GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
Science-Technology Relationships in SinoWestern Philosophies of Technology: Hints for
Innovation, Competitiveness, and Policy
Gui Hong Cao
I.
Abstract - Science, technology, and innovation play crucial
roles in the society. Studies on science-technology relationships
primarily serve for innovation, competitiveness, and policy.
Nevertheless, science-technology relationships in the evolution
have been disputed in studies from academic and practical
circles, especially from the philosophy of technology. This
project aims to investigate science-technology relationships in
Sino-Western philosophies of technology, and the hints for
innovation, competitiveness, and policy. This paper launches
and argues on a theoretical framework for science-technology
relationships: (i) technology emerges earlier than science; (ii)
science and technology are different but closely connected; (iii)
science and technology engage in dynamic interaction; (iv)
science-technology interaction takes various forms in its
complex progress of nonlinearity and diversification; and (v)
science-technology integration is presentational. This study
applies a systems-theoretic approach to the interdependent
policy issues relating to science, technology, innovation, and
competitiveness. This article examines how endogenous and
exogenous developments of science and technology in China
and the West based on science-technology relationships have
influenced science and technology innovations, national
competitiveness, and science and technology policies. The
results reveal cognitive progress and cultural diversity.
National competitiveness is preferentially strengthened in real
productivities by technological invention and innovation,
assisted by scientific research and innovation. This study
recommends shifting the centers of science policy and
technology policy from exogenous developments to endogenous
developments. This article proposes proper reforms from
exogenous growth to endogenous growth in science and
technology innovations, national competitiveness, and science
and technology policies for policy making.
INTRODUCTION
With rapid developments and drastic competitiveness
of science and technology, science, technology, and
innovation have critical impacts on the society. Society
gains from the advances in science and technology. The
creation and spread of knowledge increasingly drive
innovation, sustainable economic growth, and social wellbeing, as highlighted in the meeting of the Organisation for
Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD)
Committee for science and technology policies in 2004
(OECD, 2004). Since the formulation of its goal to retain
world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering
in the 1950s, the United States (US) has led the world in
science and technology with the America COMPETES Act
of 2007. However, in 2000 the European Union (EU) set
its strategic goal to become the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. The EU
integrated science, technology, and innovation in its
strategies. Despite the delayed efforts to meet the EU goal
to improve its Research and Develop ment (R&D)
investment to 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2010, the EU seems to work better compared to the US that
has not stated any plans. Under the strategy of invigorating
China through science and education, China maintains
more than 15% growth in R&D investment with nearly 10%
GDP increase annually (Shelton and Foland, 2009). In
2006, China launched its “Medium- to Long-term Plan for
the Development of Science and Technology (2006–2020)
(MLP)”. This MLP calls for China to beco me an
innovation-oriented society with indigenous innovation
capabilities and leading position in new science -based
industries by 2020, and a world leader in science and
Keywords: Science-technology relationships; Philosophy of
technology; Innovation; Competitiveness; Policy; Exogenous and
endogenous developments
This project has been supported by the China Scholarship Council
(CSC) in China and the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden.
DOI: 10.5176/2345-7856_2.1.24
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
10
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
technology by 2050. By 2020, China plans to increase
R&D investment with 2.5% growth of GDP from 1.34% in
2005. According to the MLP, China will increase the
contribution of technological advance for economic growth
to over 60% and restrict its dependence on imported
technology to no more than 30%. This plan also calls for
China to become one of the top five nations globally in
terms of the number of invention patents granted to
Chinese citizens and for Chinese-authored scientific papers
to become among the world’s most cited (Cao et al., 2006).
In short, science and technology policies have been
increasingly used to improve actively national innovation
and competition in the world.
launches a theoretical framework and the interdependent
policy issues. Section 4 analyzes science and technology
policies. Section 5 discusses the hints on innovation,
competitiveness, and policy, and also proposes policy
making.
II.
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
A. Technology and science
Initially, technology emerged much earlier than
science. Ancient technology accompanied the birth of
humanity. The production and use of technology marked the
emergence of humans, with labor differentiating humans
from other common animals. In ancient times without
literary (e.g., the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic
Ages), human beings identified the world with technology,
such as the skills of using stone and fire. Later in literary
history, technology was recorded in literature, for example,
the Four Great Inventions of ancient China (i.e., compass,
gunpowder, papermaking, and printing). Science did not
exist in the ancient times until its establishment in the
modern time in Europe with the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment. As phrased by British scientist Needham
(1964) in the Needham Question, “the essential problem [is]
why modern science (as we know it since the seventeenth
century, the time of Galileo) had not developed in Chinese
civilization (or Indian) but only in Europe?” (p. 385). Then,
he focused on the second question, “why, between the first
century B.C. and the fifteenth century A.D., Chinese
civilization was much more efficient than occidental in
applying human natural knowledge to practical human
needs?” (p. 385). He compiled what the Europeans had
learned about the science, medicine, and technology in
China for more than three hundred years. Needham
determined two major reasons why Chinese science failed
to modernize (from culture and system). First of all,
Confucianism and Taoism in Chinese culture affected the
informing attitudes toward nature and science among the
educated elite. Furthermore, China lacked a merchantcapitalist system as developed in Europe from the late
Middle Ages to the Age of Discovery (Lu, 2011). As
suggested by Needham (2004), “A continuing general and
scientific progress manifested itself in traditional Chinese
society but this was violently overtaken by the exponential
growth of modern science after the Renaissance in Europe.
China was homeostatic, but never stagnant.” (vol 7, part 2).
Studies on the relationships between science and
technology show that they serve primarily for innovation
(e.g., Brooks, 1994; De Solla Price, 1984), competitiveness
and policy (e.g., Bernardes and Albuquerque, 2003; Dosi et
al., 2006; Ju, 2007; Moed et al., 2005). These relationships
between science and technology, however, have changed in
the past and will continue to change in the future (Langrish,
1974). Under the current dramatic developments of science,
technology, and innovation, the science -technology
relationships have been controversial in studies of both
academic and practical circles, especially in the Sino Western philosophies of technology recently (e.g., Radder,
2009; Zhang and Zhang, 2001). These studies into the
evolution of the relationships between science and
technology have often contained misconceptions. For
example, the view that technology was an applied science in
the 1960s (Bunge, 1966 ) has beco me outdated in
contemporary science, technology, and innovation society.
In order to clarify the misconceptions, this study attempts to
investigate the science-technology relationships in SinoWestern philosophies of technology, and the hints regarding
innovation, competitiveness, and policy. Both Sino and
China specify Chinese mainland. The West mainly refers to
the countries located in the Northern and Western
hemispheres, including the US and the EU. The research on
the philosophy of technology covers the relationships
b et wee n sci en ce and te ch no lo g y i n t he field s o f
technological nature and social influences. It is important to
analyze science-technology relationships theoretically,
historically, and logically so as to transfer science and
technology into real productive forces. Specifically, what
are the relationships between science and technology at the
theoretical level and practical implication? In order to
answer the questions, this study uses various method s
including comparison and contrast and policy analyses. The
rest of this article proceeds as follows. Section 2 examines
the relationships between science and technology. Section 3
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
11
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
In terms of tradition, contrasted with the craftsmen
tradition of technology, science has a philosophical tradition.
