Charles Et

Monique Morazé

Venni V Krishna

Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges

Keywords: ethos of science, science, social institution of science, globalization, post-industrial society, climate change

Social history of modern science, particularly the way it acquired social legitimacy clearly depicts the science and society relationships emerging from the time of Galileo. he social institution of science has evolved as one of the most powerful, highly inluential and sought out institutions. Knowledge as public good; peer review of science; prominence attached to open publications; and premium placed on professional recognition and scientiic autonomy remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries. Based on this ethos of science, the social institution of science evolved a unique social contract between science and society in the last six decades. As we enter the second decade of 21st century, the social institution of science is undergoing a major change. hree societal forces are responsible for the change: a) globalization; b) industrial and post-industrial society; and c) climate change. What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? And what implications this has for our contemporary and future society? hese are some of the important issues, which will

he views expressed in this paper are the author's own and do not necessarily relect institutional positions from the Foundation MSH.

L'évolution des relations sociales entre science et société : déis contemporains

Résumé

L'histoire sociale de la science moderne, particulièrement la façon dont elle a acquis sa légitimité sociale, analyse les relations entre science et société telles qu' elles émergèrent depuis Galilée. L'institution sociale de la science est devenue au il du temps l'une des plus puissantes, l'une des plus inluentes et l'une des plus courtisées des institutions. La connaissance déinie comme bien commun, l' évaluation par les pairs, la prééminence des publications ouvertes, comme celle de la reconnaissance professionnelle et de l'autonomie scientiique ont constitué depuis trois siècles les traits distinctifs de la science. Cette éthique de l'institution scientiique a fourni la base du contrat social qui s' est établi entre science et société depuis six décennies. Mais alors que nous entrons dans la deuxième décennie du XXIe siècle, l'institution sociale de la science est en pleine transformation. Trois dynamiques sociétales expliquent ce changement : la mondialisation ; l'industrialisation et la post-industrialisation ; le changement climatique. Quels en sont les enjeux ? Jusqu'à quel point cette évolution est-elle signiicative? Jusqu' où l'institution sociale de la science en est-elle elle-même afectée ? Quelles implications ce processus aura-t-il sur la société contemporaine, et sur celle de demain ? L' essai qui suit tente d' éclairer ces importantes questions. Ce texte a servi de base à la conférence prononcée à l' occasion de la remise du Prix Charles et Monique Morazé 2013 à la revue internationale Science, Technology and Society, publiée par Sage India.

Mots-clefs

éthique de la science, science, institution sociale de la science, mondialisation, société post-industrielle, changement climatique T he epistemological roots of science, in all its ramiications, can be traced to Asia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, through Greeks, Judeo-Christian, Arab and scholastic traditions. From Bachelard's notion of 'epistemological break' or Kuhnian notion of paradigmatic shift for modern science began with the renaissance and reformation (14 th to 16 th Centuries), which gave birth to historic igures such as Galileo Galilei and Leonardo da Vinci. Another enveloping but a complimentary era followed this development. Science as a body of systematic knowledge about nature and of universe from the time of Copernicus Revolution and the age of Enlightenment (16 th and 17 th centuries) culminated into what historians of science termed as the 17 th Century Scientiic Revolution. his era for the irst time witnessed institutionalization of modern sciences in various professional societies and bodies such as Academia dei Lincei, Rome (1603); Leopoldina, Germany (1652); Royal Society, London (1660) French Academy of Sciences (1666) rechristened as Royal Academy of Sciences, France (1699); Russian Academy of Sciences (1724) Dublin Academy of Science (1735); and Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784), among others. 1 It may be pointed out that that pre-cursor to these bodies is 'Solomon's House' of Bacon. Francis Bacon in his utopia New Atlantis (1627) painted the picture of future university and science organization featuring knowledge a cumulative process by community and experimentally testable organization.

However, as inluential writings of [START_REF] Ben-David | he Scientist's Role in Society[END_REF], Salomon (1979), among others 2 , draw our attention to the fact that it was not until 18 th and 19 th Centuries that science and its activities pursued by professionals begun to acquire the status of a profession. Scientists began to have career with regular emoluments, employment in research institutions, professional bodies and universities. Creation of university Chairs, Ph.D. training programmes, establishment of science societies, launching of professional journals and research laboratories as well as the advancement of systematic knowledge emerged and developed by mid 19 th and early 20 th Centuries. his process 1. Students of Galileo founded the Accademia del Cimento (Academy of Experiment) in Florence in1657. Colbert founded the French Academy in 1666. In contrast to Royal Society, this academy was funded by the government.

2. here is a plethora of writings but two sources are sociologically interesting. See Barnes (1972) and MacLeod (1977) is an integral part of the professionalization of science. his process began in the developing world of Asia, Africa and Latin America from the middle and later parts of 20 th Century. 3 he social history of modern science, particularly the way in which it acquired social legitimacy and utilitarian values clearly depicts the science and society relationships fully emerging from the time of Galileo Galilei. 4 In 20 th Century this relationship between science and society relects in large measure Comtian positivism in its third stage. In a way it, 'characterized the story of science from remote antiquity, but especially from the Renaissance and the Scientiic Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, as one of steady accomplishment, a march of the intellect, achieving victories over myth and superstition by a lengthy process of observation, trial, error and eventually the codiication of laws and theories' (McLeod 1977: 152). Science, over a period of time, acquired social legitimacy and in the process came in conlict with the Church and religion. his is well documented in the case of Galileo who upheld and advocated Copernican astronomy. Underlying the processes of science gaining social legitimacy is the web of social relations between science, its practitioners, the knowledge it generated and the society. he element of rationality, truth and what has come to be known as objective knowledge was widely accepted and upheld by the society at large. Over a period of time, it has come to be recognized as part of the culture, a perspective, an ideology and a viewpoint of society.

As one Indian historian, argues, 'science as culture and as part of the social formation of society… is more wide-angled and takes in many facets involving interactions and osmosis'. he 'knowledge emerges from the combination of an indigenous genesis together with transmission from other coexisting cultures, a transmission which can involve some contestation and some negotiation. his process takes the form of cultural transactions, within a culture and between cultures. Knowledge, viewed either as a body of 3. See Gaillard, Krishna and[START_REF] Gaillard | Scientiic Communities in the Developing World[END_REF]Roland Waast (1996) 4. As is well known in history of science Galileo came in conlict with Catholic Church for his advocacy of Copernican astronomy of heliocentric system. Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him suspect of heresy and sentenced him to imprisonment. However it was converted to house arrest in which he remained for the rest of his life. information or as theories of explanation, is part of this transaction' (hapar 1999: 16-18).

