dialogues et responsabilité scientifique Science in Society

Transcription

CONFERENCE
Sciences en société :
dialogues et responsabilité scientifique
Science in Society:
Dialogues and Scientific Responsibility
24 - 25 novembre 2008
24 - 25 November 2008
Résumés des interventions
Abstracts
« Sciences en société : dialogues et responsabilité scientifique »
24-25 novembre 2008, Palais d’Iéna, Paris
SOMMAIRE – TABLE OF CONTENTS
Les textes présentés dans ce document sont ceux communiqués par les auteurs
Texts presented in this document are copies of those communicated by the authors
Séances plénières / Plenary sessions................................................................................................. 2
Conférence introductive / Keynote Lecture .................................................................................................. 2
Quelques exemples de travaux / A few examples ...................................................................................... 2
STIC / ICT................................................................................................................................................ 4
Processus de déculturation et/ou d’acculturation dans la société de l’information ................................ 4
Deculturation and/or Acculturation in the Information Society................................................................... 4
Neutralité de la technique ............................................................................................................................... 5
The Neutrality of Technique............................................................................................................................ 5
Nouvelles cultures et nouvelles pratiques de la société de l’information................................................. 7
New Cultures and New Practices of the Information Society .................................................................... 7
Nouveaux pouvoirs et nouveaux enjeux politiques de la société de l’information.................................. 8
New Power and New Political Challenges in the Information Society...................................................... 8
Climat et énergie / Climate and Energy............................................................................................. 10
Aspects scientifiques et impact .................................................................................................................... 10
Scientific Aspects and Impact....................................................................................................................... 10
Aspects économiques et solutions .............................................................................................................. 11
Economical Aspects and Solutions.............................................................................................................. 11
Témoignages du terrain ................................................................................................................................ 12
Testimonies from the Front Lines ................................................................................................................ 12
La réception sociale du changement climatique, ses enjeux et ses difficultés ..................................... 13
Climate Change Social Acceptability: Stakes and Difficulties ................................................................. 13
Santé / Health....................................................................................................................................... 14
Enjeux sociétaux de la recherche sur les cellules souches ..................................................................... 14
Societal Challenges on Stem Cells Research ........................................................................................... 14
Sécurité et crise sanitaire.............................................................................................................................. 14
Health Safety Dialogue.................................................................................................................................. 15
L’usager dans le système de santé ............................................................................................................. 16
The User in the Health System .................................................................................................................... 16
La connaissance, une valeur en soi ? Knowledge, a Value in Itself?............................................ 17
Quelle est la valeur de la connaissance ? .................................................................................................. 17
What is the Value of Knowledge? ................................................................................................................ 17
Existe-t-il une spécificité européenne de la science ? .............................................................................. 18
Is there any European Specificity in Science?........................................................................................... 18
Agronomie / Agronomy....................................................................................................................... 19
Les défis de la recherche agronomique dans le contexte mondial......................................................... 19
Agriculture Research Challenges in the Global Context .......................................................................... 19
Les enjeux et responsabilités des politiques de recherche en agronomie ............................................ 20
Some Trends for the Agriculture Research Policies: Stakes and Implied Responsibilities................. 20
Ateliers satellites / Satellite workshops ............................................................................................ 22
Indicateurs Sciences-Société ....................................................................................................................... 22
Science-Society Indicators............................................................................................................................ 22
Jeunes et sciences......................................................................................................................................... 23
Young People and Science........................................................................................................................... 23
Communication et intégrité scientifique ...................................................................................................... 25
Communication and Scientific Integrity ....................................................................................................... 25
Vers un engagement du public pour la science : expositions interactives et éducation informelle ... 26
Towards Public Engagement of Science: Interactive Exhibitions and Informal Learning ................... 26
Séance plénière / Plenary session..................................................................................................... 27
Table ronde / Round table............................................................................................................................. 27
Grand témoin / Keynote Speaker................................................................................................................. 27
Proposition conclusive du M.U.R.S / Concluding proposal by the M.U.R.S.......................................... 27
« Science in Society: Dialogues and Scientific Responsibility »
24-25 November 2008, Palais d’Iéna, Paris
1
Séances plénières / Plenary sessions
24 novembre 2008 / 24 November 2008
10h15-10h50
Conférence introductive / Keynote Lecture
HEMICYCLE
Président de séance / Chair : Jean-Michel Besnier, professeur de philosophie,
université Paris-Sorbonne (FR)
Heinz Wismann, directeur d’études, Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS, FR),
ancien directeur, Institut protestant de recherches interdisciplinaires de Heidelberg (DE)
« Que voulions-nous savoir ? » *
* extrait de Hans Blumenberg, La lisibilité du monde, 1981
“What did we wish to know?” *
* extract from Hans Blumenberg, The Legibility of the World, 1981
11h20-12h30
Quelques exemples de travaux / A few
examples
HEMICYCLE
Président de séance / Chair : Jean Jouzel, directeur, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (FR)
1 – François Ailleret, directeur général honoraire EDF, membre du Conseil économique, social et
environnemental (CESE), président du groupe des Entreprises publiques (FR)
SCIENCE en SOCIETE, un grand sujet pour notre Assemblée, le CESE
Comme le disait Louis Pasteur, « la science et les applications de la science sont liées entre elles
comme les fruits à l’arbre qui les a portés ».
Les succès de la science portent traditionnellement un progrès, mais l’effet de cette influence est
d’ouvrir aussi un certain nombre de controverses dans une société maintenant mieux éduquée.
La société civile exprime ainsi de nouvelles attentes et souhaite voir ses préoccupations, ses craintes
et ses espoirs pris en compte. Mais ses acteurs expriment des intérêts parfois contradictoires. Il faut
donc se concerter, c’est une nécessité dont le CESE s’est fait le pionnier. La communication
présentera quelques exemples traités, les méthodologies utilisées par le CESE et quelques
recommandations.
2 – Jean-Pierre Alix, conseiller science-société à la présidence du CNRS (FR)
Perfectionner le dialogue avec la société sur les enjeux des sciences
L’Atelier OCDE consacré à « Améliorer le dialogue avec la société à propos des enjeux de sciences »
est né d’une préoccupation exprimée par le Forum Mondial de la Science. Il est actuellement à michemin de ses travaux. Aussi les résultats présentés sont ils encore préliminaires et considérés à ce
stade comme une contribution à la Conférence européenne de Paris en novembre 2008.
La question initiale est celle des limites du modèle linéaire de diffusion de la science et du
changement de rationnel des interactions des sciences et de la société qu’elles suggèrent. Beaucoup
d’éléments militent pour le développement d’une communication à double sens (le Dialogue) entre
scientifiques et société environnante, en particulier la perte de confiance observée dans un certain
nombre de pays européens envers les activités, les projets et les applications de la science. De
nouvelles préoccupations apparaissent auprès des gouvernements, des parlements et des institutions
scientifiques pour comprendre ces phénomènes et optimiser la discussion des enjeux des sciences.
La présentation rappellera ce qu’on entend par dialogue et s’attachera à proposer les conditions pour
qu’un dialogue soit crédible et utile.
Improving the Dialogue with Society on Scientific Issues
The OECD Workshop « Improving the dialogue with society about scientific issues » was included as
one the Global Science Forum’s preoccupations. The current activity has not yet reached its
achievement. So the results which will be presented are still preliminary and they have to be
considered as a contribution to the European conference in Paris, November 24-25th.
The starting point is growing criticism of the “deficit model” or linear approach which considers science
as a knowledge generating only linear diffusion to society. Many facts show that a two way
communication could be a better answer and promote less critical situations in the relation of science
2
to its embedding society, for example in order to stop the decrease of trust which has been measured
for the last thirty years.
Governments, Parliaments and science institutions express their will to understand this phenomenon,
and subsequently improve the dialogue with society about scientific issues.
The presentation will make more precise what should be understood as a dialogue situation, in order
to design it in a realistic and useful way.
3 – Ulrike Felt, Professor in Social Studies of Science, Vienna University (AT)
Prendre la société européenne de la connaissance au sérieux
Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously
This presentation will capture some of the more central debates and conclusions reached in the
framework of a recent group report on “Science and Governance” to the Science, Economy and
Society Directorate of the European Commission.
Starting from the EC’s question of how to respond to a perceived public unease with science, the
mandate was to reflect upon potential improvements of the involvement of democratic civil society in
European science and governance. The expert group brought together insights from the broad field of
science and technology studies aiming at contributing to a different and broader understanding of the
issues at stake in European science and governance and thus potentially to a more robust and
sustainable form of knowledge society.
These questions will be addressed by focusing on the key-issues identified by European policy
makers. These were: innovation, its directions and ways of distribution; Risk and Ethics as normative
issues framing potential developments, and finally, European publics, their formation and encounters
with science. Yet, crossing these lines of reflection, broader issues like the way contemporary
societies learn but also what are grand narratives framing our potential futures will be addressed.
3
Atelier thématique / Thematic workshop
STIC / ICT
Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication / Information and Communication Technology
Rapporteur : Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, professeur en sciences de l’informatique,
université Pierre-et-Marie Curie (FR)
14h00-15h30
Session 1
Salle/Room 225
Président / Chair : Alain Giffard, président, Alphabetville (FR)
Rapporteur : Jean-Marie Pierrel, directeur, ATILF, université Nancy 1-CNRS (FR)
Processus de déculturation et/ou d’acculturation dans la société de l’information
Les échanges incessants d’information qui se produisent aujourd’hui sur toute la surface de la planète
permettent à tous les hommes de partager une culture commune. Les grands événements politiques
sont désormais connus partout, et par tous, à quelques secondes près. Et, la musique, les romans ou
les films commerciaux sont diffusés simultanément dans tous les pays, si bien que l’on parle parfois
d’une culture du monde (la « world culture »). Il pourrait en résulter un nivellement et une
homogénéisation des cultures. Or, en dépit de ces craintes, les outils électroniques de communication
ne conduisent pas inéluctablement à une disparition des savoirs traditionnels. Ils suscitent même,
parfois, une renaissance de langues ou de littératures qui, sinon, tomberaient dans l’oubli. Cette
première session dressera un état des lieux de cette question, en soulignant les appauvrissements et
les enrichissements consécutifs à ces échanges d’information.
Deculturation and/or Acculturation in the Information Society
The endless exchange of information across the globe means that all can now share a common
culture. News of major political events reaches everyone, everywhere within seconds, and commercial
music, novels and films are distributed simultaneously worldwide – so much so that people sometimes
speak of “world culture”. Fears that these developments might result in cultural levelling or
homogenisation have proved unfounded, and electronic communication tools have not spelt the end of
traditional knowledge. On the contrary, they have even enabled certain languages and literatures to
flourish which might otherwise have faded into oblivion. This first session will review the current
situation, highlighting what the exchange of information has brought in terms of cultural
impoverishment and enrichment.
