La Política Científica y Tecnológica en América Latina: nuevos escenarios y el papel de la comunidad de investigación

Renato Dagnino; Hernán Thomas

doi:10.48160/18517072re13.871

Authors

Renato Dagnino Universidad Estadual de Campinas
Hernán Thomas IESCT-UNQ

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re13.871

Keywords:

Science and Technology Policy, Local development

Abstract

The paper begins by analyzing the antecedents of the transformations now being faced by the Latin American Science and Technology Policy (STP). A parallel with the advanced countries STP is drawn in order to make explicit some aspects that have barely reached the notice of the Latin American research community. Based on a forecasting approach which implies introducing in the S&T decision-making agenda issues related to a scenario of economic democratization and the satisfaction of social demands, the paper suggests some of the implications of this scenario. Besides many other requisites –now hardly feasible– for the reorientation of STP, the paper emphasizes the importance of a viable and unilateral first step: the resignification of the research community-of the research community. From this analysis implications emerge which affect the feasibility of two opposed strategies for the development of S&T. Finally, the article underlines the importance of a viable, unilateral first step as a necessary factor in reorientating STP along the lines of the democratization scenario.

References

• Adler, Emanuel (1987), The Power of Ideology-The Quest for Technological Autonomy in Argentina and Brazil, Los Ángeles, University of California Press.

• Albornoz, Mario (1990), “Consideraciones históricas sobre la política científica y tecnológica en la Argentina”, en Albornoz, M. y Kreimer, P. (eds.), Ciencia y tecnología: estrategias y políticas de largo plazo, Buenos Aires, EUDEBA.

• Albornoz, M., Dagnino, R. et al. (1991), América Latina: ¿Ajuste con equidad?, Buenos Aires, Informe para el programa FAST.

• Alic, J. et al. (1992), Beyond Spin Off: Military and Comercial Techonologies in a Changing World, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

• Amadeo, Eduardo (1978), “Los consejos nacionales de Ciencia y Técnica en América Latina: éxitos y fracasos del primer decenio”, Comercio Exterior, 28 (12).

• Bachrach, P. y Baratz, M. S. (1963), “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework”, American Political Science Review, 57.

• Bachrach, P. y Baratz, M. S. (1962), “Two Faces of Power”, American Political Science Review, 56.

• Bastos, M. I. y Cooper, C. (1995), Politics of Technology in Latin America, Nueva York, Routledge.

• Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995), Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Londres, MIT Press.

• Bush, V. (1945), Science, the Endless Frontier, Washington, National Science Foundation.

• Callon, Michel (1992), “The dynamics of Techno-economic Networks”, en Coombs, Rod; Saviotti, Paolo y Walsh Vivien, Technological Changes and Company Strategies: Economical and Sociological Perspectives, Londres, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

• Chubin, D. y Connolly, T. (1982), “Research Trails and Science Policies: Lo cal and Extra-local Negotiation of Scientific Work”, en Elias, N., Martins, H. y Whitley, R. (eds.), Sociology of the Science, vol. VI, Londres, Reidel Publishing Company.

• Chubin, D. y Hackett, E. (1990), Peerless Science. Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy, Albany, State University of New York Press.

• Dagnino, Renato; Thomas, Hernán y Davyt, Amílcar (1996), “El pensamiento en Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad en Latinoamérica: una interpretación política de su trayectoria”, REDES, 7.

• Dagnino, Renato y Davyt, Amílcar (1995), “Siete equívocos sobre la investigación universitaria”, en Albornoz, M. et al., Ciencia y Sociedad en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

• Dagnino, R. (1991), “La determinación de prioridades tecnológicas: un enfoque matricial”, en Altec, IV Seminario Latinoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica, Caracas, Ediciones Dolvia C. A.

• Dagnino, R., Thomas, H. y Davyt, A. (1997), “Racionalidades de la interacción universidad-empresa en América Latina”, Espacios, 18 (1).

• Dahl, Robert (1957), “The Concept of Power”, Behavioural Science, 2.

• Davyt, Amílcar (1997), A construção de excelência nos processos de avaliação da pesquisa, Dissertação de Mestrado, DPCT-IG/UNICAMP, Brasil.