Changing

Science as culture can be understood in two ways and forms, both integral parts of society. 'First in its own evolution and secondly in its accommodation by culture' (Gillispie 1962: 89). In the intellectual debates of history and sociology of science these two forms of science are seen as 'internal' and 'external' for quite some time now. As Thomas Kuhn (1968: 76) pointed out, internal form of science is 'concerned with the substance of science as knowledge' and external form relates to 'the activity of scientists as a social group within a larger culture'. 5 Another inluential sociologist who laid the foundations since mid 20 th Century to explore and analyze science and society relations is Robert K. Merton. Extending the cultural foundations of science from a number of empirical studies of scientists in the 17 th Century England and particularly the Royal Society, Merton may be credited to have also laid the foundations of science as a social institution:

'Science is deceptively inclusive word which refers to a variety of distinct though interrelated items. It is commonly used to denote a set of characteristic methods by means of which knowledge is certiied; a stock of accumulated knowledge stemming from the application of these methods; a set of cultural values and mores governing the activities termed scientiic or any combination of the foregoing. We are here concerned in a preliminary fashion with the cultural structure of science, that is with one limited aspect of science as an institution' (Merton 1972:66) his insight and perspective of science as culture and science as integral part of a wider culture or as a sub-system of society (among other subsystems such as social, political, economic, market etc) is seen as basic to our exploration of the changing social relations between science and society in this essay. he concern here is not just the science, science community and science as social institution but also the impact of science on society and vice versa. In other words, our concern will be on ways in which this institution of science 5. It is not the intention here to further explore internal and external spheres of science, which is rather interesting for deeper social history of science. Kuhn's passing reference is being used here to bring home the point that the subject matter of science and its social relations are integral parts of society and culture as one of the sub-systems.

has changed as a result of various forces acting and inluencing it. he term science is being used here in a rather broader sense of understanding of science as social system and its inluence on society by its application. As we move into the second decade of 21 st century, the very fact that the main theme of this essay is on changing relations between science and society raises several issues: What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? If so, what has really changed? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? What are the forces acting upon this historic and most powerful social institution? And what implications this has for our contemporary and future society? hese are some of the main questions which will be addressed in this essay. In doing so, it will be pertinent to delimit the exploration here so as to make it manageable given the limitations of space and time.

In the light of what has been briely discussed in the preceding sections, we can see that there are three major societal forces impacting the social institution of science: a) the forces of globalization; b) industrial and post-industrial forces; and c) the impact of climate change and sustainability. hese are seen to be responsible for the changing relations between science and society.

Let us begin with globalization and its impact on science -society relations.

8. See [START_REF] Bardhan | Awakening Giants -Feet of Clay[END_REF] and Dreze and Sen (2013).

Globalization and the changing social contract between science and society

Globalization here are scholarly writings that support and as well as oppose globalization. here are other scholars in the past who have not considered it as a form of social force as only small parts of economy or segments of the population, both in developed and developing worlds, were touched and impacted upon by globalization in the 1990s. Notwithstanding this stance, the fact remains that the world economy, markets lows and creative industries including science and technology are much more integrated today than ever before in history. he impact of globalization, understood in terms of homas Friedman's he World is Flat (2005) or in terms of the increasing interdependence of nation states, is so pervasive that it is diicult to deny or ignore its impact. Even though the concepts of nation state, sovereignty, national economy and even a sense of nationalism are quite strong and manifest themselves in varying forms in our lives, there is an overarching impact of globalization that is diicult to ignore.

he impact of globalization is not conined to mere social (world as global village via the information and communications technology revolution) or economic (role of Transnational Corporations and the movement of global capital lows) or political spheres of our lives (global and UN regimes in security, international trade, environment etc. binding on countries). Globalization has penetrated deep into the very institution of science and technology since the last couple of decades and has in fact already begun to transform this very social institution of science that has evolved over the last 300 to 400 years. he major point that is being advanced here in this section is that the social contract between science and society that has evolved in the post-war period, embedded in the ethos of science as social institution, is undergoing a major transformation. Before we get down to explore the features of transformation that is under way, it is pertinent here to spell what is meant by the social contract. 9

9. he concept of social contract between science and society has become quite popular in the science policy writings. See [START_REF] Gibbons | Sciences new social contract with society[END_REF]; [START_REF] Guston | he Demise of the Social Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and Non-modern World, Working Paper Number[END_REF]; [START_REF] Lubchenco | Entering the Century of Environment: A New Social Contract for Science[END_REF], Unesco (1998); Arie [START_REF] Rip | A changing social contract between science and society[END_REF]; and Forrester et.al (2002).

Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

Social contract between science and society -post-war experience Social contract 10 is a tacit understanding between actors and it is a trust reposed on a body or an institution for the service it renders in the interest of general public and society at large. Social contract in terms of trust evolves over a period of time and is not a sudden development. It may be manifested in different forms and contexts. It may remain in a speciic context, country or region or might spread across countries and cultures. Indeed it may be seen as a social principle that is legitimized as it inds acceptance. It may become binding and socially acceptable though it may not have a legal sanction. That being the case, the social institution of science evolved certain norms and ethos of science, which provided a philosophical, and moral underpinning to the social contract that has evolved in the post-war period.

As pointed out earlier, [START_REF] Merton | he Institutional Imperatives in Science[END_REF] pioneering research on science as social institution, so far, remains one of the most important but an idealistic explanation of social contract between science and society based on certain ethos of universalism, communalism, disinterestedness and organized scepticism.

Universalism exempliies impersonal character of science for the acceptance or rejection does not depend on the social or personal attributes.

Careers in science are open to talents based on the professional recognition. Communalism ethos is antithetical to secrecy and property rights. 'Intellectual property' is limited to that of professional recognition and esteem that the community of science as social institution bestows upon individuals and groups. 'The institutional conception of science as part of public domain is linked with the imperative for communication of indings.

The pressure for diffusion of results is reinforced by the institutional goal of advancing the boundaries of knowledge and by the incentive of recognition which is, of course, contingent upon publication' (Merton 1972:74). Disinterestedness draws attention to passion for knowledge, idle curiosity, altruistic concern for the beneit to humanity and society at large. Competition and recognition for 10. It may be pointed out that I am not the irst to use this notion of social contract between science and society.

One can ind a small number of very inluential writings in science and public policy that has employed this term of social contract between science and society. For instance, See Ben [START_REF] Martin | he changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university[END_REF]; [START_REF] Guston | he Demise of the Social Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and Non-modern World, Working Paper Number[END_REF]; [START_REF] Gibbons | Sciences new social contract with society[END_REF] contribution to the advancement of knowledge is very much part of the norm of disinterestedness. Scientists expect nothing else but recognition from the institution of science. Organized scepticism signiies the very notion of doubt or a scientiic temper as it is seen both a methodological and an institutional mandate. Scientists are expected to suspend judgment or details about their research till the facts are at hand. hey need to scrutinize beliefs about scientiic facts in terms of empirical and logical criteria. 'In modern totalitarian society, anti-rationalism and the centralization of institutional control both serve to limit the scope provided for scientiic activity' (Merton 1972:78). As he goes on to explain: he ethos of science is that efectively toned complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science. he norms are expressed in the form of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions. hey are legitimized in terms of institutional values. hese imperatives, transmitted by precept and example and reinforced by sanctions are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist, thus fashioning his scientiic conscience or, if one prefers a latter-day phrase, his superego. Although the ethos of science has not been codiied, it can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists expressed in use and wont, in countless writings on the scientiic spirit and in moral indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos (Merton 1972:66-67;1942 original).

From a Mertonian perspective, the ethos of science, that is, institutional imperatives, is derived from the goal of science and the methods, which is the systematic production of knowledge that we call science. 11 'The mores of science possess a methodologic rational but they are binding, not only because they are procedurally eficient, but because they believed to be right and good. They are moral as well as technical prescriptions' (Merton 1972: 68). In a somewhat similar vein, Michael Polanyi argued for freedom and autonomy of science institution in his inluential work Republic of Science (1962). Community of scientists is organized and works according to the same principles that is found in economic production 12 , the 'free cooperation of independent scientists' and is a 'special case of coordination by mutual adjustment'. As pointed out by Guston (1992:4), for Polanyi the freedom and success of science ultimately hinge on this social contract. 'The Republic of Science realizes the ideal of Rousseau, of a community in which each is equal partner in a General Will'. As the citizens in Rousseau's explanation of Will, scientists are subjected to a General Will represented by scientiic opinion. The submission leaves each free but each is also obliged and devoted to the ideals of scientiic work (Polanyi 1964: 64). 13 In a Weberian sense the social institution of science drawn by Merton and Polanyi exempliies an ideal institution of science and the way in which scientiic knowledge is constituted and produced. Underlying the social institution of science is considerable autonomy assigned to science. However, one should note that the perspective of science as social institution governed by ethos with considerable autonomy guaranteed by governments is not without ideological moorings and political orientations. 14 his contract acquired legitimacy in the organization of science encompassing universities, public and private research laboratories, science councils and science academies. Actors in these institutions produced systematic knowledge and advanced the state of scientiic knowledge yielding societal beneits. hey would also train scientists and engineers, doctors and a range of professionals needed by the society and industry. It is for this reason that the State and governments in the public interest funded scientiic research but did not normally interfere with research autonomy. Scientiic knowledge production was by and large regulated by a peer system, which is controlled by the institution of science.