Intervenants/Speakers
* Rafael Capurro, Professor of Information Management and Information Ethics, Stuttgart Media
University (DE)
Ethics between Law and Public Policy. The European Group on
Ethics in Science and New Technologies
This presentation addresses the relation between ethics, law, and public policy. After a brief historical
introduction it deals, in the first part, with the question of the legitimation and tasks of ethics councils in
the sphere of public policy. Ethics councils have the function of reflecting on the moral and legal
foundations of specific controversial issues arising from new developments in science and new
technologies. Their task is reflection and counseling, not decision-making or dogmatic proclamation.
They may be legitimized by different political bodies (parliament, executive) but they are (or should be)
politically independent, pluralist, and multidisciplinary. They should not view themselves as guarantee
of an established morality or of current law but as a critical space where an open debate can take
place. Although they might look for consensus, this should not be a ’conditio sine qua non’ of their
opinions. In the second part, the tasks, working methodology and activities of the European Group on
Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) to the European Commission are briefly described.
* Charles Ess, Distinguished Research Professor, Drury University (US), President, Association of
Internet Researchers
The world is Not Flat: Culture, Communication, and ICTs
As facilitating instantaneous communication on a global scale, ICTs are especially crucial to notions of
the world as “flat,” i.e., as no longer defined economically, politically, or socially in terms of
geographical (state) boundaries. These visions of a flat world, however, rest on assumptions and
promises of communication that is value-free and culturally neutral, characteristics especially crucial
for communication in the natural sciences. I will show, however, how ICTs both embed and foster the
specific cultural values and communicative preferences of their creators. In doing so, ICTs threaten to
4
exclude and marginalize the values and preferences of multiple “Others” – including women,
minorities, and non-Western peoples and cultures. This overview will thus first provide an ICT-specific
response to a primary question of the conference, “How do people’s geographic and cultural origins
modify the way they learn, understand and use knowledge?” Moreover, it will allow us to address the
question, “Do women and men have the same access to knowledge, whatever their country, their
traditions or their religion?” Unfortunately, given that ICTs are indeed shaped by specific values and
preferences, the answer to this question is “no.” Similarly, if we ask, “Are scientific and technological
institutions … the same everywhere?” – in terms of communication, at least, we will have to say “no.”
Finally, if we ask “Does an international scientific community already exist? Or do we have many
scientific communities, each with its own codes, references, validation procedures, etc.?” – we will
have to say “yes” but also “yes.” I will conclude with several suggestions for how we can move
towards cross-cultural communication online that is less likely to impose a specific set of cultural
values and communicative preferences, and thereby more likely to foster the sorts of scientific
communication that will realize its goals of greater gender and cultural inclusiveness.
Discutante/Discussant
* Monique Slodzian, professeur, Institut national des langues orientales (FR)
Un monde plat : mode d’emploi pour le web
L’ambition du Web sémantique est de rendre plus accessibles les vastes ressources du web actuel, à
la fois par l’homme et par la machine, via la représentation sémantique de leurs contenus. Ainsi, en
1994, la World Wide Web Conference se donnait comme objectif d’encoder les contenus des 500 000
documents stockés sur le web, à l’aide de quinze métadonnées appelées Dublin Core. S’il est vite
apparu qu’il était relativement simple de s’accorder sur des objets comme le format des documents
(titres et auteurs, par exemple), la description des thèmes et des contenus eux-mêmes résistait à la
normalisation du Dublin Core. Des dizaines d’initiatives ont suivi et le débat sur la pertinence des
métadonnées reste ouvert. Parallèlement à la notion de métadonnée, celle d’ontologie -issue de
l’ingénierie des connaissances- a suscité un déluge de propositions. Si certains visent à une
modélisation universelle du monde à travers les ontologies, la diversité des points de vue
caractéristique des pratiques humaines invite d’autres à la prudence : aussi bien, les succès mitigés
de l’entreprise ontologique les ont conduit à se poser la question du sens et de l’interprétation, telle
que l’imposent les langues concrètes. Les promoteurs du Web sémantique, dans une démarche quasi
théologique, s’emploient à rendre le monde le plus plat possible au nom de « la vraie connaissance ».
Poursuivant l’objectif d’une débabélisation des connaissances, ils sont condamnés à créer toujours
plus de métadonnées et à inventer sans cesse de nouvelles ontologies. Ils se situent en cela à
l’épicentre de la tension entre déculturation et acculturation et perpétuent la tradition du
réductionnisme linguistique sous couvert d’ontologies multilingues, au nom de la communication
universelle.
16h00-17h30
Session 2
Salle/Room 225
Président / Chair : Joseph Mariani, directeur, Institut des technologies multilingues
et multimédias de l’information, CNRS (FR)
Rapporteur : Laurence Monnoyer-Smith, professeur, université de technologie de Compiègne (FR)
Neutralité de la technique
Bientôt, les armées humaines feront place à des armées de robots. Grâce à leur sang-froid, nous
n’aurons plus à craindre de bavures. Les civils seront neutralisés et éliminés rationnellement, sans
haine ni acharnement, au regard des seuls objectifs militaires… La guerre faite par les androïdes en
deviendra peut-être plus « propre » que celle que faisaient les humains. Mais, cela ne manquera pas
de susciter des interrogations : la présence d’agents artificiels en tous genres, avatars, automates ou
êtres virtuels engage-t-elle de nouvelles responsabilités ? Les commandements de la morale en sontils déplacés ? Certains juristes pensent que ce n’est pas nécessaire, car le droit romain pourrait
parfaitement s’appliquer à condition de donner aux robots le statut que l’on accordait dans l’antiquité
aux esclaves… D’autres croient au contraire qu’il convient d’apporter des solutions neuves. Bref, la
question est ouverte : les techniques contemporaines ne conduisent-elles qu’à une reformulation des
questions anciennes ou exigent-elles l’introduction de concepts neuf dans le champ de l’éthique ?
The Neutrality of Technique
Human soldiers will soon be replaced by armies of robots whose self-control will make regrettable
blunders a thing of the past. Civilians will be neutralised and eliminated in a rational manner, with
neither hate nor ferocity, the only consideration being the reaching of military objectives. While war as
5
waged by androids may well prove “cleaner” than the human warfare which preceded it, questions will
still be raised. Does the use of all manner of artificial agent – avatars, automatons and virtual beings –
give rise to new forms of responsibility, and is there still room for questions of morality? Certain legal
experts would reply to the latter question in the negative, stating that Roman law could easily be
applied, on condition that the robots be given the same status as that granted to slaves in antiquity;
others would disagree and call for new solutions. In a word, the question remains open: do modern
techniques lead merely to a reformulation of age-old questions or do they require the introduction of
new ethical concepts?
* Luciano Floridi, Professor of Philosophy, Research Chair in Philosophy of Information, University of
Hertfordshire and Director of the IEG, University of Oxford (GB)
Human Evolution after the Information Revolution
Recent technological transformations in the life-cycle of information have brought about a fourth
revolution, in the long process of reassessing humanity’s fundamental nature and role in the universe.
We are not immobile, at the centre of the universe (Copernicus); we are not unnaturally distinct and
different from the rest of the animal world (Darwin); and we are far from being entirely transparent to
ourselves (Freud). We are now slowly accepting the idea that we might be informational organisms
among many agents (Turing), inforgs who share with other biological and artificial agents a global
environment that is ultimately made of information, the infosphere. This new revolution is humbling,
but also exciting. For it requires an evolution of our self-understanding and of the sort of IT-mediated
interactions that we shall increasingly enjoy with the environment and other agents inhabiting it,
whether natural or synthetic. Some of the problems affecting the development of knowledge in the
information society (such as overabundance, deflation and misuse of information, excessive reliance
but also reduced interest and trust in science), might be overcome by developing a new ecological
approach to the infosphere.
* Simon Rogerson, Professor, Director of the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility at De
Montfort University (GB)
Ethics: the Driver of an Empowering Information Society
The world has become increasingly dependent upon information and communication technology.
Those who live in this world must engage with ICT if they are to survive and prosper. There appears to
be little choice. Whilst there are huge potential benefits to be gained by many there are also costs to
be met by others and in general dangers to be safeguarded against. Escalation of the negative
impacts of ICT is faster and more widespread than previous technologies and thus so much more
dangerous.
There is an ongoing debate as to the winners and losers in this so-called Information Society. Many
ethical issues relate to this debate. For example, is there equality of access and opportunity as literacy
and computer-literacy skills have to increase to use ICT? Is information collected, stored, processed,
distributed and destroyed in a way which is acceptable to those associated with that information? Are
people unfairly penalised if they choose to opt for a non-ICT existence? Are the needs of individuals
catered for in the delivery of ICT-based services and products? Overall policy makers, developers and
service deliverers must take into account that our society is heterogeneous – one ICT solution is no
solution. ICT must be flexible and fit-for-purpose so that maximum benefit can be realised for us all.
Judgement is based upon knowledge which in turn is based upon information. In the information
society the very nature of information is changing in terms of its form, communication and value. ICT
can manipulate information in a multitude of ways so that the presentation can alter as well as its very
content. Is such manipulation acceptable? If so should such manipulation be transparent? These are
examples of the issues which impact upon whether we can trust the information presented through
ICT. Untrustworthy information leads to flawed knowledge and poor judgement which in turn has
serious negative consequences for us all.
This talk will review the ethical issues which surround society’s increasing dependence on ICT and the
manner in which ICT impacts upon the very nature of information. It is the ethical dimension of ICT
which dictates whether we are masters of the technology or its slaves.
Discutant/Discussant
* Michel Riguidel, professeur, chef de département, Informatique&Réseaux, Telecom ParisTech (FR)
6
09h30-11h00
Session 3
Salle/Room 225
Président / Chair : Jean-Paul Haton, professeur, LORIA - université de Nancy (FR)
Rapporteur : Philippe Aigrain, directeur général, Sopinspace (FR)
Nouvelles cultures et nouvelles pratiques de la société de l’information
Accès libre à d’innombrables ressources, par exemple à la littérature classique ou à des
encyclopédies en ligne, téléchargement gratuit de musiques et de films, courrier électronique gratuit,
logiciel libre etc. de nouveaux usages ont cours dans ladite société de l’information. Ces usages furent
l’un des moteurs du développement de l’Internet. Parallèlement, de nouvelles exigences et de
nouvelles formes de légitimité ont été engendrées. Elles suscitent un espoir immense. Or, certains
s’inquiètent de leur probable disparition, car elles doivent s’imposer face à des pouvoirs institués qui
refusent de se dessaisir de leurs prérogatives. Il se pourrait que ces ouvertures vers un monde
différent, et plus ouvert, soient menacées et qu’à un régime de libre circulation des idées et des
connaissances, succède un monde figé de comptables et de plaideurs. Des solutions juridiques
originales ont été proposées, comme les licences « creative commons » pour la protection de la
propriété intellectuelle, ou comme le logiciel libre. Cet atelier fera le point sur ces solutions nouvelles
et sur leur avenir : s’imposeront-elles et conduiront-elles à un monde plus juste et plus équitable ?