Science and philosophy have been interrelated in knowledge
since classical antiquity. Natural science was developed
from natural philosophy. Science emerged in the
Renaissance (14th–17th century) and became commonly
used as a type of pursuit of knowledge in the Enlightenment
(17th–18th century). After the term of “scientist” was coined
by naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1833, science
became a profession in the 19th century (Wu, 2011).
why is theoretical and declarative. Technological
knowledge to do what and know how is practical, procedural,
autonomous, and descriptive, rather than an application of
knowledge (Houkes, 2009; Layton, 1974). In terms of
methodology, science often begins with a set of hypotheses
that are subsequently verified or falsified as a result of a
process of experimentation. Technology mainly integrates a
process of design, invention, creation, and innovations with
practical experiences of trial and error. In terms of axiology,
both are valuable related to the world. Science is mainly
concerned with knowing the world and discovering the truth
while technology primarily changes the world, enhances
efficiency, and resolves problems in a practical manner. In
short, this study argues that science and technology are
fundamentally different but closely connected in terms of
philosophical ontology, epistemology, methodology, and
axiology (Table 1).
In terms of ontology, science represents theoretical
discoveries and involves natural objects while technology
manifests itself in technological inventions and involves
man-made objects, processes, and designs (Hansson, 2007).
In terms of epistemology, science and technology can be
treated as separate spheres of knowledge, both man-made
(Wise, 1985). Scientific knowledge to know what and know
Table 1. Philosophical contrast of science and technology
Science
Technology
A. ontology
scientific discovery
technological invention
object
natural nature
artificial nature
process
from objectivity to subjectivity
from subjectivity to objectivity
performance
ideological form
materialized form
discipline
natural science
social science
B. epistemology
theoretical laws in knowledge system
practical rules in knowledge system
knowledge
scientific, theoretical, and declarative
technological, practical & procedural, autonomous & descriptive
know
know what, know why
do what, know how
tradition
philosophical tradition
craftsmen tradition
source
conjectures and refutations in theory
labors and experiences in practice
practitioner
scientists
technologists, engineers
C. methodology
verify or falsify
trial or error
characteristic
explore and discover
design, invent, and create
mode
logical-deductive
empirical-inductive
model
paradigm shift
institution shift
means
shared and unique
diversified and standardized
D. axiology value
know the world, discover a theoretical truth
change the world, enhance efficiency, resolve practical problems
standard
space
time
openness
truth
borderless
timeless
open
utilitarian
border
timeliness
confidential
productivity
mental, extensive, indirect and potent
material, original, direct and realistic
opposition
pseudoscience
false technology
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
12
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
B.
Unbalanced development between science and
technology
West displaced ancient China after Renaissance in the third
peak (14th–20th century). Specifically, Western science
and technology centers have changed from Europe (Italy in
the 16th century, Britain in the 17th century, France in the
18th century, Germany in the 19th century) to America in
the 20th century. Five science and technology revolutions
have occurred, including two scientific revolutions and three
technological revolutions. The first scientific revolution
(1543–1687) involved astronomy and physics, while the next
one (1900–1926) was majorly related to physics. The first
technological revolution was the Industrial Revolution
(1698–1825), followed by the Power Revolution (1832–
1906), and the Electronic Technology Revolution (1946–
1970) and Information Technology (IT) Revolution (1970–
2020). Predictably, the sixth science and technology
revolution (namely, Regeneration Revolution) (2020–2050)
may be a new biology revolution from a scientific
perspective, or a creation or regeneration revolution from a
technological perspective. The seventh science and
technology revolution (2050–2100) may be the Space-Time
Revolution in a new space-time, new energy, and new
transport (He, 2012).
Science and technology have unevenly developed in
history. Before Bacon announced their marriage in the 17th
century, science and technology were divided for more than
three centuries (Kuhn, 1977).
Historically, the development of science and
technology has undergone five disparate stages (Table 2).
Initially, ancient technology was grasped by craftsmen.
Then, modern science rose with the first scientific
revolution in the 16th–17th century. Third, modern
technology continued with the Industrial Revolution and
Power Revolution. Fourth, contemporary science entered
scientific time in the 1950s after the second scientific
revolution. Fifth, contemporary technology was updated to
technology innovation after the 1950s. Different science
centers and technology centers existed in distinct countries
and periods in the historical developments. In a panoramic
view, scientific and technological civilizations have three
peaks with three center transfers. The first peak occurred in
ancient Greek and Roman (ancient era–3rd century B.C.).
Then, ancient China replaced them in Han, Tang, Song, and
Yuan dynasties in the second peak (202 B.C.–1368). The
Table 2. Historical analysis of the scientific revolution and technological revolution (Source. He, 2012)
Center
Time
Technology
old as human
Scientific Revolution (SR)
Science
in Renaissance
Ancient Greek & Roman
1st peak (ancient era–3rd century B.C.)
Ancient China
2nd peak (202 B.C.–1368)
The West
3rd peak (14th–20th century)
Italy
16th century
Technological Revolution (TR)
1st (1543–1687)
2nd: Industrial Revolution
Britain
17th century
1st (1543–1687);
(18th Century) (1698–1825);
3rd: Power Revolution
(19th century) (1832–1906);
France
18th century
1st spread (1688–1859);
th
Germany
19 century
4th (1900–1926)
America
20th century
4th (1900–1926);
5th: Electronic Technology
Revolution (1946–1970);
IT Revolution (1970–2020);
th
6 : Regeneration Revolution (2020–2050);
7th: Space-Time Revolution (2050–2100);
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
13
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
C. Changing science-technology relationships
view; (iii) technology precedes science in the materialist
view; and (iv) science interacts with technology in the
interactional view. The comprehensive education and
understanding the relationships in science, technology, and
society are still an unrealised objective despite reformatory
efforts. Later, there has another opinion in the modern and
postmodern eras: (v) science is integrated with technology
in the integrative view (e.g., Forman, 1997). So, this
research intends to make science-technology distinctions and
connections clear and advance the courses of science,
technology, and society.
According to the philosophical and developmental
contrasts, science and technology have clear kinship ties in
the history. In the conceptual-theoretical and nominalisticempirical approaches (Radder, 2009), science-technology
relationships have dramatically changed as reflected in
various views between China and the West (Table 3).
According to Paul Gardner (1994), science is
distinguishable from technology in four different positions:
(i) science precedes technology in the applicational view;
(ii) science is independent of technology in the demarcation
Table 3. Contrast of changing science-technology relationships
Contrast
Feature
West
China
technology as applied science (TaS)
(Bunge, 1966)
(Needham, 1964)
technology as finalized science (TfS)
(Böhme et al., 1976)
science as technology (SaT)
(Lelas, 1993)
(Ju, 2007)
automatic, independent, separated
(De Solla Price, 1965)
(Chen, 1999)
b. Science-technology interaction
TaS linear model
(Bunge, 1966)
(Chen, 1999)
(iv) the interactional view
“dancing partners” model
(Rip, 1992)
“hybrid” model
(Layton, 1971; Krankis, 1992)
science-technology integration
technologically oriented science;
scientifically oriented technology
(Forman, 1997)
A. Positional contrast between science and technology
a. Science is superior to technology
(i) the applicational view
b. Science is closely equal to
technology
(ii) the demarcation view
c. Technology is superior to science
(iii) the materialist view
B. Interactive degree between science and technology
a. Science-technology independence
(ii) the demarcation view
c. Science-technology integration
(v) the integrative view
science technicalization;
technology scientification
(Chen, 1999)
Scientific contribution to technology (Brooks, 1994)
(1) a direct knowledge source of new technological ideas, (2) a source of engineering design tools and techniques, (3) instrumentation,
laboratory techniques, and analytical methods, (4) human skills to be useful for technology, (5) creation of a knowledge base in technological
assessment, (6) a source of development strategy for technology.
Technological contribution to science (Brooks, 1994)
(1) a source of new scientific challenges, (2) instrumentation and measurement techniques.