As [START_REF] Gibbons | Sciences new social contract with society[END_REF] noted, industrial and business enterprises would normally produce science as well as take basic scientiic knowledge produced in various institutional segments and applies it 12. see [START_REF] Guston | he Demise of the Social Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and Non-modern World, Working Paper Number[END_REF] who discusses the social contract of science invoking Robert Merton and Michael Polanyi.

13. Actually quoting from [START_REF] Guston | he Demise of the Social Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and Non-modern World, Working Paper Number[END_REF] for one inds no better way of expression than he does.

14. In a way, Robert to make products and innovations. hey would in the process, of course, make proit for the investments made in converting this knowledge.

Governments will continue to fund scientiic research from public purse to ill the gap between the public good of science and the private good of industry and business enterprises. hey would do this as they have the responsibility for defense, national security, public health, safety, creating infrastructure etc. Wherever there are market failures governments would step in to fund science in the public interest. hese features together with the ideals of Merton and Polanyi remained as the cornerstone of the scientiic enterprise in the post-war era. As pointed out earlier, these ideals and ethos of science manifested in varying forms and contexts of scientiic research organizations around the world. In sum, they represent and deine the social contract between science and society. Drawing upon historical experience of science and society relations, Ben [START_REF] Martin | he changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university[END_REF] draws attention to some important guiding posts, which have cemented the social contract of science in the post-war era.

At the conclusion of Second World War, Vannevar Bush 15 was given the charge to produce a report to plan post-war organization of science and technology in the United States of America. • Movement towards open source knowledge (pharma, software) and scientiic commons is growing but the pace is very slow as big corporations are blocking these eforts in various ways.

• IPR are designed to encourage innovation and protect invention. In doing so they block public domain of science curbing scientiic progress and spread of science. when the process of teaching was institutionalized some time around the 13 th to 15 th centuries (irst academic revolution). he second was when the Humboltdian model of combining teaching and research was introduced for the irst time in the Berlin University and later spread to Germany and across Europe and North America from the early 19 th Century (second academic revolution). We are now witnessing a third academic revolution of 'Triple Helix' or university-industry-government partnerships. Innovation and commercialization of academic research has now become an integral part of the university governance and academic policy along with teaching and research. Before 1990s there was nothing like 'entrepreneurial university' but as [START_REF] Etzkowitz | MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science[END_REF] predicted, the concept spread like a 'wild ire'. here are various structural changes that have come about, towards entrepreneurial university and science.

Challenge of industrial and post-industrial societies

he second major factor considered here responsible for changing social relations between science and society is the challenge of industrial and post-industrial societies. In a way these are two sides of the same coin. Science and technology remain the main driving forces behind industrial and post-industrial societies. Rapid industrialization and modernization, in a large measure, meant to generate wealth from industrial and post-industrial policies. Maximize proit and generate economic value from the application of science has been the motive behind government policies and corporate business enterprises alike. here are several changes that have come about in the science and society relations under heavy industrialization and post-industrial policies involving science and technology strategies.

We will touch upon two recent developments.

Rise of regulatory science and citizen science (1992). For more than 25 years, Beck tried to diagnose the question: how can social and political thought and action in the face of radical global change be intertwined with modernity? Curiously, this was also the phase of growing information and communication technology revolution, publication of results from the Human Genome Project and the rise of biomedical sciences and GM technologies.

In the post-war era, how to deal with risk and uncertainty in new science and technologies became a major issue of concern both for governments and public at large. In 2003 the British government had to confront a widespread public distrust of science of genetically modiied (GM) crops and foods. he evaluation of what 30. In the recent history we have witnessed one of the major industrial disasters in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy in India, which took away more than 4000 lives in 1984. While India was grappling with the industrial disaster to articulate policies for risk and hazards, Europe and North America was gearing up for a transition into the post-industrial society. http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

is good and bad for health was no more conined to science institution but also depended on AGORA -the civil society groups and citizens.

In fact the Royal Society of London, for the irst time in 2000 recognized that public approval is an important factor. he same was the case in France, Germany and many parts of Europe and Asia. hese developments have given rise to two modes of science and society relations, namely regulatory science and citizen science.

Whereas in regulatory science the government bodies and political decision makers take a proactive stand to directly intervene and take decisions, in citizen science, representatives of civil society groups assume this role to take a inal call on decisions. What should we do in response to biotechnology that, in the future, will mix great potential beneits with threats that are either physical and obvious or spiritual and subtle? he answer is obvious: We should use the power of the state to regulate it. And if that proves to be beyond the power of any individual nationstate, biotechnology needs to be regulated on an international basis. We need to start thinking concretely -now -about how to build institutions that can discriminate between good and bad uses of biotechnology, and that can efectively enforce those rules both nationally and internationally democratic locus or a pole of decision making in science on matters concerning the impact of science and technology on our daily lives. In contradistinction to public science, academic science and industrial research, citizen science is the knowledge and analyses of science, technology and society relationship advocated by the civil society groups, NGOs, environmental groups and by people science movements [START_REF] Krishna | Science, Technology and Counter Hegemony: Some Relections on the Contemporary Science Movements in India[END_REF]). 32 The term however gained momentum after Alan [START_REF] Irwin | Citizen Science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development[END_REF] book, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. Alan rightly argued against the view that people are ignorant and that the knowledge of people is very signiicant even if it crosses scientiic disciplinary lines and is based on personal and practical understanding. As argued elsewhere [START_REF] Krishna | Science, Technology and Counter Hegemony: Some Relections on the Contemporary Science Movements in India[END_REF], people science movements and civil society groups in India in the last three decades have played a signiicant part in tendering knowledge and analyses on the relations between science and society. These efforts have inluenced the decision making in science and technology on environment, big dams, science education, energy and GMOs. 33 The success of citizen science in India in placing temporary moratorium on the release of BT Brinjal in 2012 is another important example that is relevant here. 34 Public understanding of science (PUS) as it emerged is no more concerned with merely popularization of science and science communication. It has gone beyond this phase to become another important actor effectively intervening into national science and technology systems and decision-making in science.

Inclusive innovation -science and society at the 'bottom of the pyramid'

he rise of Asia propelled by the markets and growth rates of China and India in the last two decades generated a good deal of wealth in these countries. his is not unrelated to science, technology and innovation policies in establishing 32. See, [START_REF] Krishna | Science, Technology and Counter Hegemony: Some Relections on the Contemporary Science Movements in India[END_REF] 33. he large people science movement led by Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) in 1980s stalled the construction of a big dam in the rainforest regions of Kerala.