New Cultures and New Practices of the Information Society
The information society has brought with it new behaviours born of free access to countless resources
such as online encyclopaedias and classical literature, free downloading of music and films, free email and open-source software. These behaviours have, in turn, helped drive the development of the
Internet. At the same time, new standards and new forms of legitimacy have emerged, giving rise to
near-boundless hope. Some observers fear that these new standards and new forms of legitimacy are
doomed to disappear, since they cannot continue to exist if the powers that be refuse to let go of their
prerogatives. This shift towards a different, more open world may well be threatened, and the system
which allows free movement of ideas and knowledge may well be succeeded by a rigid world peopled
by accountants and litigants. Innovative legal solutions have been put forward, among them opensource software and “creative commons” licences for the protection of intellectual property. This
workshop will review these new solutions and consider their future, asking whether they will succeed
in gaining a firm foothold and in paving the way for a fairer world.
* Colin Allen, Professor, History & Philosophy of Science and Cognitive Science, Indiana University
(US)
The World is Not Flat: Expertise and InPhO
The Indiana Philosophy Ontology (InPhO - http://inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/) is a “dynamic ontology” for
the domain of philosophy derived from human input and software analysis. The structured nature of
the ontology supports machine reasoning about philosophers and their ideas. It is dynamic because it
tracks changes in the content of the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This paper discusses
ways of managing the varying expertise of people who supply input to the InPhO and provide
feedback on the automated methods.
* Helen Darbishire, Director, Access Info Europe (GB)
Freedom of Information and Access to Scientific Knowledge
In1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the concept of “freedom of information”
into international law. This right, elaborated in subsequent human rights treaties and national
constitutions, includes the freedom to seek information, to receive it from willing providers, and to
disseminate the information to interested recipients. In other words, information can flow freely without
hindrance, without prior or posterior censorship. The development of the Internet promised to make
the global free flow of information a reality and was welcomed with the cry “information wants to be
free”. This intervention will examine the current obstacles to the right to freedom of information, such
as intellectual property and commercial secrecy rules. The intervention will examine development of
the right of access to information held by state/public bodies, a right recognised in 2006 by an
international human rights court as an intrinsic part of freedom of information. The intervention will
examine the right of the public to access scientific knowledge where it has been created with public
funds. Obstacles to access to public sector information such as licences for the reuse of that
7
information and the application of business secrecy limitations to publicly-funded research by private
bodies will also be examined.
* Jeannette Wing, President’s Professor of Computer Science, Computer Science Department at
Carnegie Mellon University, Assistant Director, Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation (US)
Computational Thinking
My vision for the 21st Century: Computational thinking will be a fundamental skill used by everyone in
the world. Just as reading, writing, and arithmetic are fundamental skills every child learns,
computational thinking is a skill needed for every citizen to function in today’s global society.
Computational thinking is an approach to solving problems, building systems, and understanding
human behaviour that draws on the power and limits of computing. Computational thinking is the use
of abstraction to tackle complexity and the use of automation to tackle scale. The combination of the
automation of abstraction underlies the enormous capability and reach of computing. In this talk I will
argue that computational thinking has already begun to influence many disciplines, from the sciences
to the humanities, but that the best is yet to come. Looking to the future, we can anticipate even more
profound impact of computational thinking on science, technology, and society: on the ways new
discoveries will be made, innovation will occur, and cultures will evolve. Teaching computational
thinking also raises new challenges for education, especially in early grades. While we have models
for teaching children mathematics and physics, we do not yet have such models for teaching
computational thinking. Moreover, we have the unique opportunity to make most effective use of the
computer as a tool to enhance the learning of computational thinking. In this talk, I will give many
examples of computational thinking, including ones from our daily lives. It is exciting to imagine the
day when computational thinking will be commonplace.
11h30-13h00
Session 4
Salle/Room 225
Président / Chair : Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, professeur en sciences de l’informatique,
université Pierre-et-Marie Curie (FR)
Rapporteur : Françoise Massit-Folléa, enseignante-chercheur, Ecole normale supérieure de Lettres et
Sciences humaines (FR)
Nouveaux pouvoirs et nouveaux enjeux politiques de la société de l’information
Les protocoles de communication électronique reposent sur des normes qui doivent être acceptées
par tous pour être mises en œuvre. Le développement de la société de l’information conduit donc
nécessairement à des accords globaux de normalisation qui forcent les états à se dessaisir d’une
partie de leurs prérogatives traditionnelles. Mais, simultanément, l’expérience récente montre que les
facilités offertes par la technologie encouragent des revendications identitaires et des gestions
locales… Bref, des tendances au repli s’opposent à la globalisation suscitée par la technologie. Qu’en
va-t-il exactement de l’équilibre qui en résulte ? Les mécanismes de régulation et de gouvernance de
et par l’Internet auront-ils pour effet d’aplanir le monde, en faisant disparaître les nationalismes, ou
susciteront-ils de nouveaux replis identitaires et favoriseront-ils de formes de régionalismes ?
New Power and New Political Challenges in the Information Society
The protocols governing electronic communication are based on standards which can be implemented
only if they are accepted by all. The development of the information society therefore brings with it
global standardisation agreements which force states to relinquish some of their traditional
prerogatives. At the same time, recent experience has shown that the possibilities afforded by
technology tend to encourage identity-related demands and local management – in a word, when
faced with the globalisation born of technology, people tend to react by turning inwards. What of the
resultant balance? Will the mechanisms of regulation and governance of and by the Internet smooth
the world, ridding it of nationalism, or will they lead to further inward focus based on identity and to the
emergence of various forms of regionalism?
* Jacques Berleur, professeur émérite, Faculté universitaire Notre-Dame de la Paix (BE)
Éthique et régulations dans la société de l’information
La question de la “gouvernance” de l’Internet est apparue à beaucoup d’observateurs comme
symptomatique de la manière d’aborder celle de la société de l’information. Elle est devenue l’enjeu
de nombreux débats, sinon de rencontres institutionnelles internationales. N’est-ce pas là une
8
approche dictée par la technologie ? Le sommet mondial sur la société de l’information (SMSI), tenu à
Genève en décembre 2003 et à Tunis en novembre 2005, a failli échouer sur cette question. Ce qui y
est apparu clairement, c’est la volonté de l’approcher de manière multi-partenariale
(« multistakeholder approach »). L’Internet et plus largement la société de l’information sont l’objet de
tant de discours contradictoires que l’on ne peut y voir que le signe des intérêts multiples qui s’y
jouent. Si gouvernance il y a, peut-être faudrait-il en examiner les contours actuels. Les régulations de
la société de l’information sont d’ores et déjà nombreuses, des acteurs interagissent selon différentes
approches, plus ou moins favorables à ce monde. Après avoir pris la mesure de la question posée
lors du SMSI, et prolongée aujourd’hui par l’Internet Governance Forum (IGF), nous examinerons trois
domaines où surgissent des questions éthiques portant sur l’avenir de cette société de l’information :
les réglementations techniques, l’autorégulation et les régulations légales proprement dites. Nous
tenterons d’y mesurer chaque fois les enjeux éthiques.
* Vittorio Bertola, Internet Consultant, Società Internet (IT)
Flatter Power for a World of Peers
The Internet made a new social model – the network of peers – a mass reality; for the first time in
history, individuals from the entire world were free to share their ideas and products, in a manner
which indeed tends to be flat and amalgamating, but also free and equal as never seen before.
This has deep, subversive impacts on all aspects of society, including politics. The traditional
structures of representative democracy are hierarchical and thus radically incompatible with a flat
network. New concepts such as participatory democracy and multi-stakeholderism have been
developing; eventually, the Internet makes these concepts central in modern policy-making processes.
Citizens are increasingly reluctant to delegate authority to representative structures, which in turn
become less and less capable to deal with global issues that are too big for them, and with local
issues that are too small. Citizens also have more and more options to act directly and independently
and affect the world.
Globalization makes every person a potential stakeholder in every issue; at the same time, the world
is still far from being flat in terms of political customs and basic values. In the new global governance
structures, as participation grows beyond diplomatic personnel and includes other types of
stakeholders, cultural clashes often make dialogue difficult ; the different stages of democratical
development reached in different parts of the world make it hard to share values and attitudes.
To govern and solve global issues that affect the entire planet, common underlying political and ethical
values are necessary; these values do not really exist yet. Proposals to establish them – such as the
Internet Bill of Rights one – need to focus not on the content, but on the process through which the
entire planet might develop and agree a common – even if limited – framework of values, rights and
duties, even before recognizing them formally. However, in the absence of such framework, the world
will evolve according to the principle that rules complex systems: chaos.
* Bernard Benhamou, délégué aux usages d’Internet auprès du cabinet du ministère de
l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (FR)
9
Climat et énergie / Climate and Energy
Rapporteur : Stefan Michalowski, secrétaire exécutif, Forum mondial de la Science, OCDE
14h00-15h30
Session 1
Salle/Room 301
Président / Chair : Jean Jouzel, directeur, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (FR)
Aspects scientifiques et impact
Le réchauffement climatique lié aux activités humaines est un des problèmes majeurs auquel nos
sociétés auront à faire face au cours des prochaines décennies et au-delà. Cette première session
permettra d'examiner comment les aspects scientifiques du changement climatique et l'étude de ses
impacts ont été abordés par la communauté scientifique, aussi bien sur le plan de la connaissance
que des aspects sociétaux qui y sont associés.
Scientific Aspects and Impact
Global warming linked to human activities will constitute a major challenge for our societies over the
coming decades and beyond. This first session will look at how the scientific community has
approached climate change and its impacts, in terms both of knowledge acquisition and societal
ramifications.