I)
Positional
technology
contrast
between
science
and
science is superior to technology. Science stands for a
tradition of pursuing certain and universal knowledge and
truth in the eternal order of things (Wu, 2011). Science is a
type of theoretical exploration for truth. However,
technology is a kind of production behavior. Scientific
In positional contrast between science and technology,
this study summarizes three basic standpoints. First of all,
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
14
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
exploration seems to be more advanced than technological
production. In a hierarchical viewpoint, science and
technology have a master-servant relationship. The
technology belongs to science as the maid of science.
Science consists of pure science and applied science
(technology). In the traditional view, science is superior to
technology. Science, as a pure knowledge, is the foundation
of technology as a practical instrument. In the linear model,
technology is an applied science (Bunge, 1966). As a typical
case in the history of science and technology, Needham
(1980) splits Science and Civilisation in China into volumes
corresponding to primary pure sciences (mathematics,
physics, chemistry, and biology), followed by applied
modern sciences or technological fields according to the
tradition. This article debates that simplified Sci-Tech in
China reflects the affiliation from science to technology in a
linear model and easily misleads the neglect of technology
after science, particularly in Sci-Tech Innovation, Sci-Tech
Competitiveness, and Sci-Tech Policy.
Bruno Latour, Don Ihde, Karl Rogers (Radder, 2009), Sven
Ove Hansson (2007), and others. According to the SaT view
in the 1990s, science discovers because it invents; therefore,
a scientific theory becomes an instrument of design (Lelas,
1993). In this article, SaT indicates that the technology is
advanced to science. In terms of role, technological
development plays decisive roles in social change (Ellul,
1964). In terms of historical ontology, technology is prior
over science (Ihde, 1983). Chinese scholar Ju Naiqi (2007)
proposed that technology is superior to science based on
historical materialism or effects of technology or sciencetechnology relation, hence calling for a strategic status of
technological study and layout in the society. In historical
materialism, material production from technology
determines consciousness (e.g., science) and changes
production relationships among humans, nature, society,
therefore pushing economic, cultural, political, and social
development. In the modern and postmodern eras, science
seems to be updated to big science as science machines in
the format of an industrial organization. The current world
appears to be full of scientific exploration, technological
creation, design, invention, spread, and application. This
study argues that the technology is outstanding in practical
application, whereas science is excellent in the theoretical
exploration of truth. Hence, the argument of this essay is that
the technology is superior to science in the practical
application according to the materialist view, whereas
scientific discovery and technological invention are essential
for the development of the world.
Second, science is closely equal to technology. This
study would criticize that the applicational view for
technology as applied science (TaS) has a flaw. As justified
previously in the text, technology was earlier than science,
and hence technology could not be the application of science.
This article continues to argue that technology is
independent of science in technological knowledge and
experiences accumulations. Technological invention and
innovation come out independently from scientific
discovery and scientific theorizing such as steam engines,
mechanical clocks, water power devices, and metallurgical
techniques (Radder, 2009). This essay debates that
technological inventions have own rules, including rules of
thumb, the theories of mathematical approach, model
simulation, and computer emulation. Contrasted to TaS,
technology as finalized science (TfS) was proposed in the
1970s by the German Starnberg group (Böhme et al., 1976).
Based on the creation instead of the application in scientific
goal, TfS corrects the misconceptions that pure science is
superior to applied science and makes scientific progress
with pragmatic finalization. This study admits that TfS
builds the bridge in science, technological science, and
technology. Hence, TfS improves the position of technology
to the nearly equal and competitive status of science.
II)
The interactive
technology
degree
between
science
and
With respect to the interactive degree between
science and technology, this study also generates three
disparate standpoints: science-technology independence,
interaction, and integration. In the beginning, science and
technology are independent, separate, and different. Based
on this historical fact, this essay debates this view of
science-technology independence. Both are essentially
distinct and separate. Each develops independently
according to its respective philosophical ontology,
epistemology, methodology, and axiology. Each has a
different logic, program, and path. In the ancient age,
science and technology were seen as a meditation and
production behavior respectively. Especially with the
emergence of the philosophy of technology in Germany in
1877, science and technology considerably differed as two
separate activities. Science seeks pure truths, whereas
technology pursues practical solutions to problems. Science
and technology have been separate in career, education, and
Third, technology is superior to science. Both TaS and
TfS stand for theory-oriented approaches in the linear model;
another practice-oriented approach in the linear model is
science as technology (SaT).
SaT was illustrated in the early works of Martin
Heidegger, Jürgen Habermas, Peter Janich, and Srdan Lelas,
and was developed to technoscience by Donna Haraway,
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
15
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
system since the 19th century. Technology is independent of
science historically as they each have their separated
cumulating structures, according to a study in statistical
historiography (De Solla Price, 1965).
revealed in the various indexes (Fig. 1) on sciencetechnology relationships for the references of R&D
cooperation between universities and industries (MeyerKrahmer and Schmoch, 1998). The higher indexes indicate
the more knowledge-based field (e.g., biology) while the
lower indexes imply the more experience-based field (e.g.,
consumer goods). Science and technology are also
interactive in common humanities characteristics, such as
scientific and technological cultures, or science and
engineering ethics educations (e.g., Cao, 2014).
Then, in the science-technology interaction, both
science and technology are connected and interacted. The
modern science that rose in the 16th–17th centuries connected
with technology prevailingly in experiments. In the 1950s
and 1960s, traditional TaS linear model was dominant since
technology depends on science as a parasitic status whereas
science is independent of technology as a leading position.
In the 1960s, De Solla Price (1965) analyzed that science
and technology were relatively different and independent,
but closely reciprocitarian and constructive, and tended to
see science and technology as separate and unified wholes
(Rip, 1992). Later, Rip (1992) advanced the dancing
partners of science and technology toward ongoing cluster
processes in a dynamical context with secular changes and
transformations. This study would defend that the dances
between science and technology may be a single dance,
double dance, or multiple dances. In the 1970s, the TaS
linear model has increasingly shown disadvantages and
drawbacks. Then, Layton (1971) contributed to a hybrid
model of science and technology as mirror-image twins.
This hybrid model portrays science and technology as two
different but interacting communities, each with its own
traditions, goals, and values, a body of knowledge, and
capability. These two communities borrow from one another,
but on their individual terms, transforming the borrowed
knowledge for adapting to different ends (Krankis, 1992).
This hybrid model assumes that science and technology
overlap partly in the co mmunities, organizatio ns,
knowledge ontologies, practical traditions, value systems,
and reward institutions. Science primarily is the creation,
filtering, sorting, and dissemination of formal public
knowledge in nature, while technology is the production and
maintenance of social material infrastructure. Hence, hybrid
careers (Krankis, 1992) have created the interaction net
between scientific and technological communities and
played roles in spreading knowledge and practice. This
hybrid model has been widely acknowledged and accepted
at present, in contrast to TaS linear model and dancing
partners model. Historically, the interactions between
science and technology are embodied in the industrial age
and the same educational departments of historians of
science and technology with intensified cooperation (Kroes
and Bakker, 1992). Science-technology interaction is
Nowadays, in science-technology integration, science
and technology appear to be dependent and integrated.
Science and technology always have similarity and contact.
In modern and postmodern society, both seem to be fusible
and combined. Although science is different from
technology in terms of essence, the relationships between
science and technology have become increasingly closer. In
the 20th century, with the creation of new knowledge, science
and technology develop in frequent interaction and mutual
extension. Technology education seems to be designed for
science, and scientific theories are consciously used to create
new technologies. Basic research, applied research,
experimental development, technological progress, and
industrial application seem to link and transfer to each other.
The interaction between science and technology is also
conducive to attracting bilateral funds for achieving greater
efficiencies. Technologically oriented science and
scientifically oriented technology have strong powers and
wide ranges in postmodern society (Forman, 1997).