34. It is pertinent to point out that one is not taking an antiscience stand. In the 1980s Sunderlal Bahuguna's movement on Chipko Andolan in the foot hills of Himalaya region in norther India led to a moratorium on felling of trees for 15 years. his policy still prevails currently in diferent form.

industrial and post-industrial societies in these countries. hese policies have led to increase in income for a section of population. What is also true is the fact that growth processes have also increased inequality between 1990s and 2010 for a vast majority of the population in these countries.

he euphoria surrounding globalization, industrialization and unprecedented economic growth has dampened in a large measure in the face of increasing evidence of growing, inequity and worsening social indicators in the last ive years. Kaplinsky (2007) in his inluential volume Globalization, poverty and inequality, drew attention to the impact of innovation under globalization with the metaphor of 'glass as half empty'. Innovation led to growth and prosperity but at the same time reduced the incomes of people and increased inequality among lower sections of society. hree years later, Pranab [START_REF] Bardhan | Awakening Giants -Feet of Clay[END_REF], while assessing the economic rise of China and India, titled his inluential volume as Awakening Giants -Feet of Clay -again drawing attention to inequality under globalization. More recently, Dreze and Sen ( 2013) have painstakingly provided evidence to question the story of euphoria of globalization in their volume, An Uncertain Glory, in the Indian context. here is some evidence in these writings in the case of India to argue that globalization has marginally improved the income of vast majority of poor people during 1990 and 2010. However, the statistics do not reveal the social reality of poor people in distress for the lack of sanitation, access to health, housing and nutritious food. he oicial igures of poverty line in India are so low that it hardly helps vast majority of poor to improve their livelihood in any signiicant manner. 35

In the speciic case of India more than 85% of the labor force nearly 500 million people are in the informal sector (informal employment in Asia is 65%; 48% in North Africa; 51% in Latin innovation centers for addressing nationally and internationally challenging problems such as climate change. here is a good case for these groupings to promote cooperative CICs.

Concluding remarks

he social contract between science and society, in the last couple of decades, has undergone such a dramatic transformation that it is dificult to ind a parallel in the recent post-war history. Since the end of cold war the pace of scientiic research and science based innovation has advanced quite rapidly. At the same time, socio-economic and political context of scientiic research and science organization has undergone a radical change. he very foundation of science as social institution, that has evolved over the years is undergoing a transformation. he change is no less than a 'cultural revolution'. As explored above, three societal forces are responsible for the changing relations between science and society: globalization; industrial and post-industrial policies; and climate change. Given the limitations of time and space, our exploration was limited to analyze some important features of change by selectively drawing upon countries, organizations, actors and agencies from diferent parts of the world. Following points emerge as a way of concluding remarks.

• he impact of globalization is not something conined to mere political, economic and social institutions. hese economic and market bound forces have penetrated deep into the social institution of science and transformed it so radically that we can now clearly distinguish the existing social contract and the emerging social contract between science and society as shown below.

• Globalization has become a reality of society, economy and our daily life-worlds. How can we rescue science institution from completely being overtaken by economic and market oriented forces of globalization? As Amartya Sen observed from an economic perspective, we need to evolve mechanisms for maintaining a 'level playing ield' between public good and market good. We need to evolve institutional mechanisms and policy instruments for 'making globalization work for every one' and not for few. Scientiic criteria/merit as the basis of evaluation.

Autonomy of science institution sustained.

External clients, market institutions interfere and inluence the goal direction of science.

Social and economic interests play a role determining priorities in research.

Autonomy of science institution infringed.

Open knowledge as public good conducive for the advancement of knowledge and technical progress

Secrecy is now institutionalized and accepted by scientiic community in the form IPR and patents.

Patents impede progress of science. • Public good as overarching principle in organizing and funding research in several countries like India played a very signiicant part in enhancing endogenous scientiic and technological capabilities in the post-war era. his needs to be maintained and particularly strengthened in the context of developing and poor countries. Any dilution will have serious implications for the underprivileged sections of society in the developing countries. In industrially advanced countries, public good in science research serves an important function of tackling societal challenges such as climate change and risk in new technologies. Developing countries lack resources to devote too much emphasis on these problems.

• Our experience in the past has shown that open knowledge has its own merits as it helps in solving many important practical problems and at the same time feeds in to advancing newer knowledge thresholds and paradigms. Some institutional safeguards and various exceptions in the clauses governing patents have to be put in place in academic and research organizations so as not to impede further progress of science. 'To privatize basic knowledge is a danger both for the advancement of science, and for the advance of technology' (Nelson 2004: 356).

• Industrial and post-industrial policies have not only increased technological risks of various kinds and intensities but it has created considerable measure of public mistrust of science and fear of technology in the society. his is particularly true after the mad cow disease and GMOs oriented research. Fukushima disaster has led to diferent kind of fear and perception of risk. here is no doubt that these problems relating to risk and hazards in science and technology have to be dealt with by systematic regulatory mechanisms. At the same time, curbing scientiic research by magnifying 'risk' factors or bringing in irrational and non-science issues will be dangerous for the progress of science. his has to be dealt with scientiically and here comes the role of public understanding of science (PUS), which should be expanded and institutionalized at diferent levels of science organization along with other institutional measures.

• Regulatory science and citizen science have emerged as important actors in the democratization of science and society relationships. Representatives of civil society should be given more space in the governance of science and technology. here is a need for a new dialogue between professional bodies, scientiic societies and academies of science and citizen science groups.

• Science and technology policies in the last two decades, has increased income and wealth for a section of the people. his is quite evident in countries such as India and others.

Inclusive innovation is emerging as a new response to address the neglected domain of science and society relations at the 'bottom of the pyramid'. here are several successful models in the case of India, China and other developing countries. But the challenge lies in inding institutional and other avenues to replicate and difuse these success models.

• Inclusive innovation should not be seen as merely 'local' and 'indigenous' traditional knowledge resources and skills that require improvements. Policies should aim at building intermediary institutional mechanisms to connect local and indigenous knowledge traditions with formal and modern science and technology institutions.

• Exploring problems underlying climate change with reference to renewable energy issues has revealed a window of opportunity for developing countries in the form of new concepts such as 'scientiic commons' and climate innovation centers (CIC). However, solutions to various climate change problems seem to be beyond scientiic and technological issues in the domain of international cooperation and an attitude of conciliation and negotiation between North and South.

One is reminded of Gandhi's philosophical observation, that 'earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need but not for every man's greed'.

  institutions. Knowledge as public good; peer review of science; prominence attached to open publications; and premium placed on professional recognition and scientiic autonomy remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries. Based on this ethos of science, the social institution of science evolved a unique social contract between science and society in the last six decades. As we enter the second decade of 21st century, the social institution of science is undergoing a major change. hree societal forces are responsible for the change: a) globalization; b) industrial and post-industrial society; and c) climate change. What is at stake? Is there a signiicant change? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? And what implications this has for our contemporary and future society? Les Working Papers et les Position Papers de la Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme ont pour objectif la difusion ouverte des travaux en train de se faire dans le cadre des diverses activités scientiiques de la Fondation : Le Collège d' études mondiales, Bourses Fernand Braudel-IFER, Programmes scientiiques, hébergement à la Maison Suger, Séminaires et Centres associés, Directeurs d'études associés... Les opinions exprimées dans cet article n' engagent que leur auteur et ne relètent pas nécessairement les positions institutionnelles de la Fondation MSH. he Working Papers and Position Papers of the FMSH are produced in the course of the scientiic activities of the FMSH: the chairs of the Institute for Global Studies, Fernand Braudel-IFER grants, the Foundation's scientiic programmes, or the scholars hosted at the Maison Suger or as associate research directors. Working Papers may also be produced in partnership with ailiated institutions.

  Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 6/26 Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

  11. In 1957 in another inluential article on scientiic priority struggles in science Merton mentioned about two more norms: of originality and counter balancing norm of scientiic humility. Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 9/26 Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

  42 42. Comments of Professor Amartya Sen in a debate with Joseph Stiglitz and Dr Manmohan Singh at FICCI seminar, New Delhi around 2003 at the launching of J. Stiglitz, book Globalization and its Discontents (2002) Elements of existing social contract Elements of emerging social contract Science as part of culture and public good Science is becoming a part of commerce and market good Primary objective of science being advancement of knowledge Generating wealth has become much more important Peer evaluation and social control of scientiic knowledge regulated by science institution.

  Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) expressed similar changes in the goal direction of research. For instance, Guy Aubert, the chief of CNRS in 1995 said, 'it is necessary to reinforce our partnership with business irms and the external world generally….Researchers should recognize that in the present crisis it cannot be taken for granted that there will always be more money to develop knowledge or research… Until recently we have lived with the dogma that it was necessary to support the development of knowledge'.22 In the case of Germany, the fall of Soviet Union and uniication of Germany after 1989 also signaled the end of the post-war social contract between science and society. AsWeingart and Maasen (2007: 75-76) observe, 'one of the latter's central elements had been the institutionalized trust in the self-regulating mechanisms of science assuring the prudent use of public funds and the ultimate utility for the common good of their expenditure. he erosion of this leading principle gave way to a "new deal" between science and society, basically resting on the idea of universities becoming both eicient and organizational actors, largely governed by a managerial regime'. of emphasis from basic research to technological innovation and commercialization. here is nothing wrong in the creation of wealth from knowledge. Scientiic organizations in the postwar era under the existing social contract have been involved in this process via a linear model of innovation. But the problem under the emerging social contract, is that the operating principles of science organizations are undergoing a transformation to mimic corporate R&D whose structure of relevance is with market and commercialization of products. Value addition, proit and creation of wealth have become a primary goal, whilst the advancement of knowledge has taken a back seat. Manifestation of this ideological change can be observed in science organizations.

	Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges 13/26
	what form those beneits would take and when professional competence and had conlicts	Changing Social Contract between research is spent on research into problems that
	they would materialize was unpredictable'. As he further went on to specify, Bush's social contract laid down various principles of science organi-zation: a) high level of autonomy for science; b) decision on which areas of science should be fun-ded be left to scientists; c) peer review to allo-cate resources for research; and d) basic research best suited to be carried out in universities. In substance, the essential features of social of interests. UCS has asked the US Envi-Historically speaking, public good in science, which entails making scientiic discoveries and scientiic facts known and disseminated in the ronment Protection Agency to stop the sup-pression of data relating to public health and honor disclosure of science information. 27 interest of public and welfare of the society at large, played an important part. Public good ver-sus market good are based on two diferent oppo-sing logics: that of open disclosure of research and thus enabling free circulation of knowledge; and that of suppressing information from rea-• Indian traditional system of knowledge, Yoga that is considered as an open source method for a healthy life, is seriously threate-ned. According to information sources 28 US Patent and Trademark Oice has issued 150	science and society -post-1990s With the onset of contemporary phase of globa-lization from the 1990s, a deinite cleavage emer-ged in the social institution of science. he social contract that emerged immediately after the Second World War, which legitimized autonomy of science and considerable public funding for research for almost ive decades, begun to weaken. Ethos and norms of science such as public good only efect 10% of the world's people'. 23 Monsan-to's 'Terminator Gene' is another example of how scientiic research is being directed to maximise proit and increased market access for products. This has been happening since quite a long time in corporate research. The radical change that has come about is in the large public research orga-nisations and universities, which are now partne-ring corporate R&D in a big way
	contract between science and society that we ching the public for making a proit or regula-yoga related copyrights, 134 patents on yoga	of knowledge; peer evaluation and peer review of he two changes, namely market good and crea-
	have seen above manifested in other institutions ting research based on market criteria and steer accessories and 2035 yoga trademarks. Not	science from groups within the discipline-based tion of wealth that are well entrenched in the ins-
	in Europe and Asia. For instance, he Humboldt it towards commercialization of research. he surprisingly even Yoga mat is patented.	scientiic elite; social control of science exercised titution of science have begun to have very serious
	model of organizing modern universities, which combined teaching and research functions in the same institutional sphere for the irst time, is refer-red as he Humboldt Social Contract (Ben Martin 2003). his model spread all over Germany and to other countries. Here also the government assumed the main responsibility to fund univer-sity-based research with considerable autonomy. In essence, the principles of social contract were widely prevalent and lourished through out post-war era until mid 1990s. For instance, Aubert Guy (1995) the Director-General of CNRS in 1995, remarked 'until recently we have lived with the dogma that it was necessary to support the deve-lopment of knowledge'. It was only after 1990s that transformations began to occur in France. 17 In Britain the social contract was upheld by the Haldane Principle, which advocated that the government would fund scientiic research but scientists will be left with considerable autonomy as to how to spend their research money on ields of research. he decisions on research were left to the scientiic community and research councils. Funding research universities were left with considerable autonomy until about 1970s and 1980s when Rothschild's Report begun to have some impact on science. 18 Similar situation pre-vailed in large science organizations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and South Africa. 1990s witnessed the beginning of the new ten-sion between these two logics in the organiza-tion and administration of scientiic research the world over. he tensions increased with the globalization and the rise of Transnational Cor-porations worldwide. Operating mechanisms of market driven commercial interests were applied to regulate research in most public science orga-nizations from 1990s. During twelve years between 1984 and 1996 CNRS increased its contracts with irms almost ten fold, from 350 to more than 3200. Assisted by • Remedies based on traditional knowledge of turmeric and neem are patented by the US and European Patent Oices -but got revoked by Indian science organizations and civil society groups. here are other cases such basmati rice, Darjeeling tea etc., and various natu-a series of tax incentives and the focus of National Agency for Valorisation of Research (ANVAR) on SMEs, CNRS partnerships with industry ral and geographic foods and beverages are threatened from their synthetic bio-similars. he Director General of French CNRS and the Chief of Australian Commonwealth Scientiic 21. CSIR set up a committee to examine the new context for the re-organisation of CSIR under the Chairmanship of R.A. Mashelkar, the then Director of the National Chemical Laboratory, one of India's leading laboratories in chemical and pharmaceutical research. he Committee's report, 'Cre-ating an Enabling Environment for Commercialization of CSIR Knowledge-base', was submitted in 1993. he main recommendations were quite radical and clearly argued for mercial and corporate basis by creating marketing groups in each laboratory; investing in equity and allowing scientists to serve on corporate bodies and creating speciic institu-tional channels and mechanisms to foster commercialization of research. concluded that 90% per cent of the world's health that ' Global Forum for Health Research has (ESRC) program in science in society observes UK's Economic and Social Research Council's re-organising the functioning of CSIR research on a com-scientiic research taking place. For instance, received a good boost in the 1990s. In the last decade there have been recurrent drives towards reorganisation and evaluation of French CNRS and universities that led to massive protests since 2008. National Research and Innovation Strategy was launched in 2009. In varying forms these are attempts to drive research more towards innovation and market end of the R&D spectrum for the creation of wealth. he National Agency for Research created in 2005 to fund research on competitive basis and Competitiveness Cluster Policy came into operation in 2008. he same year witnessed the reform of French universities. For the irst time in history the governance of public research in universities was changed to here are serious distortions in priorities of of science. new knowledge but will impede the very progress have serious implications for the generation of UK, Japan and India. his is not only going to in major science agencies in Germany, Australia, commercial interests not only in CNRS but also from the advancement of knowledge towards of Directors. here is a clear sign of shift away allow irms to get representation in the Board • Indian science agencies have established mul-tidisciplinary teams to work on digitally cata-loging 1,500 Yoga poses recorded in ancient texts written in Sanskrit, Urdu and Persian. India will use the catalogue to block anyone from obtaining patents on the 5,000-year-old open knowledge on stretching, breathing and meditating. Digital codiication of traditio-nal knowledge by CSIR is now a big research programme to tackle bio-piracy from corpo-rate research agencies. Bio-diversity registers which catalogue important facts in the indi-genous systems of knowledge in medicine, environment etc., are being documented in all districts of India.	15. Vannevar Bush in 1941 became advisor to American President Roosevelt as he was appointed as the Director of the Oice of Scientiic Research and Development (OSRD) that played a signiicant role in the Second World War via Manhattan Project. 16. he social contract of Vennevar Bush guided US post-war scientiic research with a focus on basic research. his should not be taken to suggest purely fundamental research. by the social institution of science; prominence attached to open science which was conducive to the advancement of knowledge; premium placed on professional recognition and rewards; and various other values which remained the hall mark of science begun to transform under the impact of globalization. In 1994 six science policy experts led by Michael implications for a number of developing countries. For instance, the initial processes of institutiona-lisation and professionalization of science that is going on in several African countries is disrupted in the face of radical changes that are taking place in the social institution of science. Open science to secrecy and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Gibbon from the Sussex university's Science policy Research Unit put forward a thesis to argue that the academic science and the ethos of science as social institution characterized as Mode -1 knowledge is undergoing a transformation to post-academic science system they called Mode -2. 19 As well known physicist and science policy analyst, John Ziman (1996: 752) remarked, 'aca-demic science is undergoing a cultural revolu-tion. It is giving way to "post-academic' science which may be so different sociologically and phi-losophically that will produce a different type of knowledge'. There are several other inluential scholars 20 who shared the view that the contract between science and society is changing fast. In the light of this brief review on social transfor-mation of science and society relations, let us see what is at stake? What is actually changing or transformed over the last two decades or so? 19. Mode -1 is characterized as academic science pursued in universities and science organisations; disciplinary; ho-mogeneity; autonomy; and traditional quality control (peer review). Where as, mode -2 is characterized as emerging from context of application; transdisciplinary, heterogeneity; relexivity and subject to accountability; and controlled by novelty quality control. 26. Ibid ties, 12 25. ICSU (2005), Science and Society: Rights and Responsibili-body operating within UNESCO 24. International Council of Scientiic Unions (ICSU) a In Australia, CSIRO's National Research Flag-ships initiative was launched in 2003 by consti-tuting six national multidisciplinary programmes. For the irst time CSIRO hired top professionals from US Business Schools to design a new trajec-tory of commercialization in scientiic research. Research at CSIRO by 2002 was reorganized in terms of national 'lagships'. A Deputy CEO of CSIRO stressed that while 'lagships are about doing excellent science, they are also very much about delivery, about ensuring that the technol-ogy or outcome of the research is taken up and used' (Krishna 2007). Advancing knowledge to creation of wealth Scientiic communities and large science organi-zations have begun to give less and less impor-tance to the advancement of knowledge. hey are reoriented towards 'creation of wealth' -an impor-tant ideological shift that has happened in the last 23. See ESRC (2003) couple of decades. here has been a corresponding various science committees who did not have the US government for appointing experts on there were 20 Nobel Laureates. hey charged Among 60 prominent scientists in UCS restore scientiic integrity in policy making. ted a petition to President George Bush to Concerned Scientists (UCS) in USA submit-• On 8 February 2004, a body called Union of as follows: ICSU 24 expressed serious concerns in 2005 with regard to equity, access and challenges of univer-sality. 25 Its report noted that 'end of Cold War has not brought, as some had hoped, an end to concerns about the mobility of scientists and the free low of science. Rather, traditional threat to mobility and Principle of Universality conti-nue in many areas of the world in the form of state discrimination against scientists and repres-sion of research and communication'. 26 here are some other serious developments, which indi-cate how open science is sacriiced. here is a big move towards IPR, secrecy and patenting in science, which has already taken deep roots in the science system. Some notable developments are