• Dickson, D. (1988), The New Politics of Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

• Elmore, Richard E. (1993), “Organizational models of social program implementation”, en Hill, Michael (ed.), The Policy Process-a Reader, Londres, Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

• Elzinga, Aant y Jamison, Andrew (1995), “Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology”, en Jassannoff et al. (comps.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Londres, Sage.

• Ergas, H. (1987), “Does technology policy really matter?”, en Guille, B. y Brooks, H., Technology and global industry: companies and nations in the world economy, Washington, National Academy Press.

• Goggin, M. (1986), “Governing Science and Technolgy in Democracy”, Knoxville, University of Tennessee.

• Ham, Christopher y Hill, Michael (1993), The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State, Londres, Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

• Herrera, Amílcar (1995 [1971]), “Los determinantes sociales de la política científica en América Latina. Política científica explícita y política científica implícita”, REDES, 5.

• Herrera, Amílcar (coord.) (1995), Las nuevas tecnologías y el futuro de América Latina. Riesgo y oportunidad, México, Siglo XXI-UNU.

• Hogwood, Brian W. y Gunn, Lewis A. (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

• Kash, D. E. (1991), “Priority Science and Technology Policy Research”, en Inose et al. (eds.), What Should be Done?, Tokio, The Proceedings of the NISTEP International Conference on Science and Technology Policy Research.

• Kingdon, John W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.

• Kreimer, Pablo (1996), “Science and Politics in Latin America. The old and new context in Argentina”, Science, Technology and Society, VI (2).

• Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in Action-How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Londres, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

• Lindblom, Charles E. (1977), Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-economic Systems, Nueva York, Basic Books.

• Lukes, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, Londres, Macmillan.

• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (1988), “Innovation as an interactive process: from userproducer interaction to the national system of innovation”, en Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. y Soete, L. (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Londres, Pinter.

• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Londres, Pinter.

• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (1985), Product innovation and user-producer interaction, Aalborg, Aalborg University Press.

• Molina, Alfonso H. (1989), The Transputer Constituency-Building up UK/European Capabilities in Information Technology, Edinburgo, Edinburgh University.

• Nelson, Richard (1993), “A Retrospective”, en Nelson, Richard (ed.), National Innovation System-A Comparative Analysis, Nueva York, Oxford University Press.

• Nelson, Richard y Rosenberg, Nathan (1993), “Technical Innovation and National Systems”, en Nelson, Richard (ed.), National Innovation System-A Comparative Analysis, Nueva York, Oxford University Press.

• Nelson, Richard (1988), “Preface to Part V-National systems of innovation”, en Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. y Soete, L. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Londres, Pinter.

• Nelson, Richard (1988), “Institutions supporting technical change in the United States”, en Dosi, G. et al. (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Londres, Pinter.

• Niosi, Jorge; Saviotti, Paolo; Bellon, Bertrand y Crow, Michael (1993), “National Systems of Innovation in Search of a Workable Concept”, Technology in Society, 15 (2).

• OCDE (1992), Technology and the Economy, The key relationships, París.

• Oteiza, Enrique (1992), La política de investigación científica y tecnológica argentina. Historia y perspectivas, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.

• Oteiza, Enrique y Vessuri, Hebe (1993), Estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.

• Petrella, Riccardo (1996), Los límites a la competitividad. Cómo se debe gestionar la aldea global, Buenos Aires, Sudamericana-Universidad de Quilmes.

• RICYT (1996), Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos, Buenos Aires.

• Ronayne, J. (1984), Science in Government, Baltimore, Edward Arnold.

• Salomon, Jean Jacques (1977), “Science Policy Studies and the Development of Science Policy”, en I. Spiegel-Rösing y D. Price (comps.), Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, Londres, Sage.

• Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos (1997), Cenários exploratórios do Brasil 2020, Brasilia, Texto para Discussão.

• Thomas, H. (1995), Surdesarrollo. Producción de tecnología en países subdesarrollados, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.

• United Nations (1992), World Investment Report, Nueva York.

• U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1996), World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1995, Washington, WMEAT.

• Vaccarezza, Leonardo (1990), “Reflexiones sobre el discurso de la política científica”, en Albornoz, M. y Kreimer, P., Ciencia y tecnología: estrategias y políticas de largo plazo, Buenos Aires, EUDEBA.

• Vessuri, Hebe (1987), “The Social Study of Science in Latin America”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 17.