Sometimes, scientific theory and technological practice are
mixed (e.g., cognitive-technical complex). Contemporary
scientific and technological developments seem to have
remarkable
characteristics,
including
science
technicalization, technology-based science; technology
scientification,
science-based
technology;
sciencetechnology
integration;
science-technology-production
integration; society scientification and technicalization,
society-based science and technology; science & technology
socialization, science & technology-based society. Science
technicalization and technology-based science, as the marks
of modern science, prevailingly imply that modern scientific
research relies on technological means (e.g., X-ray Digital
Radiography, telescope, the space probe, and IT) (Chen,
1999). Technology scientification and science-based
technology, as the features of modern technology, mainly
indicate that modern technology is based on science and is
shown as materialized scientific knowledge (e.g., nuclear,
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
16
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
electrical, laser, and biological technology) (Chen, 1999).
Technology scientification
implies
that
scientific
knowledge is transferred to technological invention and
technological innovation. Science-technology integration
includes
science
technicalization
and
technology
scientification, the infiltration and integration trend between
modern science and modern technology. However, as it
needs to point out, this integration does not mean that all
science is equal to technology, all science depends on
technology, or all technology comes from science.
shows the close combination of science, technology, and
production (e.g., single large production: a new type of
electronic microscope or telescope) (Chen, 1999). This
integration of science, technology, and society has been
shown in social scientification and technicalization, societybased science and technology; science & technology
socialization, and science & technology-based society.
Nonetheless, this study debates that science-technology
integration is presentational since both are different in the
nature.
Apart from science-technology independence and
interaction,
science-technology-production
integration
100
81
80
66
61
58
60
52
37 36
30 29 28
20
15
-60
-57
-63 -64
30Civil engineering
29Consumer goods
28Mechanical elements
27Transport
26Space technology
24Thermal processes
25Medical technology
22Engines
23Handling, printing
20Machine tools
-33 -44
-46
-34
21Food processing
16Electrical engineering
-27
17Environmental technology
-12
-5
15Polymers
14Nuclear technology
13Surface technology
12Basic materials chem.
10Materials
9Telecommunications
7Optics
5Food chemistry
6Data processing
3Semiconductors
8Audiovisual technology
-40
4Organic chemistry
-20
1Biotechnology
0
11Control technology
-1
18Materials processing
9
19Chemical engineering
20
2Pharmaceuticals
The relative science reference index
40
-67
-78 -78
-84 -87
-80
-100
-91
Technology field
Figure. 1. Indexes on science-technology relationships (Source. Grupp et al., 1995)
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
17
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
III.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND THE
INTERDEPENDENT POLICY ISSUES
A. Theoretical framework
Despite the variety of debates on the relationships
between science and technology, few studies have
developed a conceptual framework for the issues. In short,
this study has argued on the theoretical framework for
science-technology relationships: (i) technology emerges
earlier than science; (ii) science and technology are different
but closely connected; (iii) science and technology are in
dynamic interaction; (iv) science-technology interaction is
various in forms and complex in progress with nonlinearity
and diversification; and (v) science-technology integration
is presentational. Significantly, from the perspective of
demarcation between science and technology, technology is
independent of science in technological ontology,
epistemological structure and social norm, special term and
logic, its unique methodology, and practical axiology. Then,
a research program for the philosophy of technology
includes (a) technological definition and ontological status,
(b) technological epistemological process, (c) technological
knowledge structure, (d) regular technology and
technological revolution, (e) technology and culture, and (f)
technological values and technological ethics (Zhang and
Zhang, 2001). It seems that the technological knowledge
theory and technological logic are the core of the philosophy
of technology. However, the main discrimination between
science and technology is the different value for technology
as a practical activity involved in the economic area and
science as a theoretical exploration. As claimed in another
opinion (Chen and Yuan, 2001), technological value should
be the key issue for the research program of the philosophy
of technology. Carl Mitcham (2014) forecasted that it would
have a policy turn toward a philosophy of technological
policy and a globalization trend to philosophically study
global issues on technology. Furthermore, Philip Brey (2014)
called on center shifts from reflection to construction with
approaches of synthesis, analysis, and normative research,
from academic scholars to real social actors to participate
the works related to engineering, policy, and public
discussions. Therefore, this current study will expand these
pivotal issues in different values of science and technology
for innovations, competitiveness, and policies in society.
B. The interdependent policy issues
As the first hypothesis, changing science-technology
relationships and the relative studies from Sino-Western
philosophies of technology influence the performances of
science and technology. As the second hypothesis, based on
science-technology relationships views, scientific and
technological developments affect science and technology
innovations, national competitiveness, and science and
technology policies.
Based on the theoretical framework of science and
technology and existing studies (e.g., Aghion et al., 2009;
Romer, 2000; Solow, 1956), this article uses a systemstheoretic approach to the interdependent policy issues
relating to science, technology, innovation, and
competitiveness for problem-solutions. According to the
game theory and the theory of mechanism design,
governments mediate the marketplaces with public
regulations and competition policies for social progress
(Nobel Prize Committee, 2014). In terms of science and
technology, governments intervene social markets with
exogenous and endogenous developmental policies to
improve social development including the aspects of
innovation and competitiveness.
This research proposes measuring the extent to which
the application of governmental policies achieves their
objectives by comparative data analysis of indicators in the
inputs and outputs. For example, the inputs of science
include the capital, researchers, and enrollments of
scientific education while the outputs of science include
scientific publication and graduates of scientific
programs. The inputs of technology include the
investments,
employments,
and
enrollments
of
technological and engineering education while the
outputs of technology include triadic patents and
technology advantage, and graduates of technological
and engineering programs. The data of innovation
include scientific and technologic competitiveness
indexes while the data of competitiveness include
scientific and technologic competitiveness indexes. This
article suggests managing the implementation of the tasks
themselves by a series of strategies for exogenous and
endogenous developments in the outcomes and impacts. For
instance, exogenous developmental strategies include
capital accumulation, borrowed labor, and technological
import, whereas endogenous developmental strategies
include science innovation and technology innovation.
Effectiveness and efficiency are two useful factors that are
applied to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the power
and impact that science and technology have on the ability
of policy makers and practitioners to avoid market failures
in different areas of the world. This paper recommends
setting and comparing the data of indicators in the statistics,
such as the World Bank and OECD in various countries
during different periods.
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
18
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
The indicators in the interdependent policy issues
are conducive to govern science, technology, and policy
macroscopically. For instance, by comparing the data of
indicators, we examine the capital and labor inputs and
outputs of science and technology, social effects of
innovation and competitiveness, and governmental
policies for exogenous and endogenous developments in
the US, the EU, and China. We may compare and
contrast historically in different phases or longitudinally
in divergent items for given purposes. For example, in
same country, such as the US, we may compare the
inputs and outputs of science and technology to examine
whether governmental policies for exogenous and
endogenous developments needs to be adjusted within
given targets. During some same period, we may contrast
the inputs and outputs of science and technology in the
US, the EU, and China, so as to investigate how to adjust
governmental policies to meet specific purposes. In
order to improve inflexible scientific and technological
items, governments may stimulate to develop
exogenously by introducing foreign investment and trade,
or innovate endogenously by the exchanging and
learning through advanced science and technology from
other countries. This study further focuses on the shift
from the exogenous development to the endogenous
development of science and technology based on sciencetechnology relationships.
IV.
ANALYSES OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICIES
Here, this article analyzes that science and
technology have external driving force from policies to
adjust exogenous or endogenous developments. Science
and technology policies are different in the US, the EU, and
China (Table 4).