* Stéphane Hallegatte, économiste, ingénieur météorologiste, Météo France/Centre international de
recherche sur l’environnement et le développement, CIRED (FR)
Difficulties in Estimating Climate Change Impacts, and Solutions to Adapt to Them
Climate change will affect all human activities in all regions, but these impacts will differ greatly from
one region to another, from one population to another, and from one sector to another. This
presentation will first summarize IPCC findings concerning climate change impacts and discuss the
large uncertainties that surround them. In particular, differences between socio-economic impacts in
developing and developed countries will be addressed. The presentation will then highlight the
difficulties in predicting and assessing climate change impacts. These difficulties include the
disagreement over value judgments for non-market impacts; the lack of research and analysis on
important sectors and regions; the unknown role of possible political destabilisation; the difficulties in
assessing indirect impacts and ripple effects within the economic system; and finally the uncertainty
on how efficient adaptation can be. These questions have been the topic of intense debates in the
writing and approval process of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and will be at the heart of
the fifth one. Finally, the presentation will make the case that it is not because impacts cannot be
predicted with certainty that adaptation strategies cannot be developed and assessed. In particular,
the presentation will focus on the role of climate change uncertainties, which make it difficult to
assess climate impacts and to provide “climate forecasts” that could be used directly by decisionmakers to design adaptation measures. In this presentation, five strategies to get round this problem
and reduce future climate vulnerability are examined: (i) selecting “no-regret” strategies that yield
benefits even in absence of climate change; (ii) favouring reversible and flexible options; (iii) buying
“safety margins” in new investments; (iv) reducing decision time horizons; and (v) promoting soft
adaptation strategies, including scientific research, information sharing, long-term prospective,
insurance, and other institutional innovations. Consequences will be derived on how best developed
countries can support adaptation in developing countries.
* Susan Solomon, Senior Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
A World of Climate Change: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
This talk will address both scientific aspects of climate change and some of the reasons why
international agreement on climate change policy has proven particularly difficult. Human choices
have the potential to influence climate over a range of time scales, due to the time constants that
characterize the inputs to the system (such as greenhouse gases, or aerosols), the uses that lead to
emissions of these forcing agents, and the responses of the physical climate system (including the
biosphere and ocean). The present mix of anthropogenic radiative forcing agents are slowly forcing
the climate system to change. These include carbon dioxide, methane, other greenhouse gases, and
10
aerosols, with lifetimes ranging from centuries to years to days. These each imply a different degree of
‘commitment’ to future climate change. The climate response to these forcings over the next few
decades is expected to depend strongly upon factors such as the time scale for the ocean mixed layer
to respond to increases in global mean air temperature. On time scales of centuries and millennia,
very slow-responding elements of the climate system include the deep ocean and the polar ice sheets.
On the human side, emissions of greenhouse gases arise from a mix of different countries, both
developed and developing, with different emissions, infrastructure capabilities and commitments that
are among the factors influencing policy discussions. Comparisons will be briefly drawn between the
success of policy on ozone depletion (Montreal Protocol) versus the apparent gridlock on climate
change, and the lessons that may thereby be learned.
* Laurence Tubiana, directrice, Institut de Développement Durable et des relations internationales
(FR)
16h00-17h30
Session 2
Salle/Room 301
Président / Chair : Jean-Charles Hourcade, directeur du Centre International de recherche sur
l’environnement et le développement (CIRED)
Aspects économiques et solutions
Economical Aspects and Solutions
* Carlo Jaeger, Professor, Postdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research (DE)
The Looming Credibility Crisis of Global Climate Policy
* Rich Richels, Senior Technical Executive, Global Climate Change Research at the Electric Power
Research Institute (US)
The Need for Candor in Describing Greenhouses Gas Mitigation Cost
All too often policy makers are led to believe that the costs of making dramatic reductions in
Greenhouse Gas emissions will be negligible. This is both misleading and counter productive.
Policymakers and the public need to know that there is no "free lunch" but that it is "a lunch well worth
paying for". Otherwise they will become disenchanted when they learn that costs will be substantial
and they will back away from making the reductions that will be called for. Hence, the key challenge is
to convince those in authority that the reductions are well worth the investment. Policy analysts must
refrain from being policy advocates and report the true costs of actions. As better information becomes
available they can readjust their estimates. If it turns out that costs are lower or higher than are
originally estimated, they can adjust their costs accordingly. But it is extremely unlikely that the
substantial reductions currently being discussed will come at little cost. This is particularly the case,
with proposals to limit temperature increase from preindustrial levels to 2 degrees C. This target may
not only turn out to be economically infeasible, but also technically infeasible.
* Priyadarshi Shukla, Professor, Indian Institute of Management (IN)
Aligning Energy, Climate and Development Priorities in Emerging Economies
Near-term energy and infrastructures choices in emerging economies have profound impact on longterm global greenhouse gas emissions. The path dependence from lock-ins caused by these choices
is overlooked by conventional development models. These models, which assume perfect markets,
advocate decoupling of carbon emissions and economy using carbon-centric market instruments like
tax or permits that operate from the margin of economic frontier. But emerging economies are saddled
with market imperfections, policy myopia and weak institutions which render marginal instruments
ineffective vis-à-vis mainstream development choices that decide long-tem aggregate energy demand
and emissions.
An alternate model is to mainstreams development choices using the ‘sustainability’ principle by
aligning energy, climate and development priorities. This approach realizes significant co-benefits from
decoupling of economic growth from carbon as well as from several key resources, including energy.
Using an analysis for India, we show that the alternate model can achieve the same long-term
11
cumulative carbon mitigation at significantly lower carbon prices compared to the conventional model.
The alternate model proposes a diverse portfolio of policies and measures including carbon pricing
mechanism, regulatory interventions like renewable portfolio standards and technology mandates;
besides targeted interventions in urban planning, infrastructures and R&D, and the measures to inform
and alter consumer choices. Its implementation strategy would involve bottom-up and local decisionmaking in emerging nations; and a top-down global institutional set-up wherein the governments and
firms from developed nations will have key role in knowledge and technology transfers to assist
emerging economies in their transition to low carbon, energy secure and sustainable future.
09h30-11h00
Session 3
Salle/Room B
Président / Chair : Claude Jablon, ancien directeur scientifique du Groupe Total (FR)
Témoignages du terrain
La problématique des sciences en société se nourrit du dialogue, ou de l’absence de dialogue entre
les acteurs du terrain, au premier rang desquels ce que l’on appelle le grand public. Pour lancer le
débat, nous avons choisi de rapporter deux témoignages, l’un dans le domaine des
télécommunications et l’autre dans celui de l’énergie. Dans les deux cas, des technologies nouvelles,
puissantes mais discrètes sont mises en œuvre, suscitant interrogations légitimes et inquiétudes
compréhensibles, mais parfois instrumentalisées. Quelles réponses peuvent être apportées aux unes
et aux autres ?
Testimonies from the Front Lines
The issues around sciences and societies are fed by the dialogue, or in some cases the lack of
dialogue with the front line, and especially with public at large. In order to foster our exchanges, we
chose two testimonies, one from the telecommunication area, and the other from the energy domain.
In both cases, new, powerful but discrete technologies are implemented, raising questions and
concerns. While these are understandable and legitimate, they may be used by other actors,
motivated by different and sometimes hidden agendas.
* Luc de Marliave, coordinateur Changements climatiques, Groupe Total (FR)
Le pilote de captage et de stockage de Total dans le bassin de Lacq
* Peter Wiedemann, Director of the Program Group MUT (Humans, Environment and Technology),
Federal Research Center Juelich (DE)
Risk Potentials from Mobile Telephony, Precaution Taking and Risk Perception
Possible adverse health effects due to electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) from cellular phones and
base stations present a major public health issue across Europe as well as in other parts of the world.
Because scientists cannot exclude that EMF’s might cause health problems, the application of the
precautionary principle is debated heavily. By considering precautionary measures, political decision
makers hope (1) to avoid potential adverse health effects and (2) to attenuate public fears about
EMFs. The latter expected but unproven effect builds the focus the research presented in the paper.
The research refers to two experimental studies conducted in Austria and Switzerland which indicate
that precautionary measures may trigger concerns, amplify EMF-related risk perceptions, and may
decrease trust in public health protection management. Such impacts, questioning common
expectations, should be considered in decisions about precautionary measures.
12
11h30-13h00
Session 4
Salle/Room B
Président / Chair : Dominique Bourg, professeur, université de Lausanne (CH),
directeur de l’Institut des politiques territoriales et de l’environnement humain (IPTEH)
La réception sociale du changement climatique, ses enjeux et ses difficultés
Le réchauffement climatique constitue un cas très particulier de « sciences en société » avec en
l'espèce une manière de diagnostic, scientifiquement fondé, ne remettant rien de moins en cause que
nos propres modes de vie. Quelles sont les significations de ce diagnostic ? Quelles sont les
difficultés particulières qu'il pose ? Quelles sont les réactions de l'opinion et leur évolution ?
Climate Change Social Acceptability: Stakes and Difficulties
Climate warming is a very special case of "science in society" with a sort of scientifically proved
diagnosis contesting nothing but our life styles. What does this diagnosis mean? What are the
consequent difficulties? What are the responses and evolution of the public opinion?
* Daniel Boy, directeur de recherche au Centre d’étude de la vie politique française (CEVIPOF),
Sciences-Po (FR)
Perception par l’opinion du changement climatique
Depuis l’année 2000, l’ADEME (Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie) réalise
chaque année une enquête par sondage auprès de la population française sur la perception du
réchauffement climatique. Le rapport présenté ici indiquera les résultats majeurs de cette série
d’enquêtes en soulignant les évolutions de l’opinion sur les points suivants : comment le public se
représente-t-il le phénomène de l’accélération de l’effet de serre ? Quelles causes, quelles
conséquences sont imaginées par le public ? Dans quelle mesure l’opinion accepte-t-elle des
mesures de régulation publique ? Quelles inflexions de comportements privés paraissent acceptables
pour contribuer à définir une consommation soutenable ?
* Jacques Grinevald, professeur à l’Institut des hautes études internationales et du développement,
Genève (CH)
Historical Perspective on the Overheating of Development:
from the Thermo-Industrial Revolution to the Anthropocene
The socio-epistemological approach proposed here will be an attempt to put the global warming affair,
or the anthropogenic greenhouse effect drift, into a socio-historical and global ecological context. My
approach summarizes many epistemological and historical studies about the technological and
scientific development of the West and development economics to thinking the energy-climate-society
problématique on the scale of the Earth as an evolving living planet. This sketch will emphasize the
thermodynamical and biogeochemical aspects of the world industrial metabolism since the Industrial
Revolution, associated with the current geological epoch newly named the Anthropocene (P. Crutzen,
"Geology of Mankind", Nature, 3 January 2002, 415, p.23; J. Grinevald, /L'effet de serre de la
Biosphère : de la révolution thermo-industrielle à l'écologie globale/, SEBES, 1990, on line; and /La
Biosphère de l'Anthropocène : climat et pétrole, la double menace/, Georg Editeur, 2007).
13
Santé / Health
Rapporteur : Frédéric Sgard, administrateur de projet, Forum mondial de la Science, OCDE
14h00-15h30
Session 1
Salle/Room C
Président / Chair : Claude Huriet, président de l’Institut Curie
Enjeux sociétaux de la recherche sur les cellules souches
Entre espoirs pour la médecine régénératrice et craintes quant à une possible instrumentalisation de
l'être humain, la recherche sur les cellules souches embryonnaires reste un sujet de controverse.