As it turned out, this report became an historic document called Science: The Endless Frontier

(1945)

, often referred to as Vannevar Bush Social Contract for science in USA. What we know as 'science-push' or linear model of innovation

16

that guided scientiic research in the post war era was set out in the Bush report. As Ben

Martin (2003: 9)

points out, 'the clear implication of the model was that if, government put money into the basic research end of the chain, out from the other end of the chain would eventually come beneits in terms of wealth, health and national security, although On the other hand military oriented, weapons oriented and all types of long term and short term basic research was promoted in US within the overarching Bush doctrine. he linear model of innovation that this doctrine advocated became popular in one form or other all over Europe and in Asia in countries like India.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

In France, even though Grandes Ecoles and universities to some extent concentrated on teaching, the full time basic research was delegated to specialized science organizations such as National Centre for Scientiic Research (CNRS).

17. See

Vavakova (1998)

18. his report advocated the 'customer -contract' principle which raised accountability and at the same attempted to reorient the then existing pattern of funding scientiic research in the UK.

20. See Ben

[START_REF] Martin | he changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university[END_REF]

. It may also be pointed out that various scholars questioned Gibbons et.al mode-1; and mode-2 formulations. See

[START_REF] Godin | he place of universities in the knowledge production[END_REF]

; Pester (

2003

); and Shinn (2003). Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54 Public good to market good R.A. Mashelkar, Director-General of India's largest science organization, Council of Scientiic and Industrial Research (CSIR) in January 1996 articulated new research policies called CSIR 2001: Vision and Strategy. 21 These policies, in effect, opened a new 'paradigm' signaling a break with the past. This new policy became a road map and a strategy for future of CSIR operative well into the present times. Mashelkar considered himself as the 'CEO of CSIR' and deined a new product and process for CSIR. 'The new product was research as a business. The new process was doing research in a business like manner' which in all its ramiications enthused the industry, corporate and business world through creating a global R&D platform (Krishna 2007). and 22. Guy Aubert's interview in Les Echoes, 13 March 1995 as quoted in Banka Vavakova, 'he new social contract between governments, universities and society: has the old one failed?', Minerva, 36, pp208-228. Actually the change began in CNRS since the 1980s from President Mitterrand's time. Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54 shift Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

  With the history of strong environmental movements in Europe and Asia, green politics have come to assume an important role in science and society relations, particularly in regulatory science. For instance, in late 1990s ive governments in Europe including France had green parties, which played a signiicant role in regulating science, particularly in the aftermath of mad cow disease in the case of GMOs.

	In Germany the moment conception takes place
	life comes into being and hence scientists are
	not allowed to do research on stem cells. They
	can however import embryonic stem cells for
	research. In UK the concept of 14-day conceptus
	(gap between fertilization and birth of embryo,
	fetus) before conspicuous cell differentiation
	appears was devised to allow research on up to
	14 days embryonic stem cells. USA under Bush
	administration completely banned public funding
	for stem cell research on religious grounds. Deci-
	sions on safety standards on food additives, for
	automobile exhaust emissions, radiation by tele-
	communication towers and power plants, lead
	levels and pollution levels in the atmosphere etc.,
	are taken not necessarily based on any consen-sual scientiic opinion but by politically driven
	technical regimes concerned with science and
	technology regulation. Biotechnology has emer-
	ged as the most contested research terrain, which
	has led us to institutionalize regulatory science in
	the interest of society at large. Leading scholars
	like Francis Fukuyama has given a loud call for
	regulating biotechnology:
	When big science institutions such as European
	Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
	come out with mega scientiic experiments and
	discovers 'God Particle' (that is Higgs boson par-
	ticle), there is hardly any controversy and the
	world accepted it as one of the important disco-
	veries. his is very much part of big science and
	advancement of knowledge. It is not the same
	with embryonic stem cells research and bio-medi-
	cal scientiic research regulation. Eight weeks and
	younger embryonic stem cells have the potential
	to produce any cell type in the body. Diferent
	governments and cultures in Europe, North
	America and Asia deine and regulate science
	here to take a decision for allowing research on
	stem cell. he ways in which decisions are made
	about scientiic research on stem cells depend
	profoundly on political cultures, religious beliefs
	and what government accepts on the basis of
	public mood. Traditional structures or the social
	contract of science of the post-war era has broken
	down in Europe, as elsewhere, by the late 1990s
	for new technosciences. 31

