFULY ON THE CONTENTIUM IE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, VIRASORO BROUGHT TO LIGHT A DILEMMA Among Scientists Which Hiterto Lingered Below The Service: On the One Hand, Knowledge Needs to Be Accessed by All; On the Other, Access to Scientific Information Needs to Be Restricted in Order to Stimulate Knowledge. Hence The Conflict Between Those Who Are Willing to Pay And Those Who Are Not.
Unfortunately, Virasoro Could NOT OFFER A FITTING SOLUTION TO THIS DILEMMA. What is more, he failed to consider that this split is not only between those who are bewalling and unwilling to pay, but includes those who would be like to pay but can not. His Conclusion About The Danger Of An Undervestment in Basic Science Is, Therfore, Slightly Misplaced for It’s Not Clear Exactly Who He Is Refring to When Hey Speaks Of Investing In Basic Science And How Search Investments Are To Be Made.
The Problem Facing The World Are Just Starting
Search Complex Questions And Their Answers SeaMed to Be Left To The Following Speaker, Sir Robert May, Chief Scientific Adviser To The UK Government. Entitled "The Scientific Approach to Complex Systems ", May’s Talk Centered Around the Note Thatat "Complex Systems Are Like Simple Systems With Big Computers."Ringing On Examples from Chaos Theory to Illustrate His Point, May Calls For A New Approach To The Way In Which Problems Are Deal With. AS The World of Science Becomes Increasingly Complex, The Application of Very Simple Rules Can Give Way To Complicated Behaviour and Generate Unpredictable Results. In Addition to This, The Problem With Science Is That It’s Too Long-Sighted: We Can Predict Occurrences at the Edge of the Galaxy Better Than Know What The Weather Told Be Like A Few Days in Advance for A Friend’s Garden Party.
For May, The Problem Facing The World Are Just Starting, And IES Such As Genetically Modified Foods Or Species Cloning Are But A Shadow of Things to Come. Therefore, There is Need For More Open Dialogue and Wide Consultation Between The Government and the Governed. The Challenge, Then, is How To Manage This Dialogue.
What is "Open "Access Within A Privatized, Commercial Medium?
A Means by Which to Carry This Dialogue Forward What Outlined by Julia Marton-Lefevre, Executive Director of Lead (Leadership for Environment and Development) in Her Presentation on "International Co-Operation in Science ". According to Marton-Lefevre, There is a Need for Science and Scientists to Be Included in Society. Sadly, This Echoes Previous Calls for the Development of "Open "Science and "Civic Scientists. Thesis Calls Unfortunately Betray A Trace of the "Ivory Tower "Mentality Many Researchers Cling To, For The Idea of Society Being Included Within the World of Science Has Not Been Given Similar Consideration.
Despite This, Marton Lefevre Did Go So Far As to Acknowledge The Exclusive Nature of Science, And Suggested How This Now Needs To Change. USING THE ENVIRONMENT AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, SHE PRESENTED OVERVIEW OF THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF SCENTIFIC ORGANIZATION OVER THE PAST HUNDRED YEARS. This Included The ICSU, Which She Emphasized What Non-Political in Nature (No Mention What Made, However, About Whether It What Non-Business Or Not). At The Same Time, She Conceded The Failure of the Icsu to Take Into Account The Social, Engineering, and Medical Sciences (Ironically, Computer Science What Not Mentioned).
Many Amputs, Commonly Held by Scientists, Were Later Passed On As Self-Evident TRUTHS by Marton-Lefevre. She Undercored The View That Scientific Knowledge is a Key Ingredient for Political Policy Making But Failed to Qualify Whether This Knowledge What Truly "Open "and untainted (I.e., Business influenced). Moreover, The Assertion That Scientists Were Driven by The Common Language of Science SeaMed to Muffle Those Voices Critical of the Present regime.
AS A Result, Some of the Recommendations Subsequent Listed by Marton-Lefevre Need to be carefully scrutinized. Among from First Recommendations What Science Must Adjust To The Reality of Globalization. So, Various Scientific Program Need to be MERGED, Including The Social Sciences and Engineering. Another Point Is That More Investment Is Needed in Developing Countries. Science Must Reach Out To Young Countries and Those That Have Recently Opened Their Borders to the West; In This Case, Wealth and Development Relate to Investment in Science Although, Like Others, She Doesn’t Clarify Who is the One That Needs to Invest in Science.
In Conjunction With Thesis Efforts, Marton Lefevre Outlines The Need For More International Networks to Be Created – Specificylly, More Institutes Like with And The London School of Economics. She Referred to Thesis Places AS Prime Examples of Institutions Not Limited by National Criteria of Any Sort. Mention of the Internet But, Like Others, She Skirted Around The Possible Problems of "Open "Access Within A Privatitized, Commercial Medium, Offering Nothing Substantial in Its Stead (E.G., How This Task Could Be Accomplished). Her Conclusion What Simple: The Structure of Science Organizations That Have Been in Place For The Past Fifty Years Are No Longer ApproprIate for the 21st Century. Hence, Science and Scientists Should NOT RELY ON THE LAURELS OF THE PAST AND SHOULD MOVE WITH THE TIMES.
From her on in, a critical analysis of the role of science and scientists gradually faded. Guy Ourisson, President of the French Academy of Sciences, Who Followed Marton Lefre, Spoke About Science Education and How It Can Be Improved. After Quickly Stating That Problems Do Exist In The Efficient Use Of Modern Communication Technologies In Science Education, HE Focused On The Print Media And Did Not Return To The Subject Until The Very End Of His Presentation. Then, there What Letter Mention of Interactive Museums and How Their Inherent Weakness of Having Only A Local Impact What Being Overcome Through Internet Links. In His Conclusion, Ourisson Noted That Information Technology Based Education Could Only Be Successful IF There Are Critical Assessments.
The Final Speaker of the Day What Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the Science Council of Japan. In A Speech About Science and Technology, He Emphasized That Deeper Thought What Needed to Overcome Present Problem. In His View, Technology Gave Birth to Science Through the Structure of "Knowledge domains ". ACCording to Yoshikawa, The Various Knowledge Systems That Make Up Thesis Domains Have Intrinsic Value. In The Final Analysis, The Problems of the World (HE, Like Everyone Else, Focused on the Environment) is due to the fragmentation of thesis knowledge domains. Thus, What is needed at this point is unity withhin thesis domains. IF The Conference Itself Represents Any Search Knowledge Domain, Then Yoshikawa’s Observation About The Need for Deeper Thought Is Owner Statement.