S'agit-il réellement d'une controverse ?
A quelle opposition, exprimée ou supputée se trouvent confrontés le dire et les demandes des experts
? Quels courants de pensée, quels réseaux d'influence, quelle organisation du débat public ont
précédé la décision publique ? La situation française, qui reste ambiguë entre principes annoncés et
dérogations acceptées, est ici comparée à l'expérience anglaise bien plus permissive.
Societal Challenges on Stem Cells Research
Embryo stem-cell research remains controversial, with tension between the hope placed in
regenerative medicine and fears surrounding the possible instrumentalisation of human beings. But, is
there really a controversy?
With what opposition, either explicit or supposed, are the experts’ discourse and demands confronted?
By which schools of thought, lobbies or organised public debate was the authorities’ decision
informed? This session compares the French situation – which is cloaked in an ambiguous mix of
stated principles and actual dispensations – with the much more liberal British approach.
* Marina Cavazzana-Calvo, chef du département de biothérapie, hôpital Necker (FR)
Stem Cells - from Basic Research to Applications: the Society Expectations
* Austin Smith, Director, Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, University of Cambridge
(GB)
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Embryos and Adults
Stem cell research has provoked moral outrage over use of human embryos for research, countered
by exaggerated promises of miracle cures. Stem cells are objects of scientific wonder and mystery.
They are the basic building blocks of human life. Unlocking their secrets will illuminate our
understanding of fundamental processes in biology and disease. Most remarkably, in the past two
years scientists have discovered how to recreate embryonic stem cells from adult cells. This brings
new prospects for regenerative medicine although major hurdles have still to be overcome.
* Didier Sicard, professeur, université René Descartes, président d’honneur, Comité consultatif
national d’éthique (FR)
16h00-17h30
Session 2
Salle/Room C
Président / Chair : Didier Tabuteau, directeur, Chaire Santé, Sciences-Po (FR)
Sécurité et crise sanitaire
Les drames de santé publique de la fin du XXe siècle ont modifié la perception des risques sanitaires
et les attentes des populations. L'émergence de la notion de sécurité sanitaire a conduit au
déploiement de nombreux dispositifs de vigilance sanitaire, d'évaluation et de gestion des risques.
Quels en sont les mécanismes ? Quel est aujourd'hui le rôle des différents acteurs (autorités
sanitaires, experts, associations, industriels,...) dans ces processus ? Comment s'expriment, en
matière de prévention et de gestion des crises sanitaires, les tensions entre Science et Politique ?
Quels en sont les déterminants et les ressorts ?
14
Health Safety Dialogue
The public-health tragedies that occurred at the end of the twentieth century changed both perceptions
of health risks and public expectations. The emergence of the notion of “health security” led to the
introduction of a large number of health-watch, assessment and risk-management systems. What are
the mechanisms? What roles do the various players (health authorities, experts, associations,
industrial entities, etc.) now play in these processes? How do the tensions between Science and
Politics manifest themselves where the prevention and management of health crises are concerned?
What are the determining factors and undercurrents?
*Paul Dorfman, Senior Research Fellow at the NHS Centre for Involvement, University of Warwick
(GB)
Radiation Risk, Rationality, and Citizen Involvement
Despite the key nature of the debate, the definition of radiation risk is by no means agreed. In fact this
risk definition remains controversial and open to critical analysis. This is because there are a number
of key uncertainties in the risk estimates for both radiation biology and radiation epidemiology. Thus,
low energy beta particles, Auger electrons, and alpha particles pose particular challenges, as does
genomic instability and bystander effect. Moreover, recent epidemiological studies by the German
Childhood Cancer Registry carried out on behalf of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection point to
further uncertainties in current risk estimates. In this context, public concern about policy decisionmaking on issues involving nuclear risk is a defining issue. Disputes concerning nuclear risk are
profoundly complex debates within which the reification of positions is set in the context of deeply held
value-laden belief systems, and the dominance of natural-science discourse within the policy process.
One way to address this problem of mistrust is through greater citizen involvement - in order to arrive
at a democratic and balanced view. Here, the practice and purpose of this public dialogue, and the
models of engagement to enable it, is core to the relationship between government and the public in a
modern democracy.
This paper provides examples of ‘better practice’, and ‘lessons learned’ from UK public dialogue
processes including: 1. the Ministry of Defence ISOLUS (Interim Storage Of Laid-Up Nuclear
Submarines) dialogue concerning the de-commissioning of UK's current nuclear powered submarine
fleet, 2. SAFEGROUNDS (Safety and Environmental Guidance for the Remediation of Nuclear and
Defence Sites) – a multi-stakeholder forum involving government departments, regulators, MoD, local
authorities, non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, and academics, and 3.
the recent Sellafield low level radioactive waste stakeholder workshop programme.
* Michel Setbon, directeur de recherche, CNRS, responsable du Centre Interdisciplinaire sur le
Risque et sa Régulation (CIRR), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Santé Publique (EHESP) (FR)
Risques et crises autour du nucléaire : le modèle de La Hague
Le nucléaire civil, source de dangers majeurs, est régulièrement l’objet d’événements alarmants dont
le traitement met en évidence le statut exceptionnel. Les réactions suscitées par une annonce faisant
état de l’identification de risques sanitaires autour d’un site nucléaire ont une ampleur sans équivalent,
à la mesure des enjeux et des perceptions que mobilise cette technologie. La crise qui a secoué
durablement l’usine de retraitement des déchets nucléaires de La Hague (1997- 2000) en fournit une
concrétisation, exemplaire à plus d’un titre. Tout d’abord par la nature de l’information : une
publication dans une revue scientifique des résultats d’une enquête épidémiologique concluant à la
causalité des rejets de l’usine dans l’excès constaté de leucémies dans la population âgée de 0 et 24
ans vivant à proximité. Ensuite par l’émoi et les passions soulevées par cette information qui conduit à
la mise en place d’un long et tumultueux processus d’expertise pour en vérifier le bien fondé. Enfin,
par les modalités exceptionnelles de la démarche d’expertise, tant en termes d’investissement
technico-scientifique que d’ouverture à des associations contestataires, et dont l’aboutissement en
forme d’absolution du nucléaire permet de mettre un terme (provisoire) à la crise. Par son ampleur et
ses conséquences, cette crise peut être considérée comme un modèle et un tournant dans la
conception et l’organisation de l’expertise des risques nucléaires en France. Ces deux aspects seront
soulignés à travers une synthèse et une analyse du processus de traitement de cette crise où le
résultat final importe moins que les enseignements à tirer du chemin parcouru par les différents
acteurs figurant des valeurs inconciliables.
15
09h30-11h00
Session 3
Salle/Room C
Président / Chair : Gilles Duhamel, inspecteur général des Affaires sociales (FR)
L’usager dans le système de santé
Longtemps confiné au rôle de patient, le malade dans le système de santé se devait d'être confiant en
la compétence de son médecin et de suivre ses prescriptions. Ses exigences aujourd'hui sont plus
importantes : il veut participer aux décisions le concernant et être partie prenante de l'organisation
d'un système qui reste essentiellement sous le contrôle des médecins et des gestionnaires publics.
S'interrogeant sur les interactions entre ces différents acteurs et la manière de les faciliter, cette
session sollicite l'expérience des usagers en comparant la situation en France et en Europe.
The User in the Health System
For many years, those receiving medical treatment were expected to remain within the bounds of their
roles as patients, to have confidence in their doctors’ expertise and to follow their instructions. They
now have greater expectations, and wish to have a say in decisions, and to become stakeholders in
the organisation of a system, which is still, essentially, controlled by doctors and public management
entities. This session explores the interactions between the various players, and looks at how it might
be facilitated, taking account of users’ experience, and comparing the situations in France and
elsewhere in Europe.
* Johan Hjertqvist, President, Health Consumer Powerhouse (SE)
Europe of the Healthcare Consumer
In the immense flow of healthcare information there is a missing link: the care consumer! To make
healthcare advance from hierarchy to service industry the consumer must become a partner. Such a
transformation requires a revolution of rights, access and participation. Performance outcomes must
be measured – and measured regularly and publicly. The incentives must change to support
personalised service provision and funding. The different Health Consumer Indexes reveal a
European lack of equality in healthcare and shortage of consumer information demanding immediate
improvement. EU policy action should give priority to improving the flow of knowledge to support
health care excellence in different ways.
* Christian Saout, président, Collectif inter associatif sur la santé (FR)
16
Atelier thématique
Thematic workshop
La connaissance, une valeur en soi ? Knowledge, a
Value in Itself?
Rapporteur : Etienne Klein, directeur du Laboratoire de recherche sur les sciences de la
matière, CEA (FR)
14h00-15h30
Session 1
HEMICYCLE
Président / Chair : Etienne Klein, directeur du Laboratoire de recherche sur les sciences de la matière,
CEA (FR)
Quelle est la valeur de la connaissance ?
La technoscience est devenue le moteur principal de la puissance, de toutes les formes de
puissance : économique, politique, militaire. Mais son efficacité même ne modifie-t-elle pas en
profondeur l’exercice et les finalités de l’activité scientifique ? N’installe-t-elle pas sournoisement l’idée
que la valeur d’une connaissance ne se mesure qu’à l’aune de ses éventuelles retombées concrètes ?
What is the Value of Knowledge?
While technoscience has become the main driving force of power in all of its forms – economic,
political and military – does its very efficiency not have a deep effect on the performance and purpose
of scientific activity, giving credence surreptitiously to the notion that the value of knowledge is to be
measured only in the light of the potential concrete fallout?
* Pierre-Henri Gouyon, vice-président du département d’Enseignement et de Recherche de Biologie
au Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (FR)
Biologie : la tentation de Dédale
On a pu voir des scientifiques de haut niveau s’opposer à l’introduction du principe de précaution dans
la Charte de l’Environnement annexée à la Constitution de la République Française. La raison de
cette position était que ce principe risquait de freiner « Le Progrès ». Se préoccuper d’environnement
et adopter une attitude de précaution freinerait le progrès ! Mais de quel progrès s’agit-il ? Il serait
grand temps que scientifiques et décideurs se rendent compte que le progrès dont il est question dans
ces discours constitue une idée dépassée et fausse. On a pu espérer que le progrès technique
résoudrait les problèmes d’inégalités ou celui de la faim dans le monde. Au cours du XIXème siècle,
on a pu croire à cette utopie. Mais au fur et à mesure que le XXème siècle avançait, force a été de
constater qu’il fallait l’abandonner. Au contraire, de l’eugénisme aux armes de destruction massives,
le progrès technique a montré qu’il permettait le meilleur comme le pire. Il devient clair aujourd’hui que
Progrès technique sans progrès moral et social n’est que ruine de l’humanité. La foi dans le progrès
technique pour lui-même est représentée, dans la mythologie, par Dédale, champion de la course
aveugle où la technique pose des problèmes qu’on tente de résoudre par des solutions techniques.