The first and the foremost, science-technology inner
relationships push science and technology policies. The
evolution of science-technology relationships demands to
reform science and technology policies. TaS requires
science-dominated policies before and during the 1960s. As
urged in the Bush Report in 1945 (Bush, 1945), scientific
progress is essential, and science is the endless frontier from
the means to the end in the R&D linear model (basic
research-applied research-development-production). Then a
program of the action for the core of science was suggested
with five fundamentals (stable fund, agency selection,
agency distribution, support, and responsibility), thus
establishing National Science Foundation (NSF) and
leading US advantages in science in the world. Besides the
established European Community (EC), Treaties of Rome in
1957 proposed a series of science policies in market,
transport, and agriculture. As emphasized by Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping (1978) in the National Conference on
Science in 1978, science and technology are productive
forces, and the key to the four modernizations is the
modernization of science and technology. TfS requires
technology-dominated policies between the 1970s and
1990s. The Bayh-Dole Act and Stevenson-Wydler Act in
1980 promoted patent and trademark law and technology
transfer law in the US respectively. The Single European
Act in 1986 intended to set up a single market in EC. After
the Decision of the State Council Concerning the Reform of
the Science and Technology Management System in 1985,
a series of technology policies have been implemented in
China. The seventh Five-year Plan (FYP) between 1986 and
1990 included the National High Technology R&D
Programme (863 Program) in 1986 and the Technology
Achievements Spreading Programme in 1990. SaT claims to
converge technologies or high tech-dominated policies in
the 2000s or the future. The US initiated the National
Information Infrastructure in 1993 and the Converging
Technologies for Improving Human Performance in 2002.
The Lisbon Treaty in 2007 formed the EU. The EU aimed
to strengthen science and technology bases in Europe and
improve more competition. China also increased science
development and technology development in the MLP since
2006.
Moreover, rational science and technology policies
advance scientific and technological developments while
irrational science and technology policies hinder scientific
and technological developments. The Bush Report in 1945
prompted scientific fund from the government for scientific
research exogenously; however, its actual effectiveness is in
the doubt. Based on weak basic science, foreign
technologies are exogenously introduced and great success
in productive technology are achieved in Japan and China.
These cases indicate that it is too simple for science and
technology policies with the assumption on TaS linear
model. Moreover, updated the EU Framework Programme
(FP) and China FYP contribute to scientific and
technological developments.
The last but not the least, science and technology
policies tend overall toward sustainable science-technologyinno vatio n b ased o n changing science -techno lo gy
relationships. This convergence of sustainable science technology-innovation indicates global harmonization
direction for the center shift from science to technology,
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
19
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
then to innovation; from the exogenous development to the
endogenous development. The management of R&D and
R&D systems has high impacts on the exploitation process
(Schmoch et al., 1996). Science and technology policies in
the West have evolutions in dual structures from defensescience to industry-science, then to society-innovation
(Zhang, 1998). Similarly, this study analyzes that science
and technology policies in China transfer the center from
science, and then technology, and finally to social demand.
China is moving toward harmonious growth in production
and endogenous innovation in innovation system based on
domestic needs (Gu and Lundvall, 2006). Nevertheless, the
divergences in the sustainable levels of science-technologyinnovation reveal geographic diversification in the world. In
A Strategy for American Innovation in 2011, the US
invested in high-new technologies to drive economic
sustainability growth and supported innovation as the center
of a new foundation. After the Lisbon European Council in
2000, the open method of coordination began to be
employed to the Research and Innovation Policies in the
building of the European Research Area (Moed et al., 2005).
The EU has put innovation as a key in order to create jobs
and sustainable growth, as well as R&D investment,
education, energy/climate change, employment rate, and
reducing poverty as the five headline targets for 2020
strategy to increase competitiveness (Communication From
The Commission, 2010). The Chinese Academy of Sciences
has decided to put higher priority on the research of the
science and technology roadmap for priority areas in
China’s modernization process (Chen, 2011; Lu, 2009;
World Bank, 2012). Accordingly, science, technology, and
innovation will be sustainably consistent with China’s
reality to implement the strategy of invigorating China
through science and education and the strategy of
sustainable development.
Table 4. Contrast on science and technology policies (Sources. EU, 2015; MOST, 2015; OSTP, 2015)
Time
US
1.1945–1970s
Stage
Target
Policy
Characteristics
beginning
science
science-dominated policy
defense-science,
technology as applied science (TaS)
2. 1980s
reform
high technology
technology-dominated policy
related to patent and trademark
law, innovation
trinitarian R&D system (researcheducation-production), technology as
finalized science (TfS)
3. 1990s–
mature
converging
technologies society
converging
technologydominated policy, science and
innovation
social innovation,
science as technology (SaT)
R&D policy. 1. 1945–1970s. Vannevar Bush Report (Science, The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President), 1945.
2. 1980s. Bayh-Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act), 1980; Stevenson-Wydler Act (Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act), 1980.
3. 1990s-. US Global Change Research Program, 1989; Global Change Research Act of 1990, 1990; High Performance Computing Act of 1991,
1991; Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, 1991; National Information Infrastructure, 1993; Biotechnology for
the 21st Century: New Horizons, 1995; Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, 1998; Information Technology for the Twenty-First
Century: A Bold Investment In America’s Future, 1999; Climate Change Research Initiative, 2001; Converging Technologies for Improving
Human Performance, 2002; America COMPETES ACT of 2007, 2007; America COMPETES ACT of 2010, 2010; A Strategy for American
Innovation, 2011; National Global Change Research Plan 2012–2021, 2012.
EU
1. 1948–1974
initiation
politics
science-dominated policy
(nation)
2. 1975–1999
adjust
R&D linear model
economy
technology-dominated policy
(international)
3. 2000–
mature
national defense-scientific research,
informational
&
innovational society
(world)
social
policy
demand-dominated
industrial
production-scientific
research, dancing partners model
society-innovation,
hybrid model
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
20
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
R&D policy. 1. 1948–1974. Treaty of Brussels, 1948; Treaty of Paris, 1951; Modified Brussels Treaty, 1954; Treaties of Rome, 1957; Merger
Treaty, 1965.
2. 1975–1999. European Council conclusion, 1975; Schengen Treaty, 1985; Single European Act, 1986; Treaty on European Union, 1992; Treaty
of Amsterdam, 1997.
3. 2000–. Treaty of Nice, 2001; Treaty of Lisbon, 2007; Europe 2020, 2010.
China
1. 1949–1974
start
science
science-dominated policy
technology as applied science (TaS)
2. 1975–1978
development
science
science-dominated policy
science is superior to technology
3. 1979–1994
systemic
reform
technology
technology-dominated policy
technology as finalized science (TfS)
high technology
high tech-dominated policy
techno-nationalism,
4. 1995–2005
5. 2006–2020
deepening
reform
toward
an
innovation-
innovation
social
policy
demand-dominated
science is closely equal to
technology
national innovation,
technology is superior to science
driven nation
R&D policy. 1. 1949–1974. Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1949; “The decisions on awarding the production of inventions, technological
improvements and rationalizing construction” and “Provisional Regulations on protection of rights to inventions and patents”, 1950.
2. 1975–1978. 1975 Outline Report; 1978 the National Conference on Science.
3. 1979–1994. National Key Technologies R&D Program, 1984; State Key Laboratory Program, 1984; Decision of the State Council Concerning
the Reform of the Science and Technology Management System, 1985; National High technology R&D Program (863 Program), 1986; Spark
Program, 1986; Torch Program, 1988; State Key and New Product Program, 1988; Technology Achievements Spreading Program, 1990.
4. 1995–2005. Decision of the State Council Concerning the Deepening of the Reform of the Science and Technology Management System
During the “Ninth Five-year Plan”, 1996; Implementing the Strategy of Developing the Country Through Science and Education and the Strategy
of Sustainable Development, 1997; National Program on Key Basic Research Projects (973 Program), 1997; Decision of the CPC Central
Committee and State Council on Strengthening Technical Innovation, 1999; Innovation Fund for Technology-based SMEs, 1999; Special
Technology Development Project for Research Institutes, 1999; Action Plan for Thriving Trade by Science and Technology, 2000; Agriculture
S&T Transfer Fund, 2001.
