The Science and Politics: Problems of Mutual Understanding and Criteria for Success

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2024.03.153

Keywords:

socio-economic problems, political decisions, institutional frameworks, mutual understanding of science and politics, wicked problems, economic cycles

Abstract

A task of political power is to shape the culture of society, ensure harmonious interaction between its institutions and thereby promote economic growth and well-being. The effectiveness of implementing political decisions depends on the scientific validity of economic management and the ability to take into account the reaction of society. This means that politicians and scientists must work together to solve socio-economic problems. The purpose of the study is to search for organizational principles of rational interaction between politics and science, to increase the efficiency of making and supporting political decisions during their implementation. The trend towards weakening mutual understanding between science and politics is discussed as they are viewed in policy-making systems as distinct communities with distinct and even mutually exclusive practices. At the same time, there is some experience of joint activities of political and academic institutions within the framework of the so-called industrial science. It is important for politicians to get help from science in overcoming uncertainties, which are an annoying obstacle for politicians and which they try to get rid of with a simple “majority vote”. To overcome socio-economic uncertainty and improve the quality of forecasting, it is proposed to take into account of the presence of economic cycles that have a natural cause; type of information (content, background and nuisance). The possibilities for science to participate in solving the country’s socio-economic problems in cooperation with politicians will be significantly reduced, when the authorities begin to reduce the number of “degrees of freedom” of national science, limiting the freedom of scientists’ activities by legal norms which appropriateness is determined by subjective considerations of politicians. Mutual understanding of science and politics in solving socio-economic problems can be achieved by laying down institutional foundations of scientific-political interaction, which will allow for coordinating the points of view of science and politics, as well as values and ideas about the good, in the process of making government decisions.

References

Мертон Р. Социальная теория и социальная структура. Москва: ACT, 2006. 873 с.

Вебер М. Избранные произведения. Москва: Прогресс, 1990. 808 с.

Лейчик В.М. Терминоведение: Предмет, методы, структура. Москва: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2009. 256с.

Бурлацкий Ф. Политика и наука. Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines. 2022. No. 40. P. 209—218. https://doi.org/10.4000/rhsh.7113

Science for Policy. Handbook. European Union: Elsevier Limited, 2020. 266 p. 6. Бернал Дж. Наука в истории общества. Москва: Наука, 1957. 735 с.

Кугель С.А. Человеческий фактор новых научных направлений: пути становления. Роль научной элиты. Социология науки и технологий. 2013. № 2. С. 43—53.

Ruggles A. Regulatory vs. Academic Science. CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. CIRES Center for Science & Technology Policy Research. No. 9. 2004. URL: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ogmius/archives/issue_9/research_highlight.html (дата звернення 12.05.2024).

Авдулов А.Н., Кулькин А.М. Системы государственной поддержки научно-технической деятельности в России и США: процессы и основные этапы их формирования. Москва: ИНИОН, 2003. 84 с.

Аллахвердян А. Г. Динамика научных кадров в советской и российской науке: сравнительно-историческое исследование. Москва: Изд-во «Когито-Центр», 2014. 263 с.

Маліцький Б.А. Науковоцентрична державна політика як необхідний та ефективний інструмент покращення умов життя в Україні. Наука та наукознавство. 2023. № 1 (119). С. 18—34. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2023.01.018

Кондратьев Н.Д., Яковец Ю.В., Абалкин Л. И. Большие циклы конъюнктуры и теория предвидения. Избранные труды. Москва: Экономика, 2002. 550 с.

Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. Циклы, кризисы, ловушки современной МирСистемы. Исследование кондратьевских, жюгляровских и вековых циклов, глобальных кризисов, мальтузианских и постмальтузианских ловушек. Москва: ЛКИ, 2012. 480 с.

Чалдаева Л. А., Килячков А. А. Унифицированный подход к описанию природы экономических циклов. Финансы и кредит. 2012. № 45 (525). С. 2—8.

Хантингтон С. Политический порядок в меняющихся обществах. Москва: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004. 480 с.

Аль-Аммори А., Дяченко П.В., Клочан А.Е., Бакун Е.В., Козелецкая И.К. Методы и средства защиты информации. The Scientific Heritage. 2020. No. 51. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metody-i-sredstva-zaschity-informatsii/pdf (дата звернення: 12.05.2024).

West Churchmam C. Wicked Problems. Management Science. 1967. No. 14 (4). P. B-141—B-274. URL: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141 (дата звернення: 12.05.2023).

Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M. Dilemmas in a General Th eory of Planning. Policy Sciences. 1973. No. 4 (2). P. 155—169. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523 (дата звернення 12.05.2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Эшби У.Р. Необходимое разнообразие. Введение в кибернетику. Москва: Изд-во иностранной литературы, 1959. С. 287—310.

Published

2024-10-07

How to Cite

Soloviov , V. (2024). The Science and Politics: Problems of Mutual Understanding and Criteria for Success. Science and Science of Science, 3(125), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2024.03.153

Issue

Section

Opinions of Scientists on Issues of Vital Importance