L’idée d’une fuite en avant technique créant à chaque pas des problèmes de plus en plus graves n’est
donc pas nouvelle. Il est essentiel que les humains tentent de reprendre leur destinée en main et
cessent de croire que laisser la compétition entre humains, entre entreprises et entre États gérer le
devenir de l’humanité et de la planète est une bonne chose simplement parce que ce « laisser faire »
garantit la maximisation du Progrès. C’est dans ce cadre, et dans ce cadre seulement, qu’on peut
espérer voir éclore une réflexion constructive, fondée sur une connaissance fondamentale des
phénomènes qui président à la destinée de la planète, de sa biodiversité et de l’Humanité.
* Pierre Léna, délégué à l’éducation et la formation, Académie des sciences (FR)
Connaître et reconnaître : avec qui donc est-ce naître ?
Ce titre peut paraître prétentieux. Il veut simplement expliciter quelques questions, relatives à la
science et soulevées par le programme de Lisbonne : construire une société de la connaissance.
Puisque la science et la technique sont convoquées par ce programme à devenir l’un des atouts de
l’Europe en devenir, il est bien légitime de s’interroger sur ce que signifie, du point de vue de celles-ci,
ce programme.
Le but économique – des entreprises innovantes au service d’un rang mondial à tenir – est celui mis
le plus souvent en avant. Il va de soi, mais risque de nous écarter d’une vision plus profonde et plus
17
conforme au génie européen. La société de la connaissance nous appelle à la naissance partagée
d’un monde nouveau, où la créativité serait développée chez tous. L’enseignement, qui transmet la
science, est évidemment concerné au premier chef : non pas en créant une culture scientifique et
technique, comme le terme devient trop répété aujourd’hui, mais en reconnaissant l’enracinement de
la science et de la technique dans la culture tout court, une reconnaissance qui va au cœur de
l’histoire de l’Europe et de sa contribution à la science moderne. Plus encore, la reconnaissance est
aussi celle de la place faite à l’Autre, aujourd’hui cette fraction du monde que notre développement
scientifique et technologique laisse de plus en plus loin derrière nous. La reconnaissance enfin, c’est
une expression de gratitude qui peut lier les générations dans une admiration commune d’un héritage
et d’un trésor à faire fructifier.
Je tenterai de tirer quelques conséquences concrètes de ce regard, s’agissant de notre enseignement
scientifique et de l’enjeu que représente la formation des professeurs. Saurons nous mettre à profit
l’universalité de la science pour réussir une éducation scientifique européenne ?
* Roland Lehoucq, directeur de recherche, CEA (FR)
16h00-17h30
Session 2
HEMICYCLE
Président / Chair : Marc Lachièze-Rey, directeur de recherche, CEA
Existe-t-il une spécificité européenne de la science ?
La science moderne est née en Europe et, jusqu’à la seconde guerre mondiale, s’est principalement
développée sur le Vieux Continent. Aujourd’hui, elle est mondiale. Dans un contexte aussi élargi, la
recherche en Europe conserve-t-elle un « style » particulier ?
Is there any European Specificity in Science?
Modern science was born in Europe, and it was there that it progressed most until the Second World
War. It has now become global. Has European research maintained its particular “style” in this broader
context?
Intervenante/Speaker
* Helga Nowotny, Vice-President, European Research Council, Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board
University of Vienna (AT) and Professor eme. of ETH Zurich in Social Studies (CH)
Is there any European Specificity in Science?
There is no such thing as a unique way of doing science. Scientific ideas and practices are partial and
incomplete. Science is nowhere near its limits. Science belongs to humanity and it is open to all who
can learn and do it. Its powerful motivational driving force is curiosity. But science is also a cultural
activity and therefore embedded in society. At times science clashes with religious or political
authorities and beliefs. Science depends on society to put resources at its disposal and to create a
space of (relative) autonomy in which scientific curiosity can thrive. There is no Western or Eastern
way of doing science, just as there is no French or German, Islamic or African science. But there are
different constellations in the relationship between historical and contemporary societies and their
science.
In my presentation I will reflect on one historical example in which scientific and technical curiosity has
flourished under very different societal conditions in ancient China and Greece. I will then move
towards an analysis of current specificities of science in Europe compared to the US. I will conclude
with a brief outlook on the European Research Council and its European specificities.
* Michel Spiro, directeur, Institut national de physique nucléaire et de physique des particules, CNRS
(FR)
18
Agronomie / Agronomy
Rapporteur : Pierre-Benoît Joly, directeur de l’unité
« Transformations sociales et politiques liées au vivant », INRA (FR)
14h00-15h30
Session 1
Salle/Room 245
Président /Chair : Jean-Pierre Tillon, directeur scientifique, L’Union Coopérative InVivo (FR)
Les défis de la recherche agronomique dans le contexte mondial
Partout dans le monde l’alimentation résulte des sols et des océans, de l’énergie, de l’eau, des
connaissances et du travail des hommes. Quelles sont les implications pour la recherche ? Celle-ci
est-elle uniforme ou peut-on observer plusieurs tendances ? Plusieurs défis se présentent : une
croissance démographique exceptionnelle, l’insuffisance des capacités professionnelles, l’incertitude
financière mondiale et le développement de la pauvreté, la dégradation de l’environnement,
l’épuisement des ressources, le changement climatique. Ces défis seront-ils relevés par la recherche
en agronomie et dépassés par ses résultats ?
Agriculture Research Challenges in the Global Context
Everywhere in the world, food results from soils, oceans, energy, fresh water, human skills and work.
What consequences for the research? Is it definitely flat or several trends should be observed? It must
cope with many deals: a dramatic demographic growth, limited professional capacities, a world
financial crisis with a fast poverty development, the degradation of the environment, the resources
exhaust and the climate change. Would such deals be taken over by the scientific research? Would
results be successful enough?
* Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, inspecteur général de l’Agriculture (FR)
Repenser les relations sciences-sociétés : une contrainte de plus ou un atout
pour relever les défis de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation mondiale ?
Les problématiques agricoles et alimentaires sont revenues aux premières lignes des agendas
politiques, tant nationaux, qu’européen et internationaux. Ce regain d’intérêt s’accompagne de la
définition d’un nouveau « cahier des charges », que nous présenterons rapidement et que l’on peut
résumer par le triptyque : produire plus, produire autrement, produire autre chose. S’y ajoute la
perspective des changements climatiques, qui vont soumettre beaucoup de systèmes agricoles et,
plus globalement, l’ensemble des écosystèmes, à de nouvelles et fortes contraintes d’adaptation,
notamment en zone intertropicale.
Par rapport à ces défis majeurs et complexes, l’instauration de nouvelles relations entre sciences et
sociétés peut apparaître comme une contrainte supplémentaire, susceptible de freiner la dynamique
de l’innovation, d’imposer une vision extrême du principe de précaution ou d’orienter la recherche vers
des objectifs locaux et à court terme.
Nous développerons la thèse opposée, à savoir que des approches plus interactives, associant une
diversité d’acteurs aux différentes étapes du processus de recherche et rompant avec la distinction
stricte entre « producteurs » et « consommateurs » d’innovation, peuvent se révéler extrêmement
fécondes, en particulier si on les évalue au regard des critères du développement durable et si l’on
considère non seulement le temps nécessaire à la production d’une « invention » mais le temps allant
de la genèse de cette invention jusqu’à son utilisation effective au sein d’une société. Nous
montrerons en quoi cette approche est particulièrement pertinente dans le cas des « objets » de la
recherche agronomique, qu’il s’agisse de l’alimentation, de la création de variétés améliorées ou de la
production de services écosystémiques.
* Arthur Mol, Chair and Professor in Environmental Policy, Department of Social Sciences,
Wageningen University (NL)
Agricultural Research: Moving beyond Agriculture
Over the last decades agriculture has profited to a large extend from science and scientific research,
not only in Europe but globally. But increasingly questions are raised regarding the agricultural
sciences and their contribution to the 'advancement' of agriculture. Environmental pollution, and
19
landscape and biodiversity degradation have been worries for some time; GMOs, biofuels and the
social consequences of large-scale, capital intensive monocultures in OECD countries for small
farmers around the world are examples of more recent problems.
Hence, it is increasingly recognized that the agricultural research agenda needs to be widened,
beyond a simple modernization path of increased agricultural production and efficiency. But what are
the new challenges for the agricultural research agenda? Who should decide on that agenda? At what
level should these questions be set in times of globalization? And can this agenda remain limited to
agriculture now that the social systems of agriculture, energy and industry become so heavily
intertwined?
The presentation will use the example of biofuels to illustrate that there are no longer any simple
answers for the future of scientific research and advancement: biofuels can neither be glorified nor
condemned. Any way forward with science will mean a growing involvement of society. But we have to
remain aware that society is always fragmented and divided and that procedural improvements may
not solve agro-scientific controversies.
* Michel Griffon, directeur général adjoint, Agence nationale de la recherche (FR)
16h00-17h30
Session 2
Salle/Room 245
Président / Chair : Bernard Hubert, directeur, GIP-Initiative française pour la recherche agronomique
internationale (INRA-CIRAD)
Les enjeux et responsabilités des politiques de recherche en agronomie
Cette session s’efforcera de traiter les modes de communication et de régulation entre l’offre
scientifique et les décisions politiques et économiques régionales (notamment européennes) et
mondiales en matière d’agriculture (bonnes pratiques et pratiques controversées comme les OGM),
de marchés internationaux (céréales, oléagineux, protéines animales, etc.) et locaux (cultures
vivrières), de programme alimentaire mondial. Les innovations nécessaires suivent-elles les résultats
de la recherche en agronomie ? Vers quelles responsabilités nouvelles les chercheurs se trouvent-ils
éventuellement impliqués ? Y a-t-il une spécificité européenne qui caractériserait ces diverses
questions ?
Some Trends for the Agriculture Research Policies: Stakes and Implied Responsibilities
This session will study the communication and regulation ways to be developed between the scientific
offer and the political and economical decisions at the regional stage (namely the European one) as
well at the global world scale. Several fields should be considered for the agriculture research: good
and controversial practices (such as the GMO), international markets (for grains, oils, animal proteins,
etc.) and local markets (for basic food), and the world food programme. Are the agriculture research
issues followed by the useful innovations? What kind of new responsibilities the scientists are faced
with? Is there any European specificity among these various questions?
* Larry Busch, Professor, Lancaster University (GB) and Michigan State University (US), Former
President, Rural Sociological Society, Former President, Agriculture, Food, and Human Values
Society
What Kind of Agriculture do We Want? What Might Science Deliver?