5. 2006–2020. “Medium- to Long-term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2006–2020) (MLP)”, 2006; “Science and
Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050”, 2009; “Large Research Infrastructures Development in China: A Roadmap to 2050”, 2011; “China
2030”, 2012.
V.
CLOSING DISCUSSION
policies from the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) and on science-technology relationships from the
philosophy of technology. Vice versa, unreasonable or
unseasonal studies on science-technology relationships
hinder scientific and technological courses, and block
science and technology innovations. Despite prioritizing
technology in mass population and exogenously creating
technological power in manufactures and sales to some
extent, China has not distinguished technology from science
distinctly or grasped the core of science and technology
innovations. This study, therefore, recommends China to
differ technology from science in related areas and
endogenously develop independent innovation.
A. Hints on innovation, competitiveness, and policy
This research inspects the assumptions and blossoms the
hints about innovation, competitiveness, and policy. As this
article has argued, the changing science-technology
relationships and the related studies from Sino-Western
philosophies of technology influence the performances and
innovations of science and technology. Reasonable or
seasonal studies on science-technology links prompt
scientific and technological progress, and contribute to
science and technology innovations. As a scientific and
technological leader, the US has top scientific and
technologic competitiveness. This advantage is significantly
benefited from US studies on science and technology
Based on science-technology relationships views, this
a r t i c l e d e b a t e s t h a t s c i e n t i fi c a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
21
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
developments are correlated with innovation, national
competitiveness, and science and technology policies. In
terms of innovation, science and technology have different
roles in science innovation and technology innovation. In
terms of national competitiveness, science innovation
improves scientific competitiveness while technology
innovation advances technological competitiveness. Science
and technology innovations are the engines of economic
growth and national competitiveness. In general, national
competitiveness development depends on the real economy
from technology than science. Hence, this study advocates
more capital and labor to be invested in technology than in
science so as to advance the productivity of the real economy
and national competitiveness. In science and technology
policies, science development and technology development
are directly correlated to science policy and technology
policy respectively. We should see a scientific, institutional
building as a component of modern industrial policies
(Bernardes and Albuquerque, 2003). Current sciencetechnology relationship is not traditional TaS or TfS, but SaT
in the dynamic interaction of science and technology. A
proper grasp of science-technology relationships contributes
to the enactment of scientific science and technology policies.
Rational implementations of science and technology policies
promote scientific and technological developments, and
improve science and technology innovations, particularly
independent innovation or sustainable innovation.
Changing science-technology relationships indicate
cognitive progress and cultural diversity in society. This
study advocates proper reforms in science and technology
performances, national competitiveness, and science and
technology policies. First, this
study proposes
distinguishing science development and technology
development in science and technology performances.
Second, this study recommends differentiating science
innovation and technology innovation in science and
technology innovations. Third, this study suggests
preferentially strengthening national competitiveness in real
productivities by technological invention and innovation,
assisted by scientific research and innovation. Finally, this
study proposes separating science policy and technology
policy to enact and implement, and transfer their centers
from
exogenous
developments
to
endogenous
developments.
B. Principles for science, technology, and innovation
policies
Science, technology, and innovation are central
characteristics of the modern and postmodern eras. Science
innovation, technology innovation, and sustainable
innovation are key driving forces in national competitiveness
and social progress. We have initiated science, technology,
and innovation indicators as benchmarks for making policies.
However, it ought to prevent science or technology index
from being intentionally or unwillingly adopted in potential
abuses, positive or negative purposes. For example, it is
over-reliant on a single indicator or significant index. Some
indicators are misused in science, technology, science
innovation, technology innovation, sustainable innovation,
and others. Conclusions are immensely drawn beyond the
scope of indicators to grant indicative nature. References are
irrelevantly made in line with the indicator and its relation to
the phenomenon of interest (Moed et al., 2005). Data may be
confined to path-dependent, and we rely on real situations.
This current research may be limited based on restricted
indicators, intensive implication, or the perspective of the
philosophy of technology. Nonetheless, science, technology,
and innovation indicators are leading data in R&D policy
making.
In internal and external aspects, this study advocates
fundamental principles for science, technology, and
innovation policies to address aforementioned existing
problems. As the first renewal principle in time, we duly
update policies according to the changing sciencetechnology relationships in the big context of sustainable
science-technology-innovation in different areas. An
empirical analysis for lesser developed countries during the
1970s and 1980s (Drori, 1993) indicates that no linear
relations push from the science to technology and then to
economic development. In contrast to this hierarchical
model, the symmetric model works because science
affects national development by transmitting values of
development and modernization, whereas technology
offers practical solutions for the connection between
resources and local economic needs. Exogenously,
technological import has played primary roles in the
economic development of lesser developed countries.
Therefore, for various fields of science, technology, and
innovation systems in different countries, we should
carefully utilize the university-industry interactions with
science-based technologies (Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch,
1998) or the triple helix of university-industry-government
relations (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). As the second
evidence -based principle in contents , we evaluate,
formulate, and implement science, technology, and
innovation policies with preferential problem-solution
and sustainable themes based on reliable evidence under
feasibility, effectiveness, efficiency, and equality, such
as big data and indices. This evidence-based principle
also falls into the evaluation framework of where, who,
when, why, what, and how (Shapira and Kuhlmann, 2003).
The different attitudes of scientific and technological
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
22
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
professions may involve divergent human capital,
educational opportunity, and culture (e.g., Plutzer, 2013).
As the third politics-considered principle in switch, we
carefully consider the factors of depoliticization,
repoliticization, and geopolitics in the transfer of science,
technology, and innovation system, especially for the
changes of institution, organization, and government. We
take care of both good and bad influences of science,
technology, and innovation. For instance, potential
antitechnology or technological dissent may be based on
political factors, such as liberalism (e.g., La Porte and Metlay,
1975). The science, technology, and innovation systems are
in the evolution of political systems in policy-making
(Kuhlmann, 2001). As the fourth geographical principle in
space, we properly adopt localization and globalization
strategies according to the international situation and
national condition in making the policies of science,
technology, and innovation.
C. Proposals for policy making in the US, the EU, and
China
Based on aforementioned theories of science and
technology and critical analyses of science and technology
policies, this study recommends the following proposals
for science, technology, and innovation policies and
managements to transfer the center from the exogenous
growth to the endogenous growth among the US, the EU,
and China.
This article suggests the US to increase investments in
science and engineering education and enlarge higher
education researchers supported by NSF endogenously.
The American Paradox lies in an imbalance with a
reduction in publication shares despite enhancing
investments in R&D exogenously (Shelton, 2008).
Therefore, these endogenous improvements help the US
to recover from the American Paradox to keep the leading
position in science and technology. As revealed in the
early history of the transistor, economic advances do not
directly spring from fundamental scientific discoveries,
but from technological creations (Gibbons and Johnson,
1970). Based on technological independence and
difference from science in the previous theoretical
framework and technological productivity for economic
growth, the US is suggested to innovate technology and
export high technology greatly to stimulate real
economic growth endogenously. Therefore, with the
increasing technological values, the US may shift the
dominance from a virtual economy to a real economy for
surviving in a potential crisis.
It is hard to enhance national efficiency returns in
scientific papers for microstates in the EU. Nonetheless,
the EU may be considered as a whole in order to improve.
