再评“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”

 苏联科学史家科热伏尼科夫指出,苏联科学在20世纪20年代末至50年代初斯大林恐怖与专制统治时期,“科学并不糟糕”反而做出了最出色的成就。这一发现被称为“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”,在科学史界得到承认并流传至今。但笔者认为,“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”中的某些论点应该重新认识：苏联科学发展的黄金时期并不是斯大林恐怖统治时期;20世纪30、40年代的科学成就的获得,也不仅仅是因为恐怖统治使科学家远离政治、专心学问。     

The Nazi symbiosis: politics and human genetics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute

The case of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics (KWIA), from its inception in Weimar Republic Germany to its apogee under the rule of the Third Reich, is an example of how politics and human heredity can function as mutually beneficial resources. Whether it was a result of the Nazi bureaucrats' desire to legitimize their racial policy through science, or the KWIA personnel's desire to secure more funding for their research, the symbiotic relationship that developed between human genetics and Nazi politics could help explain why many scientists in the Third Reich undertook research projects that wholly transgressed the boundaries of morally acceptable science.     

How the Role of Computing is Driving New Genetics' Public Policy

In this paper we will examine some ethical aspects of the role that computers and computing increasingly play in new genetics. Our claim is that there is no new genetics without computer science. Computer science is important for the new genetics on two levels: (1) from a theoretical perspective, and (2) from the point of view of geneticists practice. With respect to (1), the new genetics is fully impregnate with concepts that are basic for computer science. Regarding (2), recent developments in the Human Genome Project (HGP) have shown that computers shape the practices of molecular genetics; an important example is the Shotgun Method's contribution to accelerating the mapping of the human genome. A new challenge to the HGP is provided by the Open Source Philosophy (I computer science), which is another way computer technologies now influence the shaping of public policy debates involving genomics.     

从科学学看苏联科学社会学的形成和发展

 苏联科学社会学是在科学学的框架下产生和发展的。受意识形态的严重影响，20世纪30年代社会学被禁止研究。斯大林去世后，苏联重新开始对科学社会学的研究。20世纪60年代是科学的黄金时期，也是科学社会学的成熟时期。     

从深空探测大国迈向行星科学强国

自伽利略1609年将望远镜指向星空迄今,已逾400年。1959年苏联"月球2号"首次抵达月球,开启深空探测时代。1969年美国"阿波罗11号"首次载人登月,催生建立行星科学。纵观人类深空探测60年,先后出现两次探测热潮、两个深空探测大国(美国、苏联)。苏联领先又衰落,仅留给历史一个深空探测大国的背影,而美国成功转型为深空探测强国,至今在世界行星科学最前沿领航。探索浩瀚宇宙,是全人类的共同梦想。作为正在发展中的深空探测大国,我国应该怎样立足国情,走出一条有中国特色的行星科学强国之路?文章参照历史,梳理现状,畅想未来,给出我们的思考:大力培养行星科学人才,尽快实现科学引领深空探测。     

The organic chemicals industry of the USSR: a case-study in the measurement of comparative technological sophistication by means of kilogram-prices

The comparative kilogram-price of an equivalent product group in international trade is a rough indication of underlying technological capability. Although there are many theoretical and practical difficulties involved in applying this approach to East-West trade, these difficulties can be minimised by a careful selection of product groups. In this connection, advanced chemical products are particularly suitable because the chemical industry is one in which both kilogram-prices and technological sophistication tend to increase hand-in-hand at successive stages of manufacture. The results of this enquiry are quite striking. From the standpoint of bilateral trade, the kilogram-prices of Soviet and East European exports to the EEC countries are consistently lower than those of corresponding imports from the EEC. Throughout the period 1960–1972 these differentials appears to be closing either very slowly or not at all, while the Soviet and East European share of the EEC marked has remained more or less constant or has declined since the mid-1960's. From the alternative perspective of the “neutral” Yugoslavian market, the kilogram-prices of EEC exports are again consistently higher than those obtained by the Comecon coun tries. Moreover, there has been a considerable eroson in the market share of the Comecon countries since the mid-1960's. These general findings are broadly in line with other kinds of estimates and suggest that in these relatively advanced and dynamic sectors of industry, Soviet and East European technology is at present substantially inferior to that of the Common Market countries.     