Until recently, nearly all agricultural research was unified by a focus on increased production. Often,
even questions of productivity were pushed to the side to make room for production increases.
Arguably, the production subsidies in Europe and the US made that approach viable. But today,
paradoxically, we are faced with both growing fragmentation and integration in agricultural research.
No longer does the public sector set the agenda; nearly everywhere the private sector is in charge.
Moreover, public expectations about agricultural research have changed. Agricultural research is
claimed as the solution to problems of global warming, rural development, environmental
improvement, economic growth, sustainability, and even public health. On the one hand, we can
discern the outlines of a new integration of food, pharmacy, diet, and health. But, on the other hand,
we can also see a considerable, perhaps growing, gulf between the molecular approaches to biology –
genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, among others – and the older fields such as systematics, and
plant and animal breeding. And, this is paralleled by a shift from a single set of public standards
focused largely on safety, to a proliferation of sometimes conflicting standards for sustainability,
worker rights, fair trade, and organic, among others. What appears to be missing is any attempt to
20
ask what kind of food and agriculture we want. We need to begin to answer this fundamentally ethical
question if we are to ensure that investments in agricultural research yield improvements.
* Hans-Jörg Lutzeyer, Scientific Officer, European Commission, DG Research, Directorate E
(Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food) (UE)
Mechanisms for European Co-ordination of Agricultural Research
The renewed Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) plays a major role in the
coordination of agricultural research efforts in Europe. The term "Agricultural Research" is used in its
wide definition, beyond the narrow confines of research relating to production and embracing the socalled "fork-to-farm" concept, including non-food uses, biodiversity, forestry and rural development.
The SCAR process also opens new opportunities for the dialogue of science with society – on the
level of Member States and on European level. A major initiative was the SCAR Foresight Process
which formulated possible scenarios for agricultural futures in Europe: Climate shock, energy crisis,
food crisis, co-operation with nature. Stakeholders were part of the process in a workshop and an
international Conference on 26-27 June 2007. It builds on an earlier series of Science and Society
conferences which the European Commission organised jointly with EURAGRI.
On a project level, EU funded agricultural research projects are encouraged to work with civil society
organisations and stakeholders as full participants. They have a chance to influence the research
agenda and work in a joint effort on the project objectives.
* Marie De Lattre-Gasquet, responsable de l’espace éthique, Centre de coopération internationale en
recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) (FR)
21
Ateliers satellites / Satellite workshops
09h30-11h00
Indicateurs Sciences-Société
Science-Society Indicators
HEMICYCLE
Président / Chair : Rémi Barré, professeur, CNAM (FR)
Rapporteur: Martin Bauer, Professor, London School of Economics (GB)
La relation entre science et société varie sur le plan historique et géographique. Cette relation peut
être observée dans des domaines très divers, tels que les médias de masse, les musées, les festivals
et les débats sur des sujets controversés, mais également dans la vie quotidienne des citoyens et des
consommateurs. Cette session ouvrira une discussion sur le moyen de définir des indicateurs adaptés
à cette relation dans une perspective mondiale. Des communications présenteront les résultats
d’enquêtes menées sur la compréhension de la science par le grand public, d’un point de vue
longitudinal pour l’Europe (1989-2005), et transversal pour l’Inde et l’Europe (2004/05). Les débats
porteront sur les atouts et les faiblesses des indicateurs pris en compte pour ces enquêtes, ainsi que
sur la capacité de flux de données complémentaires à déterminer le degré de relativité en termes de
distance et de qualité de la relation entre science et société.
The relationship science-society is historically and geographically variable; this relationship can be
observed in various arenas such as mass media, museum, festivals and deliberative exercises on
controversial issues, but also in everyday life of citizens and consumers. The session will open a
discussion on how to define suitable indicators for this relationship in a global perspective. The papers
will present survey evidence of public understanding of science in a longitudinal perspective for
Europe (1989-2005), and in a cross-sectional perspective for India-Europe (2004/05). The discussion
shall focus on the strength and weaknesses of these existing survey indicators and the potential of
complementary data streams to assess the science-society relationship as a one of relative distance
and quality.
* Martin Bauer, Professor, London School of Economics (GB)
Scientific Culture - Indicators for the Variable Science-Society Relationship
World-Wide countries now routinely collate statistics on science indicators such as R&D expenditure,
bibliometrics, high-tech employment, and high-tech consumer goods and trade balances. In parallel
there have been various, but often isolated, attempts to define complementary ‘public understanding
of science’ (PUS) indicators including scientific literacy, public imagination, interest, engagement and
attitudes. These have been globally successful by controversial: there are clearly limits in interpreting
the science-society relationship in terms of a public deficit; more fruitful is a notion of a ‘relative
distance’ between science and society which varies in time and space. A discussion is needed on how
to define a suitable and globally portable metric of this distance. For this purpose existing databases
should be revisited and interpreted in a new light.
For example, Eurobarometer has been asking questions pertaining to public sentiment regarding
science and technology since the late 1970s; similar French efforts reach back to early 1970s. A
series of eight related EB surveys have recently been integrated to form a single database (sample
size over 60,000 observations and 60 variables), and thus constitutes a unique resource to compare
the dynamics of the culture of science across Europe EU-12, EU-25 and EU-28. Comparable
questions include items on knowledge, interest, trust, and attitudes to science, always related to
education, age and gender. The session will demonstrate the potential of such databases, which
hitherto for various reasons are largely unexploited. Europe is well suited to lead the way in the
comparisons of subjective scientific cultures.
* Kristina Petkova, Professor, Institute of Sociology, Bulgarian Academy of Science (BU)
The Changing Images of Science: Geographical and Historical Comparison
We examine the impact of birth cohort, net gender, education and age on attitudes toward science in
Bulgaria and UK in late 20th and beginning of 21st century. To do so, the authors have made use of
the Eurobarometer surveys of public understanding of science and a comparative representative
survey in the two countries. Considering the long term campaign launched by the European
22
Commission to acquaint people with science and change the way new generations perceive science
and to the extent that the effect of cohort on attitudes reveals the impact of the unique societal factors
which are characteristic for a given generation, it can be expected that there will be observed a
common tendency of more positive relation to science which is cohort dependent. To test these
expectations the authors build several factorial ANOVA models. In these models, dependent variables
are the different facets of attitude to science. The independent variable is always the cohort. The
results show some differences but also common tendencies for the examined attitude facets. For the
UK, we obtained data that indicate a significant decrease in belief in science and in support for
science. For Bulgaria, is obtained data that indicate a significant increase in distrust in scientists, a
decrease in interest in science and a decrease in support for science. We conclude with some
speculation on this withdrawal from science.
* Rajesh Shukla, Professor, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAE) (IN)
A Conceptual and Methodological Framework of Construction of Science Culture Index
The business of science indicators has come a long way, both in terms of methodological scrutiny as
well as the level of institutionalisation. Rajesh Shukla and Martin Bauer (2007) attempted to integrate
STS performance indicators such as R&D expenditure, science publications, citations, etc, and ’public
understanding of science’ (PUS) indicators including concepts such as scientific literacy, public
sentiment, interest, and attitudes. The index embodies three aspirations: a) it integrates objective STS
statistics with PUS indicators into a single culture index; b) it takes account of the context specific
relationship between level of literacy and attitudes (the relation is curvilinear and hence requires a
conditional transformation; in high knowledge contexts negative attitudes count more than positive
ones). c) it combines literacy, attitude strength, interests and engagement activities into an subjective
index expressing. This exercise draws conceptual and methodological material used in the
construction of such a composite index based on a combined data base of EU (32 countries) and India
(23 States). The current paper is aimed to share some of the experiences related to theoretical and
analytical options considered and decisions made, particularly in regard to integration of two data sets,
identifying and defining indicators, constructing composite indices and finally its validation which we
suppose is of a great interest to researchers in this area.
11h30-13h00
Jeunes et sciences
Young People and Science
HEMICYCLE
Président / Chair : Michel Claessens, chef d’Unité adjoint, Commission européenne,
rédacteur en chef, Research*EU (UE)
Rapporteur : Lionel Larqué, responsable interculturel, Les petits débrouillards (FR)
Evoquer l'intérêt déclinant de la jeune génération pour la science fait désormais partie des lieux
communs. Mais sur quelles données se base cette affirmation ? La réalité est-elle un manque d'intérêt
pour la science en général ou un désintérêt pour les études et les carrières scientifiques ? Pouvonsnous identifier des expériences et des bonnes pratiques en Europe qui s'attachent à combler le fossé
entre jeunes et sciences ? Devons-nous changer de façon radicale la façon dont la science est
enseignée à l'école, comme le recommande le rapport Rocard publié par la Commission européenne
en juin 2007 ?
Few people will challenge the fact that there is a declining interest in science among the young
generation. But what evidence do we have? Are we talking of a lack of interest in science or rather a
disinterest for science studies and careers? Can we identify good experiences and good practices in
Europe trying to bridge the gap between science and the young? Do we need to radically change the
way science is taught at school, as recommended by the Rocard report published by the European
Commission in June 2007?
* Michel Claessens, Deputy Head of Unit, European Commission and Editor-in-Chief, Research*EU
(UE)
Jeunes Européens, science et technologie : qu'en pensent-ils ?
La présentation résumera les résultats d'une nouvelle enquête « Eurobaromètre » qui a été menée
dans l'Union européenne du 9 au 13 septembre 2008. A cette occasion, près de 25.000 jeunes (âgés
entre 15 et 25 ans) ont été choisis au hasard et interviewés dans les 27 Etats membres.
23
Les résultats montrent que les jeunes Européens ont une grande confiance dans la science et la
technologie (S&T). Ils tendent à être plus positifs que les adultes : 82 % considèrent par exemple que
la S&T apporte plus de bénéfices que de nuisances. Cependant, une grande majorité de jeunes ne
sont pas disposés à entreprendre des études d'ingénieur ou de sciences. La raison principale est que
ces jeunes disent avoir, pour la plupart, déjà choisi leur profession future; seuls 3 % des jeunes
interrogés invoquent les bas salaires en vigueur dans les carrières scientifiques.
What do Young Europeans Think about Science and Technology?
The presentation will summarise the results of a new ‘Eurobarometer’ opinion survey carried out in the
EU from 9 to 13 September 2008. Almost 25,000 randomly selected young people (aged between 15
and 25) were interviewed across the 27 Member States. The results show that young Europeans
(aged 15-25) put great trust in science and technology (S&T). Young Europeans tend to be more
positive than adults about S&T. 82% agree that S&T bring more benefits than harm. However a large
majority of young people are not interested in studying engineering or a scientific discipline. The main
reason is that most of them said to have already chosen their profession; only 3% of interviewees
invoked low salaries in the scientific careers.