Based on a systems-theoretic approach, this study
recommends the EU to redistribute reasonable budgets in
the long-term investment of FP among governments,
industries, and education. With respect to coordination
strength and researching advantage, this essay advocates
the EU to increase technology innovation application to
transfer for industrial productivity in pragmatism
substantially. The third alternative of technology
innovation-industry productivity may address the
European Paradox between a high level of scientific outputs
and the backward transferring ability for fortune-generating
innovation (Dosi et al., 2006). Then, the EU may improve
scientific and technologic competitiveness endogenously,
thus, rescuing knowledge flows and commercialization.
With mass population and vast territory, China tends to
prefer technology to science or education as the primary
force in economic development and modernization to
exogenously prompt GDP growth. China has tried to catch
up with the US in an economy with an open market from
exogenous growth to a great extent. For instance, the
important factors in the catch-up of telecommunication
industry include trading market for technology, science and
technology knowledge diffusion and absorption, and
industrial promotion by the Chinese government (Mu and
Lee, 2005). Since the 1990s, the scientific productivity of
China’s Science & Technology system has increased
negatively (Huang et al., 2006). Moreover, China carries out
the strategy of invigorating China through science and
education and the strategy of sustainable development under
peaceful rise and harmonious development. China has
strengthened the links between industry and science with
absorptive capacity for science and technology outsourcing.
China has also reformed its innovation system with an
incentive scheme of market-based competition and the
governmental fund to incentive science and technology
linkage activities (Motohashi and Yun, 2007). According to
forecasts (Shelton and Foland, 2009), China, in contrast to
the US and the EU, will become a scientific superpower in
researchers’ quantity for the short-term and in patents for the
long-term, or may lead the world by choosing science and
technology indicators rationally. China has begun to change
the adverse phenomena of brain drain to the positive policy
of returnees for expatriates after studying or working abroad
with technical expertise, managerial, and entrepreneurial
skills (Kenney et al., 2013). These changes from exogenous
development to endogenous development of science and
technology have brought increased returns to China’s
economy growth and will continue to strengthen China’s
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
23
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
sustainable development. However, China falls behind in
terms of sustainable science, technology, and innovation
based on historical conditions of the large population and
traditional agricultural country. Therefore, this study
proposes China to regulate and design social markets with a
systems-theoretic approach from a perspective of national
policy-making. First, this study recommends China to
increase investments in R&D education to improve the
quality of outputs in talents, scientific papers, and patents.
Then, this study suggests China to significantly reform
Chinese academic journals in bibliometrics to boost their
global impacts and citations. Third, this study recommends
China to improve technology innovation and sustainable
innovation for endogenous growth and focus on independent
innovation. Therefore, “Made in China” may be updated to
“Innovated in China” in China. The last but not least, this
study suggests China to adjust and reallocate science and
technology resources in a production-learning-research
system practically and immensely.
Technology Awards. China-EU Youth Partnership for
Friendship Programme is supported by China and the EU
Youth Actions is in the fund of Erasmus+ (EU-China 2020
Strategic Agenda for Cooperation, 2013). Moreover, R&D is
recommended to be made steady to create innovative
knowledge interchange business model endogenously for the
knowledge economy in global industry-university-research
cooperation. The industry-university-research strategic
alliances under public and private aspects are suggested to
be adopted in the US, the EU, and China. The interaction
between science and technology will be the next new
tendency in the relevant fields and levels of policy research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Professor Sven Ove Hansson,
Professor Carl Mitcham, Associate Professor Ma Huiduan,
and Associate Professor Karin Edvardsson Björnberg for
significant instructions and feedbacks.
In a macro perspective, international collaboration in
science and technology is increasingly demanded in
globalization for inclusive growth. The US, the EU, and
China, are proposed to cooperate variously in R&D projects,
educations, talents, cultures, and industries. First of all,
science and technology are recommended to be engaged
REFERENCES
bilaterally or multilaterally by R&D projects in the world.
The US President’s Office of Science and Technology
[1] Aghion, P., David, P. A., & Foray, D. (2009). Science, technology and
innovation for economic growth: linking policy research and practice
Policy (OSTP, 2015) works with “further international
in ‘STIG Systems’. Research Policy, 38 (4), 681–693.
cooperation in science and technology”, according to the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
[2] Bernardes, A. T., & Albuquerque, E. d. M. e. (2003). Cross-over,
thresholds, and interactions between science and technology: lessons
Priorities Act of 1976. The US has developed international
for less-developed countries. Research Policy, 32 (5), 865–885.
scientific and technological cooperation with the EU, China,
[3] Böhme, G., Van Den Daele, W., Krohn, W., Hohlfeld, R., & Schäfer,
Japan, India, and others in the world, such as Global
W. (1976). Finalization in science. Social Science Information, 15 (2–
Innovation through Science and Technology. Scientific and
3), 307–330.
technological cooperation has run between the US and China
[4] Brey, P. (2014). From reflective to constructive philosophy of
for over three decades. The EU opens FP to the US, China,
technology. Journal of Engineering Studies, 6 (2), 129−136.
and other countries, for example, FP7. For social progress
Translated by Wang Nan and Zhu Yating.
and sustainable development, EU-China 2020 Strategic
[5] Brooks, H. (1994). The relationship between science and technology.
Agenda for Cooperation (2013) includes cooperation in
Research Policy, 23 (5), 477–486.
science, technology, and innovation among industries,
[6] Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and
universities, and research institutes. Chinese FYP attracts the
Culture, 7 (3), 329–347.
input collaboration from the US, the EU, and others from
Asia and Africa. For instance, cooperative studies in the 12th
[7] Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the
Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), 48 (3), 231–264.
FYP have been operated in China, the US, the EU, and Japan.
Then, educations, talents, and cultures are suggested to be
[8] Cao, C., Suttmeier, R. P., & Simon, D. F. (2006). China’s 15-year
science and technology plan. Physics Today, 59 (12), 38–43.
globally exchanged in science and technology for
endogenous development. Global competition and race for
[9] Cao, G. H. (2014). Comparison of China-US engineering ethics
talents in science and technology have become increasingly
educations in Sino-Western philosophies of technology. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 1–27. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9611-3.
intense in education, training, and culture with scholarships
or funds. For instance, United States Go vernment [10] Chen, C. S. (1999). Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology.
Scholarships include International Fulbright Science and
Science Press, Beijing.
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
24
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
[11]
Chen, C. S., & Yuan, D. Y. (2001). Rethinking of the research
program of philosophy of technology——Discussion with Prof.
Zhang Hua-xia & Prof. Zhang Zhi-lin. Studies in Dialectics of Nature,
17 (7), 39–42.
[29]
He, C. Q. (2012). Strategic Opportunities on the Sixth Revolution of
Science and Technology. Science Press, Beijing.
[30]
Houkes, W. (2009). The nature of technological knowledge. In:
Meijers, A. W. (Ed.), Handbook of Philosophy of Technology and
Engineering Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 309–350.
[31]
Huang, C., Varum, C. A., & Gouveia, J. B. (2006). Scientific
productivity paradox: The case of China’s S&T system.
Scientometrics, 69 (2), 449–473.
[32]
Ihde, D. (1983). The historical-ontological priority of Technology over
Science. In: Durbin, P., & Rapp, F. (Eds.), Philosophy and
technology. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 235–252.
[33]
Ju, N. Q. (2007). Technology is superior to science——New
reflection on relations between technology and science. Journal of
Harbin University, 28 (1), 1–5.
[34]
Kenney, M., Breznitz, D., & Murphree, M. (2013). Coming back home
after the sun rises: Returnee entrepreneurs and growth of high tech
industries. Research Policy, 42 (2), 391–407.
[35]
Krankis, E. (1992). Hybrid careers and the interaction of science and
technology. In: Kroes, P., & Bakker, M. (Eds.), Technological
Development and Science in the Industrial Age. Springer Netherlands,
Dordrecht, pp. 177–204.