  But these estimates are based on the controversial Tendulkar methodology, which ixes poverty line of rural people at Rs.22.42 per person and Rs.28.65 in urban areas. Given the inlation rates of about 8 to 9% per annum during this period, it is diicult to imagine how people are coming out of poverty whilst the income of middle and rich classes have witnessed considerable increase during the same period. http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54 America; 72% in Sub-Saharan Africa; 15% in developed countries)36 . Some 500 million people in India and China will migrate to urban areas in the coming two decades.37 One can characterize this as a 'Great Transition' in Asia. When we speak in North versus South terms, we include developed countries such as Australia in the North group.39. One is referring to countries such as Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru etc., in the Paciic and small countries like Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

	35. For instance, according to the Planning Commission ru-ral poverty reduced from 42% to 33.8% in rural areas; and 25.5% to 20.9% in urban areas between 2005 and 2010 re-spectively. It is not just an issue of creating sustainable mega urban cities, but the problem for India and China is how can we create employment and sustainable livelihoods for over three quarter billion people living in non-urban regions? Can we arrest urban low? High technology and 'big science' projects that are talked about in India and China are unli-kely to have immediate or medium term solutions to these parts of Asia for people in the informal economy. Whilst the fruits of these high techno-logy and big science need to be extended or even down scaled to link up to these regions, one is looking towards new perspective or a paradigm of sustainable development and inclusive innova-tion to address the problem of rural-urban migra-tion and informal economy. The new paradigm that is emerging is known as inclusive innovation. It refers to different types and forms of innovation activities or per-formance by which we can get more for lesser cost and which could cater and meet the needs and demands of more people. Local knowledge systems are blended with science and technology and are deployed to scale up their use in manufac-turing and designing a variety of needs for people at the bottom of the pyramid. Inclusive innova-tion may or may not be R&D based and need not always mean technological innovation. Inclusive innovation also means institutional, individual, social, business and organizational innovation manifested in micro-enterprises. In all its ramii-cations, inclusive innovation has led to an alter-native science and society relations anchored at the 'bottom of the pyramid'. There are now suc-cessful models and institutional operating mecha-nisms at the ground level. Jaipur foot and hand; Barefoot College, Arvind Eye Clinic, Narayana Hrudalaya, National Innovation Foundation and Honeybee Network, among others, are good examples of what the future holds for a vast majority of people in India in the informal sector. here is indeed a big movement of actors, agen-cies and institutional initiatives in India, China 36. Based on ILO and World Bank reports. 37. According to some current estimates and reports from UN Population Division of the Department of Social and Economic Afairs and various other developing countries to bridge a diferent kind of 'divide'. Inclusive innovation and science and society rela-tions at the bottom of the pyramid have given a big boost to scientiic and technological plura-lism. A new perspective to bring together tradi-tional and modern science in agriculture, health, manufacturing and a number of other activities has demonstrated the potential for sustaining livelihoods of people. Climate Change and the Challenge of Energy Research Climate change and rising Co2 levels, is the third major social force that is posing diferent type of challenges to science and society relations. Much of the problem in inding solutions to cli-mate change issues seems to fall beyond mere science and technology factors into science and society relations. hese encompass complex sets of relations between industrially developed Nor-thern versus developing South countries; between emerging BRICS versus North 38 ; between BRICS versus rest of the developing world; and between small developing and very vulnerable countries such as in the Paciic 39 and Indian Ocean versus neighboring large countries. his is quite appa-rent from the outcome of Bali Action Plan, Kyoto Protocol and the three UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change meetings at Copenha-gen, Cancun and Durban. here are four major challenges that are crucial and which have come into sharp focus: 1. here is a clear realization now than ever before that our mode and pace of hyper industrialization and modernization process is unlikely to be sustainable from the pers-pective of climate change issues. In a number of ways this reminds us of the 'Club of Rome' Report on Limits to Growth; 2. One of the most contested issues that have come to surface since the Bali Action Plan between developed North and developing countries of South is the framework on lities' (CBDR). Diferentiated responsibi-lity is based upon the historical responsi-bility of States and difering capacities of States or countries to address climate change. Hence the distinction made between Annex 1 countries (most of North countries) and Non-Annex 1 countries, in the South. Dif-ferent capacities that command science and technology factors are at the core of this issue. Industrialized nations have the scientiic and technological capacity to address climate change both through mitigation and adapta-tion. Developing South countries do not have the same command and capacity. Historically speaking who has contributed to the carbon build up in the atmosphere and who bene-ited from it most? Much of the responsi-bility and onus lies on these countries is an issue which is being contested; However, to limit our discussion from this large climate change canvass, let us consider two examples from energy related problems. hese are speciically chosen to throw light on how science and society relations in energy related issue has the prospect of opening up a window for addres-sing the issue, though in a small way. Need for scientiic commons Building national capacities in low carbon inno-vation in energy technologies is emerging as one of the major solutions to address the problem of Co2 emissions. Nuclear energy is capital intensive and demands a high level of local and national technological capability to manage it. For a num-ber of reasons only a small number of countries have evolved the capacity to harness this techno-logy. However, it was considered as appropriate to address climate change problems before Fuku-shima disaster. In any case, the entry barriers and mechanisms for administering 'scientiic com-mons'. In this speciic case, a number of crucial patents and knowhow could be obtained from the market by a UN regime on climate change and place it in the pool of 'scientiic commons'. he vative technology among SMEs'. 41 Neighboring countries could beneit by joining in such CIC on cooperative basis to optimize scarce resources for establishing technological capacities. Without establishing technological capacities in some cru-38. 'Common But Diferentiated Responsibi-political hurdles are so high that it is diicult to developing and poor countries can access these cial sectors of renewable and clean energy, inclu-3. Closely related to this is the contested issue be adopted by several developing countries. technologies. BRICS may not qualify for this ding energy eicient technologies, it will become of economic calculations of carbon emis-sions in the atmosphere based on per capita basis rather than country based calculations. Countries with large populations such as China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, among others, are negotiating this issue which is not acceptable to Northern developed countries as it will tilt the balance of CBRD in favor of developing world; 4. he fourth issue is related to technology transfer from North to South. Leaving emer-ging economies such as BRICS, which have considerable science and technology capacity, the main issue of technology transfer involves the bulk of developing world in Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, Asia and Paciic etc. Some initiatives such as Clean Develop-ment Mechanism (CDM), which involves Annex 1 countries to invest in projects lea-ding to emission reduction in Non-Annex 1 countries, did not lead to any technology transfer. Given scientiic and technical capa-city of North to tackle climate change pro-blems, the issue of relevant technology trans-category but it will help a vast majority of nations diicult to even absorb technologies under inter-Much of the 'know how' and 'know why' in in Africa, Asia, Paciic and Latin America. national technology transfer. Crossing this hurdle renewable and clean technologies (photo voltaic and thin ilms, wind power technologies, advance remains the main problem in several developing Climate innovation centers countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. biofuel, hybrid technology for automobiles, bat-tery operated cars, among others) is located in the industrially advanced countries of Europe, North America and Japan. Here intellectual property rights (IPRs), patents and international techno-logy transfer regimes play a very signiicant part in the deployment of renewable and clean tech-nologies to small and poor developing countries. In the present circumstances, renewable energy technologies in wind, solar, bioconversion etc., seems quite relevant. However, as the following table 1 shows, more than 95% of the relevant patents in renewable energy technologies, indi-cating innovation potential, is concentrated in Europe, North America and Japan. Where as OECD countries invest around 2.5% For instance there are potential cases of science average of GDP on R&D, emerging economies cooperation via CICs on problem or themes. In (BRICS) spend around 1% to 1.5% of GDP. Vast the case of China, India, Indonesia and Australia majority of more than 65 developing countries coal will play a signiicant part (over 50% of total spend 0.1% to 0.5% of GDP. Given the low level energy needs) in the coming 40 years. he idea of scientiic and technological capacity in gene-of cooperative CIC in coal eiciency technolo-ral and climate related energy and innovation in gies (such as Carbon capture and storage -CCS, particular, a novel idea emerges for establishing Integrated gasiication combined cycle etc.,) will Climate Innovation Centers (CIC) based on be of paramount importance. For example, a mere cooperation among a group of countries to focus demonstration for a CCS plant would cost more on certain critical themes and problem areas. 40 than a billion US $ that is unlikely to be met by For instance, Kenya has already taken a lead to any single country. Technological cooperation establish CIC. As pointed out by its Prime Minis-among South countries, outside global climate ter, CICs are meant 'speciically to achieve the platforms and regimes (such as the meetings of essential technological advancement and inno-Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban), seems more Aftermath of 2008 inancial crises almost all 40. he idea of Climate Innovation Centers was mooted by promising. developed countries is banking on evolving glo-bal competitiveness in renewable energy and green technologies. It is unlikely that they would give away or transfer energy eiciency techno-India before Copenhagen conference. Later the idea gained here are various regional groupings such as importance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ASEAN, SAARC in Asia; and Common Market Change (IPCC), the World Bank, U.K. Department for In-for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), ternational Development (DFID) and other international fer to small and poor South and developing countries is the most important factor in addressing the problem. A new paradigm of climate change cooperation in technology transfer for these countries seems an impor-logies (for example such as LED) to developing countries. Reeling under recession, developed countries like Japan have identiied green tech-nologies as new sources to improve their econo-agencies involved in climate change. See also Climate Inno-East African Community (EAC), Southern Afri-vation Centers -A new way to foster climate change technologies can Development Community (SADC) etc., in in the developing world, An InfoDev publication in collabo-Africa. With the exception of SAARC univer-ration with UNIDO and DFID, 2010, IBRD and World sity in New Delhi, (combined efort of South Bank (hereafter referred to as CIC report). It may be noted that this report does not mention about a group of countries Asian countries) no other country grouping mies. As Nelson (2007) at length argued, inter-tant avenue. national agencies responsible for climate change coming together to form CIC. It mentions stand alone CICs seems to have established any joint research and by countries. Group of countries coming together is the pro-governance must ind suitable institutional posal being mooted in this essay. 41. Ibid, p9

Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

Table 1 :

 1 Patent holding of renewable energy technologies in the world 2007

	Renewable energy	Wind power patents	Auto pollution	Photovoltaic patents
	patents -%	-numbers	control patents -%	-%
	EU: 36%	EU 162	Japan 38%	Japan 38%
	USA: 20%	USA 29	EU 48.9%	EU 30%
	Japan: 19.8%	India 2	USA 8%	USA 35%
	BRICS: 6.5%	China 2	BRICS 0.7%	BRICS 5%
	N= 1068	N= 196		N= 2000

Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

Table 2 :

 2 Changing Social Contract Between Science and Society

Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme -190 avenue de France -75013 Paris -France http://www.fmsh.fr -FMSH-WP-2013-54

'In Europe, traditional structures and procedures for deciding which technological innovations to encourage, which to forbid, and which to restrict broke down in the late 1990s under the weight of issues such as mad cow disease and biotechnology. Today, a fascinating set of institutional experiments in policymaking is underway in the United Kingdom


Interpreting conversations in pathological contexts

Manuel Rebuschi 1 Maxime Amblard 1 ,3 ,4 Michel Musiol Schizophrenia is well-known among mental illnesses for the severity of the thought disorders it involves, and for their widespread and spectacular manifestations: from deviant social behavior to delusion, not to mention affective and sensitive distortions. The goal of our interdisciplinary work is to (i) analyze linguistic troubles in conversational contexts in which one of the speakers is schizophrenic, (ii) construe how the concept of rationality and logicality may apply to them, and (iii) propose a formal representation about this specific manifestation. Our data are chosen in transcriptions of real conversations between a psychologist and a schizophrenic patient. Data collection and selection relied on theoretical hypotheses from psychiatry and psychopathology. Confronted with such a pathological conversation, any ordinary speaker intuitively feels that there are some incoherencies and discontinuities. Since speech incongruities raise the issue of the nature of rationality and its connections with logicality, the interpretative part of our research is naturally related to fields such as philosophy, philosophy of mind and philosophy of logic. The initial corpus was picked up from conversations with thirty patients and revealed specific linguistic discontinuities for the paranoid schizophrenic sub-class on which excerpts we focused on. The formal framework used in this research is that of Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) [START_REF] Asher | Logics of conversation[END_REF]. SDRT combines two levels of analysis in order to account for the interpretive process at work in conversations: semantic content and conversational pragmatics. The first is analyzed via SDRS inspired by the DRS which is a syntactic construction updated by conversational flow [START_REF] Kamp | From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory[END_REF]. Conversation also implies pragmatic relations between speech acts, the complexity of which gives rise to a hierarchical structure first described in linguistics in the 1980s [START_REF] Roulet | L'articulation du discours en français contemporain[END_REF]. The assumption we make is that schizophrenics do not always conform to the rules that prevail in this double construction, which explains the phenomenon of conversational failure. Even if we focus on SDRT, we assume that propositions are DRSs. However, we also introduce themes, which should be supported by the DRSs. Themes are coherent sets of DRSs. We assume that a DRS cannot simultaneously belong to two different themes, unless one is included in the other one. Exchanges are excerpts from larger exchanges, whose starting point is a particular semantically vacuous node which can be used to link to a new proposition in the pragmatic representation. Analyses of excerpts lead us to highlight two transgressions of the standard SDRT rules: breaks of the right frontier and rises through the structure without any acceptable low fence (inconsistency of representation). For the second phenomenon, it is common to identify items that are used both to close a part and to open a new one. But the schizophrenic sometimes does not respect this dual effect and creates an incomplete representation that is not interpretable in a usual way.

1

The main result of the research is that pathological uses of language play with formal hypotheses which validate them. In the other side, the formal semantics-pragmatic representation focuses on a specific use of language by a given pathology. Our empirical research leads us to an epistemological reflection about the dual role of interpretation in formal analyses of conversations (vs. monologues). Indeed, in order to analyze pathological conversations two kinds of interpretations were to be taken into consideration: (1) the basic level of the interpretation by the speakers themselves, who must interpret the successive building speech acts, and (2) the theoretical level, where the scientists have to select the relevant data and provide an explanation. However, the analyses were made according to theoretical choices closely related to interpretive perspectives of the speakers. The elementary level shows a duality of views (the schizophrenic's one, and the psychologist'one), which expresses a differential sensitivity to incongruities. Accounting for this duality led us to a distinction between two representations of conversations, each of them depending on what counts as a priority: pragmatic correction for ordinary speakers, and logicity for extraordinary speakers. The speakers' rationality thus appears as strongly dependent of the interpretative perspective.

  1 ,5 1. MSH Lorraine -Maison des Sciences de l'Homme Lorraine 2. LHSP -Laboratoire d'Histoire des Sciences et de Philosophie -Archives Henri Poincaré 3. LORIA -Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications 4. INRIA Nancy -Grand Est / LORIA -SEMAGRAMME 5. ATILF -Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française