Unesco publishes revised 'Science Agenda'
17 June 1999
[LONDON] Governments attending the World Conference on Science in Budapest in ten days' time will be asked to endorse the creation or strengthening of science advisory bodies at both national and international levels, in order to anticipate problems areas likely to arise in areas such as human health.
But delegates attending the conference are no longer to be asked to ensure that the conduct of scientific research is supported by "the appropriate legal frameworks at the national or international level."
Nor will Unesco's committee on bioethics, which has drafted international guidelines on the use of the human genome, be invited "to extend it's activities to other genomes so that exclusivity in the control of life processes is avoided".
These modifications are included in a revised draft of the Science Agenda - Framework for Action
which, together with the World Declaration on Science, makes up the key documents that are intended to be accepted at the end of the conference, which opens in Budapest next week.
The changes have been made in response to comments received from national delegations and scientific societies to the first draft of the document, which was sent out earlier this year (see 'Draft Agenda gets a mixed response', 15 April 1999).
Like its predecessor, the new draft lists its recommendations divided into three sections: 'Science for knowledge; knowledge for progress'; 'Science for peace and development'; 'Science in society and science for society'. The overall number of suggestions, including those for follow-up action, remains about 80.
The most obvious change, which is likely to be widely welcomed, is that the revised document is about half the length of its predecessor. This has been achieved primarily by omitting lengthy - and frequently contentious - explanations for the general approach behind specific proposals.
The second change, which is also likely to be welcomed, is that the new document makes a direct statements about the responsibilities of governments or scientific organizations to act in particular situations, rather than merely indicating actions that need to be taken.
Among the more significant additions is a set of four recommendations concerning the role of scientists in advising policy makers and the public in finding and implementing solutions or response strategies to issues of local and global importance.
"Scientists and scientific bodies should consider it an important responsibility to provide independent advice to their best knowledge," says of a set of proposals believed to have been introduced in particular at the suggestion of the British government.
The revised draft also suggests that governments "in cooperation with relevant UN agencies and international scientific organizations, should strengthen international scientific advisory processes as a necessary contribution to intergovernmental policy consensus building at regional and global levels and to the implementation of regional and international conventions."
Other changes seek to make specific proposals amplifying broad principles and needs. For example, to the suggestion that more research be carried out on clean and sustainable technology, renewable energy resources and the efficient use of energy is added the proposal that "competent international organizations - including Unesco and UNIDO - should promote the establishment of a freely accessible virtual library on sustainable technologies".
Similarly, the encouragement previously given to scientific organizations to engage in debates on the ethical implications of science is now complemented by the specific proposals that scientific associations should define a 'code of ethics' for their members (although a proposal that an international effort be made to establish a code of ethics for the scientific professions has been dropped).
The revised draft repeats its previous emphasis on the need to promote the wider use of the applications of traditional knowledge, and the need to protect it from what is now described as "unrewarded exploitation", a particular concern of countries such as India (see 'India plans to demand compensation
for effect of brain drain', 20 May 1999).
A previous suggestion has been dropped that that 'eco-technologies' based on appropriate blends of traditional wisdom and modern science be developed "in order to contribute to overcoming serious deficiencies in contemporary developmental pathways."
But a new paragraph in the same section urges countries to promote "a comprehensive understanding of traditional knowledge systems, instead of focussing only on extracting elements for their perceived utility to the science and technology system".
Like the original draft of the Framework for Action, the new version suggests that Unesco, in cooperation with the International Council for Science (ICSU) - the joint organisers of the Budapest conference - act as a clearing house and focal agency for co-ordinating the implementation of the proposals its contains.
In addition, Unesco is invited "in cooperation with other partners", to prepare and conduct a regular review of the follow-up to the conference. And a new clause urges the international community to "support the efforts of developing countries in implementing this Science Agenda".
But the new draft significantly omits a previous suggestion that government should endorse a commitment to strengthening the international programmes of ICSU and the intergovernmental programmes of Unesco, such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.
Some delegates are said to have pointed out that the Budapest meeting is not the appropriate forum for their governments to make this type of commitment.
The changes are unlikely to appease all critics of the earlier draft. Although there are several paragraphs emphasising the need to widen participation in science - in particular for women and 'marginalized groups' - and to eliminate "open or covert discriminatory practices in research activities", some groups are likely to argue that these do not go far enough (see Draft declaration 'pays insufficient attention to women's issues', 13 May 1999).
The new draft, like its predecessor, encourages closer links between universities and industry, and a greater emphasis on technology transfer between the two. But it retains an image of science as a primarily intellectual activity with potential industrial or social applications, rather than one that is - or should be - embedded in a 'system of innovation'.
There is no mention of the needs of specific areas of science - such as physics - whose proponents had been seeking an endorsement of their particular needs for support and protection (see 'Physics workshop calls for new 'contract' with society', 15 April 1999).
And the lack of any effort to stimulate a commitment on the part of governments to major new commitments, such as special funds for training Third World researchers, is likely to receive critical comment from some individual delegations during the plenary sessions of the Budapest meeting.
But the streamlining of the original version, as well as the omission of some of is more contentious statements, is expected to be widely welcomed, and will certainly make the document more digestible to those who are keen to make the meeting a success.
DAVID DICKSON
For full text of the draft 'Science Agenda - Framework for Action', click here.
For the full text of the draft 'World Declaration on Science', click here.
 |  |  |  |
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1999 Registered No. 785998 England.