[36]
Kroes, P., & Bakker, M. (1992). Introduction: Technological
development and science. In: Kroes, P., & Bakker, M. (Eds.),
Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age.
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 1–15.
[12]
Chen, H. (2011). Large Research Infrastructures Development in
China: A Roadmap to 2050. Science Press, Beijing.
[13]
Communication From The Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. European
Commission, Brussels.
[14]
De Solla Price, D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of
science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture,
6 (4), 553–568.
[15]
De Solla Price, D. (1984). The science/technology relationship, the
craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high
technology innovation. Research Policy, 13 (1), 3–20.
[16]
Deng, X. P. (1978). Speech at the opening ceremony of the national
conference
on
science.
http://en.people.cn/dengxp/vol2/text
/b1170.html. Accessed January 1, 2015.
[17]
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships
between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An
illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European
Paradox’. Research Policy, 35 (10), 1450–1464.
[18]
Drori, G. S. (1993). The relationship between science, technology and
the economy in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science,
23 (1), 201–215.
[19]
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.
[37]
[20]
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation:
from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–
industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109–123.
Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in
Europe—three scenarios. Research Policy, 30 (6), 953–976.
[38]
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in
Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
[21]
EU. (2015). http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/
index_en.htm. Accessed January 1, 2015.
[39]
[22]
EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. (2013).
http://eeas.europa.eu/china/docs/eu-china_2020_strategic_agend a
en. Pdf. Accessed January 1, 2015.
La Porte, T. R., & Metlay, D. (1975). Technology observed: attitudes
of a wary public. Science, 188 (4184), 121–127. DOI:
10.1126/science.188.4184.121.
[40]
Langrish, J. (1974). The changing relationship between science and
technology. Nature, 250, 614–616 (23 August 1974). DOI:
10.1038/250614a0.
[41]
Layton, E. (1971). Mirror-image twins: The communities of science
and technology in 19th-Century America. Technology and Culture, 12
(4), 562–580.
[42]
Layton, E. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture,
15 (1), 31–41.
[43]
Lelas, S. (1993). Science as technology. The British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 44 (3), 423–442.
[23]
[24]
Forman, P. (1997). Recent science: Late-modern and post-modern. In:
Söderquist, T. (Ed.), The Historiography of Contemporary Science
and Technology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Newark, pp. 179–
215.
Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between
science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science
Education, 24 (1), 1–28.
[25]
Gibbons, M., & Johnson, C. (1970). Relationship between Science and
Technology. Nature, 227, 125–127 (11 July 1970). DOI:
10.1038/227125a0.
[44]
[26]
Grupp, H., Münt, G., & Schmoch, U. (1995). Wissensintensive
Wirtschaft und ressourcenschonende Technik: Parts D and E. Report
to the BMBF. FhG-ISI, Karlsruhe.
Lu, J. (2011). Reassessing the Needham Question. The Concord
Review, 209–254.
[45]
Gu, S., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2006). Introduction: China’s innovation
system and the move towards harmonious growth and endogenous
innovation. Innovation, 8 (1–2), 1–26.
Lu, Y. X. (2009). Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050:
Strategic General Report of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Springer-Verlag.
[46]
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based
technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research
Policy, 27 (8), 835–851.
[47]
Mitcham, C. (2014). Crouching predictions, hidden hopes: The past
[27]
[28]
Hansson, S. O. (2007). What is technological science? Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38 (3), 523–527.
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
25
GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo) Vol.2 No.1, September 2015
and the future of philosophy of technology. Journal of Engineering
Studies, 6 (2), 119−124. Translated by Wang Nan.
[48]
Moed, H., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2005). Handbook of
Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer Netherlands,
Dordrecht.
[49]
MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s
Republic of China). (2015). http://www.most.gov.cn/kjgh/lskjgh/.
Accessed January 1, 2015.
[50]
Motohashi, K., & Yun, X. (2007). China’s innovation system reform
and growing industry and science linkages. Research Policy, 36 (8),
1251–1260.
[51]
Mu, Q., & Lee, K. (2005). Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation
and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication
industry in China. Research Policy, 34 (6), 759–783.
[52]
Needham, J. (1964). Science and society in East and West. Science &
Society, 28 (4), 385–408.
[53]
Needham, J. (1980). Science and civilisation in China state of the
project. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 5 (4), 263–268.
[54]
Needham, J. (2004). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 7. The
Social Background, Part 2, General Conclusions and Reflections
(edited by Robinson K. G.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[55]
Nobel Prize Committee. (2014). Market power and regulation
(scientific background), No 2014-2, Nobel Prize in Economics
documents, Nobel Prize Committee.
[56]
Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 1–138.
OECD. (2004). Science, Technology and Innovation for the 21st
Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and
Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, 29-30 January 2004 - Final
Communique.
http://www.oecd.org/general/sciencetechnologyandinnovationforthe21
stcenturymeetingoftheoecdcommitteeforscientificandtechnologicalpoli
cyatministeriallevel29-30january2004-finalcommunique.htm.
Accessed January 1, 2015.
[63]
Shapira, P., & Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.). (2003). Learning from Science
and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United
States and Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
[64]
Shelton, R. D. (2008). Relations between national research investment
and publication output: Application to an American Paradox.
Scientometrics, 74 (2), 191–205.
[65]
Shelton, R. D., & Foland, P. (2009). The race for world leadership of
science and technology: status and forecasts. In Proceedings of the
12th International Conference of the International Society for
Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 369–380.
[66]
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 70 (1), pp. 65–94.
[67]
Wise, G. (1985). Science and Technology. Osiris (2nd Series) 1, 229–
246.
[68]
World Bank. (2012). China 2030. Building a Modern, Harmonious,
and Creative High-Income Society. World Bank, Washington DC.
[69]
Wu, G. S. (2011). Science and art: A philosophical perspective. In:
Burguete, M., & Lam, L. (Eds.). Arts: A Science Matter (Vol. 2).
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 69–77.
[70]
Zhang, C. Y. (1998). Development & changes in foreign S&T policies.
Studies in Science of Science, 16 (2), 40–48.
[71]
Zhang, H. X., & Zhang, Z. L. (2001). The research program of
philosophy of technology from the point of view of demarcation
between science & technology. Studies in Dialectics of Nature, 17 (2),
31–36.
AUTHOR’S PROFILE
Gui Hong Cao is finishing her Ph.D. at the Department of Philosophy
and the History of Technology, the Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Sweden. Her research interests include science-technology
relationships, the philosophy of technology, metaphilosophy,
technology innovation, technology foresight, technological policy,
technological science, technological independence, technological
determinism, and intercultural exchange.
[57]
OSTP. (2015). http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/os
tp .http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/sciencediplom
acy. Accessed January 1, 2015.
[58]
Plutzer, E. (2013). The Racial Gap in Confidence in Science
Explanations and Implications. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society, 33 (5-6), 146–157.
[59]
Radder, H. (2009). Science, technology and the science-technology
relationship. In: Gabbay, D. M., Thagard, P., Woods, J., & Meijers, A.
W. (Eds.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 65–91.
[60]
Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In: Kroes,
P., & Bakker, M. (Eds.), Technological Development and Science in
the Industrial Age. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 231–270.
[61]
Romer, P. M. (2000). Should the government subsidize supply or the
demand in the market for scientists and engineers? In: Jaffe, A. B.,
Lerner, J., & Stern, S. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol.
1). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 221–252.
[62]
Schmoch, U., Hinze, S., Jäckel, G., Kirsch, N., Meyer-Krahmer, F., &
Münt, G. (1996). The role of the scientific community in the
generation of technology. In: Reger, G., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.),
Organisation of Science and Technology at the Watershed. Heidelberg:
©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF
26