科研审计与监管:科学与政治的有机边界活动

科学职业化的今天,政治与科学形成了一种委托与代理的社会契约关系,科学的求实与效率是这一契约关系的基本要求。由于政治与科学双方的信息不对称,导致政治主体的逆向选择和科研的道德风险,使科学的求实与效率受到损害。因此,科研审计与监管必然成为维护科学社会契约关系的必要手段。但现实科研审计与监管的实践还存在着一些困境。为了消解这些困境,我们利用契约关系分析的方法,深入至"交换"得以发生的各种社会关系,重新认识科学的社会契约,从而明晰了契约关系的主要利益相关者。进而利用有机边界理论分析认为,科研审计机构是契约关系的利益相关者合作审查科学研究求实与效率的组织平台,科研审计与监管应成为科学与政治之间的有机边界活动。     

苏维埃的海归：卡皮查和他的“克里姆林宫书简”

彼得·卡皮查是苏联学术界的领袖人物之一。他早年在英国剑桥大学的卡文迪许实验室从事强肱场和低温物理研究,卓有成就,1929年当选为英国皇家学会会员。1934年他被苏联政府强制留在国内,创建科学院“物理问题研究所”并担任所长,其间发现了液态氦在超低温下具有超流动性,为此获得1984年诺贝尔物理学奖。卡皮查还是一位关心社会,尤其是科学界公共事务的科学家,他向斯大林以及其他苏联最高领导人写了大量书信,为身陷囹圄的科学家陈情,或者对苏联当局的文化和科学政策提出建言,为此本人一度遭到贬斥。     

High temperature superconductivity research in the USSR

The rapid developments in high temperature superconductivity research in recent years have confronted the USSR with its first real test of restructuring (perestroika) in science. The breakthrough in this field in 1986–1987 posed a number of major problems for the traditional Soviet system in science. In particular the field required the cooperation of scientists from different fields and the ability to respond rapidly to the new developments. Soviet science has not been noted for its rapid response in its planning, its supply system and its information and publication procedures. In addition, the investigation of the new substances required modern sophisticated equipment, the provision of which has been a particular weakness of Soviet science.Academician Osip'yan saw the new field as a key test of perestroika in science and largely as a result of his influence it was used as a test-bed for new ideas for the organisation of science. It became the first of a new series of major programmes in which funds were allocated to groups of scientists on a competitive basis and the groups themselves, rather than their organisations, controlled the use of these funds. Despite some success in keeping up with world developments the programme has been hampered by bureaucracy and the lack of modern equipment.The study highlights the changes which have occurred in Soviet science under Gorbachev and shows that many aspects of the traditional system still remain.     

华罗庚推广"双法"活动的社会背景分析

华罗庚从纯数学研究转向简单的“双法”推广,令很多人感到困惑不解.但将其与20世纪六七十年代中国的社会背景特别是政治背景联系起来进行分析,我们也许能够理解华罗庚的选择,能够解释当时中国科学之命运.回顾我国科学发展的这段历史,认真总结经验教训,正确处理政治与科学的关系,对我国科学技术的发展具有重要意义.     

中国式“大科学”体制的法律构建及其反思——以建国初期为研究中心

中国式“大科学”体制是新中国20世纪五六十年代起主导作用的科技体制。在建国伊始特定的国情下,这种中国式“大科学”体制的法律构建,不仅是协调科学、技术、经济、政治和社会平衡发展的各种制度的呼唤,而且也是与它相适应的道德准则的诉求,其走过了一条逐步发展和完善的渐进之路。中国式“大科学”体制法律构建的确立,既是社会历史发展的必然结果,也是中国共产党在新的历史条件下的抉择。·     

苏联技术向中国转移的特点及其影响

20世纪50年代至60年代初,苏联技术向中国进行了一次成功的转移。这次技术转移是一种混合式的技术转移,一种属于社会主义大家庭内部的有偿的技术转移。它通过三种途径得以实现———援建工业项目、进行科学技术合作、帮助建立和调整高等院校以及中等技术学校并吸收大量留学生和进修生。本文分析了这次技术转移的特点及其对中国的影响,认为它所转移的技术基本上比较先进,符合中国国情,大致上属于适宜技术,是新中国长期的技术老本。文章得出如下结论:这次技术转移推动了现代技术向中国进行大规模的、系统的、水平较高的转移,奠定了中国现代技术和工业化的基础,初步构建了比较完整的现代技术和工业体系,带动了科学研究的发展,形成"以任务带学科"的发展模式,对20世纪中国社会发展产生了深远的影响。     

科学与政治的结合:必然性与复杂性

科学与政治的关系是一个值得研究的重要问题。本文从近代以来科学的运行方式及其日趋重要的社会功能 ,以及“政治”的固有职责 ,分析了科学与政治结合的必然性 ;探讨了科学与政治结合的内在复杂性。本文认为 ,寻找科学与政治结合的正确方式 ,不但是促进科学进步的过程 ,而且也是促进社会民主化的过程。     

The rise, fall and resurrection of group selection

The changing fate of group selection theory illustrates nicely the importance of studying the history of science. It was Charles Darwin that first used something like group selection to explain how natural selection could give rise to altruistic behavior and moral instinct. These instincts could be accommodated by his theory of evolution, he argued, if they had evolved 'for the good of the community'. By the 1960s, group selection had a new and vocal advocate in V.C. Wynne-Edwards. But this gave critics of the theory that selection might act on groups, rather than at the level of individuals or genes, a definable target, and from the mid-1960s to the 1980s group selection was considered the archetypal example of flawed evolutionary thinking. However, at the end of the 20th century ideas of group selection re-emerged as an important component of a multilevel theory of evolution.     