* Karin Hermansson, Research Director, Vetenskap & Allmänhet, VA (Public & Science) (SE)
How to Raise Young People’s Interest in Science?
Science catches young people’s interest when they perceive it as meaningful and view it in a context.
This is the main conclusion from studies and experiences made by the Swedish association
Vetenskap & Allmänhet, VA (translates Public & Science).
Young people are often looked upon by older people as ignorant and having “bad attitudes”. In many
countries there are worries about declining interest in science studies. In a study conducted by VA,
young Swedes’ attitudes to science and researchers were investigated. The study consists of
quantitative as well as qualitative parts. In addition, evaluations from a selection of science mentoring
projects were analysed.
The analysis shows that education and background has a larger influence on people’s attitudes than
age. Still, young people often have attitudes different from older people. In Sweden, the young seem
less positive to scientific and technological development than older people, whereas the opposite is
true in many other countries. However, the Swedish boys and girls interviewed stated that they find
interested and enthusiastic persons well worth listening to. Good teachers, mentors and role models
are key success factors in inspiring young people to study science. Choosing relevant topics and
considering science in a context is also crucial.
These findings are in line with experiences from science dialogues, such as “Science Cafés” and
similar activities between young people and researchers. VA has arranged such dialogues for several
years. VA also coordinates the Swedish science events during the European Researchers’ Night.
Dialogues should be arranged in unconventional forms and informal venues, the starting-point being
what actually interests the target group. The participating scientist is a key to success and must be a
good communicator open to discussion. In this presentation, I will share our best practices on how to
reach young people while communicating science.
* Mudite Kalnina, Senior Officer, National Youth Initiative Centre of Ministry of Education and Science
(NYIC) (LV)
The Role of Out of Class Education in Promoting the Interest of Youth in Science
A significant role in science teaching in Latvia is played by extra curricular work which is done at
school and out of school. A recognized activity to raise pupils’ interest in science is the organization
and managing of pupils’ research on three levels – school, region and state. The organization of pupils
‘research activity is set up by the regulation of Ministry of Education and Science. The research work
is done by senior form pupils (aged 16-19) of secondary schools. The pupils can choose the field in
which to carry out the research work themselves or they do it encouraged by their teachers. The
majority of pupils’ research works are carried out at school and the leaders of their research works are
teachers, but research projects can be carried out also in science and culture centres, research
institutes, establishments of higher learning, enterprises etc. supervised by relevant specialists. Senior
form pupils do research in exact sciences, social sciences and humanities (22 domains are offered).
About 500 research projects are submitted to the Conference- Contest which is held at the University
of Latvia every year. The authors of the best research projects are matriculated at the University of
Latvia. Training courses for the teachers - the leaders of pupils’ research works are organized. The
summer school – seminar „Alfa” has been organized for 41 years running in some school in a
picturesque country place. The participants of the school – seminar are the pupils (aged 16-18) who
have achieved good results in science. The summer school – seminar „Alfa” is organized with the aim
of enhancing pupils’ knowledge in the chosen field of science. The educational forms in „Alfa” are –
24
lectures, practical work, research work (individual and in teams).The classes are run by the teachers
of the University, research institutions and guest lecturers from abroad. The pupils gain from meeting
equals in age who are interested in science, they gain from talking to scientists, playing sports
together. A number of former participants of the summer school- seminar „Alfa” have joined the ranks
of the scientific community, some have become leading persons in various fields of social life in Latvia
but all of them have become able to engage critically with science in their lives.
11h30-13h00
Communication et intégrité scientifique
Communication and Scientific Integrity
Salle/Room C
Président / Chair : Frédéric Sgard, administrateur de projet, Forum mondial de la Science, OCDE
Rapporteur : Franck Daninos, journaliste scientifique, La Recherche (FR)
Communiquer ses résultats fait partie intégrante de la recherche scientifique. En publiant ses
résultats, le chercheur non seulement permet à tous de s’emparer de connaissances nouvelles, mais
donne aussi à ses pairs la possibilité de comparer et valider ces résultats. Cette communication
nécessaire peut-elle conduire le chercheur à ne plus respecter son devoir d’intégrité scientifique, sous
la pression extérieur ou par désir de notoriété ?
Communicating one’s results is an integral part of scientific enterprise. When publishing his results,
the researcher not only allows everyone to have access to new knowledge, but also gives to his fellow
scientists the opportunity to compare and validate these results. Can this necessary communication
drive the scientist to breach his duty for research integrity, under external pressure or for notoriety?
Intervenant/Speaker
* Pieter Drenth, Honorary President of All European Academies (ALLEA), (NL)
Fair Communication and Scientific Integrity
Trust is the most important pillar on which science rests. Colleagues as well as the public at large
should be able to rely on the honesty of the researcher. Cases of scientific misconduct, particularly if
fully emphasised in the press, create much indignation and negative publicity for science. Such cases
include fabrication of data, falsification of results, and plagiarism in reviewing or reporting research. It
can be maintained that – in addition to poor communication - scientific misconduct is an important
reason for increasing distrust and scepticism concerning developments in science and technology on
the part of the general public and (some) media. Empirical data suggest that misconduct seems
anything but rare. Counteracting such misbehaviour, whether value-based, or compliance-based, is an
important and challenging task awaiting the scientific community.
Discutants/Discussants
* Emilio Bossi, President, Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (CH), on the topic “The pressure of
the research system and the impact that this pressure may have on integrity”
The question I was asked to discuss is: “Are the actual financing system and the evaluation of
researchers compatible with scientific integrity?” My answer is: of course they are! It’s not the
financing system or the evaluation of researchers that is not compatible with integrity – it’s a certain
number of researchers who do not live up to scientific integrity.
Due to the reality of human ambition and of limited funds, competition in research is unavoidable; it is
even one of its stimuli. Competition calls for evaluation. Where there is evaluation, there is pressure.
Fact is that publications are a main parameter for evaluation. War against the reality of pressure and
against publication as a tool for evaluation is a Don Quijote attempt.
However, there are prophylactic measures that can be taken to avoid scientific misconduct, even in
the context of the actual system of evaluation and funding. By improving the methodology for weighing
publications the perception of their value would increase, which could decrease the feeling of
pressure. For young scientists, the inclusion of the topic of scientific integrity in teaching would help
understand the mechanisms of misconduct and consequently help to avoid it. For senior scientists, the
acceptance of a fundamental aspect of good research, namely that originality, accuracy, reliability and
relevance are more important than rapid results and a large number of publications would make their
judgment of scientific performance more adequate, which in turn would increase the acceptance of the
judgements, consequently decrease a feeling of injustice and thus diminish pressure. Senior scientist
should also be aware of the importance of their role as examples and as mentors. Finally, the
25
installing of a standing organization dealing with scientific integrity in research institutions would make
clear that scientific integrity is taken seriously in that institution.
* Jeremy Theobald, Treasurer, Committee on Publications Ethics (GB)
* Marie-Laure Théodule, journaliste scientifique, La Recherche (FR)
11h30-13h00
Vers un engagement du public pour la science :
expositions interactives et éducation informelle
Towards Public Engagement of Science: Interactive
Exhibitions and Informal Learning
Salle/
Room 301
Président / Chair : Hannu Salmi, Professor, Helsinki University (FI)
Rapporteur : Sofia Adjas, chargée des affaires européennes, Cité des sciences et de l’industrie (FR)
Les efforts pour développer la culture scientifique du public se sont souvent limités à une présentation
de résultats scientifiques. Seules quelques rares tentatives ont réussi à montrer la construction de la
science et les méthodes empiriques de la recherche. L’impact des sciences sur la vie quotidienne des
citoyens et sur la société n’est par ailleurs pas aisément perceptible. Dans ce contexte, l’éducation
informelle a un rôle essentiel à jouer.
The effort for public understanding of science have often limited into the introduction of the results of
the science. Only very few attempts have been capable to show the process of science and empirical
methods of research. Also the impact of the science and technology to the everyday lives of the
citizens and society has not been clear. Informal learning sources have nowadays an essential role in
this process.
* Per-Edvin Persson, Director, HEUREKA (FI)
Science Changing The World: The European Exhibition, Expertise & Everyday Lives
Four European science centres in France, Netherlands, Portugal, and Finland, are preparing A major
touring exhibition “Science Changing the World”. The interactive exhibition is describing the most
influential discoveries in science during the last 100 years. Planning this type of exhibition is a
challenge starting with large scale background work by experts both in science and research as well
as in science communication and public understanding of science.
* Sofoklis Sotiriou, Manager of Research and Development in Ellinogi Germaniki Foundation School
in Athens (GR)
Science Centres and Museums Linking Europe
The movement of modern interactive science centres and museums has become visible all around
Europe during this decade. These hands-on exhibitions and institutes have nowadays millions of
visitors, and they have become part of a large movement of “Science In Society” promoting public
engagement of science. The aim of science education is not solely to produce more scientists and
technologists; it is also to produce a new generation of citizens who are scientifically literate and are
thus better prepared to function in a word that is increasingly being influenced by science and
technology. Here, some results of the latest results of using inquiry based science learning in Europe
are presented.
* Johannes Klumpers, Head of Unit, Scientific Culture and Gender Issue, European Commission
(EU)
26
Séance plénière / Plenary session
14h30-15h45
Table ronde / Round table
HEMICYCLE
Président de séance / Chair : Jean-Pierre Alix
Rapporteurs
Sofia Adjas, Martin Bauer, Franck Daninos, Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Etienne Klein,
Lionel Larqué, Stefan Michalowski, Frédéric Sgard
Panélistes / Panelists
Jean-Claude Ameisen, Cynthia Fleury, Claude Jablon, Marc Kirsch, Alain Pompidou
15h45-16h15
Grand témoin / Keynote Speaker
HEMICYCLE
Président de séance / Chair : Jean Jouzel, directeur, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (FR)
Dominique Pestre, directeur d’études, EHESS (FR)
« Quels savoirs, quelles sciences et quels enjeux pour le XXIe siècle ? »
“What Kind of Knowledge and Science for what is at Stake in the XXIst Century?”
16h15-17h00
Proposition conclusive du M.U.R.S /
Concluding proposal by the M.U.R.S.
HEMICYCLE
M.U.R.S. : Mouvement universel de la responsabilité scientifique
Par/by Jean Jouzel et/and Jean-Michel Besnier
°°°°°
27

dialogues et responsabilité scientifique Science in Society

Transcription

Documents pareils

quoi de neuf au salon de francfort - E2-CAD

The Village of St-Pierre-Jolys invites applications. Position

UN DIRECTEUR OU UNE DIRECTRICE DE RECHERCHE

Télécharchez ici l`affiche Jeunes Talents

INSIGHTS

fashion show/défilé de mode

CE1 – Matériel requis : rentrée 2016

Jean-Marc Mantel