Topic Summary:
From Global Inequity
towards a Humane World

1. Science and Public Trust
A Discourse for Society, Ecology and Economy

The Rise of Modernism: Between the 15th and 17th centuries, a “New Science” replaces aristotelic metaphysics: the traditional learning process through commenting authorities was increasingly dominated by scientific observation and experimentation. Over the centuries this new science separated from mystical practices as well as from philosophy (idealism) and its monopoly claim. Science lost its contemplative aspects; it was transformed into a profession (Max Weber). A lot of good elements were built on this development, such as modern and liberal democracy. But negative social and cultural implications were far-reaching. All sectors of life were usurped by science resulting into scientism because science could not deal with immeasurable qualities such as pre-industrial and religious traditions which weakened considerably. Finally in this new vacuum it was wrongly believed science could indicate the cultural way. The widespread loss of meaning, the monopoly of scientific and impersonal “it” language became dominant.

“Science and technology” has become a new structure of action and interaction whose successes remain unquestioned, be it during the Industrial Revolution or in the material wealth of the post-war Western World. These experiences strengthened an optimistic belief in progress, which still has an important role today that should be enhanced by social and cultural aspects..

The Upcoming Post Modernism: The consensus regarding the unchallenged belief in an exclusive technological progress began to fade in the 1970s. Values and cultural perspectives began to change in the industrial world. The trend towards individual development and creativity was paralleled with a new perception of negative ecological tendencies, including some memorable catastrophic events caused by modern technology.

A growing cultural dissent on evaluating science, technology and economy calls for more participation among the major players of good will. The upcoming concepts concerning the limits of growth (Club of Rome 1973) are based on a new perception of environmental pressure, the destruction of nature, seen as the aftermath of uncontrolled science and technology development. Science and technology need to be legitimized under these new perspectives. This is the background for a newly-developed critical civil society which started as a grass roots movement and consolidated as professional NGOs.

2. A Call for better Communication through Participation

Many citizens’ feelings of alienation towards scientific and technological developments triggers the call for additional participation. At the same time, important activities are increasingly negotiated and decided on an international rather than a national level. As a consequence, they cannot be managed any longer by traditional tools of democratic representation (e.g. by national parliaments). It is unclear how this gap between global strategies of technological and economic development and local mechanisms of democratic control can be bridged by political means. Obviously, novel tools of political and economic management and action have to be developed so that there is a means for communication between these different levels on which the political-technological decisions can be taken under the constraints of ecology and economy.

This is a substantial problem for the future, which is also relevant for the basic structures of democracy in general. By calling for more participation (in the sense of being involved in the decision-making process in technological policy) many citizens hope - at least partly - to regain some control of the politics governing science and technology. On the other hand, very concrete and pragmatic social and economic developments impede a sustainable participation in relevant fields of new emerging technologies such as biotechnology. In this situation, we need fundamentally new approaches for political and also social structures, through a new understanding of the current situation.

3. In Search of Common Goals among Opponents:
The Example of Intellectual Property Rights

Our contemporary society is shaped by an increasing globalization as well as by a growing importance of scientific/technological information and the possibility of accessing and producing it. Developing countries raise highly legitimate claims regarding the transfer of traditional social knowledge and scientific/technological information.

This poses the question of how diverging groups could share each other’s traditional/social knowledge and scientific/technological information in a sustainable and equitable way. In the West, a legal framework has been established, the Intellectual Property Rights, IPRs, which regulate a multilayered field in which scientific, economic, social, cultural and religious dimensions need to be considered.

It seems obvious that a future legal framework should be able to protect information generated by technological and scientific methods, without discriminating against traditional social knowledge. How this could be achieved is open to debate. Along the same lines, if and how these new regulations for IPRs can support useful know-how for an appropriate technology where needed, should be discussed. Of importance is the fact that capabilities for using available information (whether protected or not) are still highly heterogeneous.

In this preparatory Conference it will be crucial to understand that planning knowledge (the knowledge what ought to be) is the go-between and the bridge in the discourse about IPRs. This is where all participants can come up with creative new ideas. We are looking forward to shaping a discourse on the needs and the limits of future workshops on IPRs. It is very important to respectfully review motivation and incentive of major players in this global debate and it will be indispensable to invite leading interested parties who undertake professional work initiated by their own experience and motivation.

The detailed programm can be downloaded on this website.

By limiting the number of participants invited to a maximum of 80, we hope and are convinced an informal and intimate atmosphere will be created, which will facilitate networking and open exchange on a very personal level. The newly-formed International Advisory Board will play a vital role in this process, acting in conjunction with the Foundation Academia Engelberg, the invited participants and the Abbey of Engelberg as host at the venue.