Management,politics, and science: a nonseparable system

Philosophy of science, as understood by most social scientists, has given us an image of the scientific enterprise as a large hypothesis testing machine. One key unit within this enterprise is the individual scientist. He has learned or intuitively understands a set of logical rules which he brings to bear in ordering his thinking about a problem. Since he was pictured as operating within an unconstrained environment in an organizationally and morally simplistic world, his goal (scientific ‘truth’) was unambiguous, the organization and conduct of his work frictionless, and his only concerns were logic and measurements. Management and politics had no relationship to his pursuit of truth or the possibility of uncovering it. The other key unit, the scientific community, was equally autonomous from the world of management and politics. It was a social system in which problem definitions and decisions on truth are the joint result of open interaction among autonomous, rational, driven men and the impersonal automatic, application of the rules of evidence and logic.What guaranteed that this marvellous hypothesis testing machine actually operated in this fashion? The character and socialization of the individual scientist and the fact that interference in or imperfections of the process will result in erroneous truths which will eventually catch up with the perpetrators and punish them through individual, system, or societal failure, as in the inexorable workings of the market place of classical economics.If this was ever a very accurate picture of the scientific enterprise, the emergence of ‘Big Science’ has placed its adequacy seriously in doubt. ‘Big Science’ involves a research system in which (a) a consciously articulated goal exists; (b) there has been a commitment of resources and the organization and coordination of skills and institutions on a scale which only national governments can undertake; (c) the decentralized structures of the scientific community are replaced by planned administrative structures; and (d) it is rare that research problems or goals correspond to the neat disciplinary boundaries within science.Recognition of these developments in the scientific community is uneven and the reaction to them ambivalent and the philosophy and sociology of science have yet to come fully to terms with them.     

为了科学,还是为了公众?——论公众科学的两种进路

自20世纪90年代中期以来,“公众科学”的概念逐渐受到学界关注并形成了一个新的研究领域,但目前学界对于“公众科学”的内涵仍没有共识。为此本文追溯了实践进路和政治进路两种不同内涵的公众科学的源起、内容与影响,并对两种公众科学的形成背景、理论预设、政策影响等方面的差异进行了系统比较;同时阐述了已有研究对于融合两种公众科学进路的尝试。最后,文章提出公众科学是一种以公众为主体的新知识生产方式,并结合国内公众科学情况提出了几点发展建议。     

苏联科技创新体系成败的移植文化因素分析

在苏联科技创新体系的建构中,移植文化发挥了重要的积极作用,使苏联的科学技术从无到有。在苏联后期科技创新体系运行失败过程中,移植文化也是重要的因素。移植文化弱化苏联的原始创新能力,"反移植"加重了苏联与世界科学界的隔离。     

空间科学——我国创新驱动发展的重要阵地

文章概述了空间科学与空间科学卫星的特点,具体阐述了其在科学上的前沿性,在空间技术和相关高技术上的带动性,以及对国家政治、外交、国防和社会发展的重要作用,介绍了中科院正在实施的空间科学先导专项在科学前沿、技术带动和国际影响方面预计的成果产出,并对其后续发展提出了建议。     

科学可以计划吗？——二十世纪三四十年代以英国为中心的争论

 发生于1930年代末的关于科学是要计划还是要自由的贝-波之争,其源流可追溯到第二届国际科学史大会。整个三十年代英国科学家中的科学与社会运动,是该争论的过程因素。该争论实非二人之争,而是存在于两个科学家群体之间,Nature杂志在其中起到了推波助澜的作用,若干科学组织牵涉其中,争论所涉及范围远超英国之外,过程比较曲折,历史影响极为深远。科学家们争论的问题包括科学、计划和自由的内涵,科学发展的机制,科学家的责任,科学的社会关系等等问题。它不仅促生了科学学、科学社会学等学科,而且将科学哲学和科学史研究推向一个新的高潮。更为重要的是,这场争论极大地改变了人们的科学观念,它使功利主义科学观从此深入人心,与之后苏联之外各国科学的计划化不无关系。     

Science, accounting and statistics: The input-output framework

Statistics on science are often framed within an input-output framework: inputs are invested into research activities that produce outputs. This framework is a pure accounting framework based on the anticipated economic benefits of science. This paper asks where the framework comes from. It shows that the semantics on input and output in science can be traced back to the economic literature, and its analyses of growth via an econometric equation called the production function. Used extensively by economists in the mid-1950s to study science and its relationship to the economy, the semantics immediately offered official statisticians a conceptual framework for organizing statistics on science. This is due to the fact that the framework was perfectly aligned with policy discussions on the efficiency of the science system.