The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, in cooperation with the National Research Council, organized a workshop in May 1998 on "Science and Democracy." This report, which summarizes the presentations and discussions at this meeting, has been published by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

Introduction

With the collapse of the communist regimes in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, considerable attention has focused on how to create and sustain democracy. Scholars have examined the role of civil society, and recent academic studies have become the intellectual underpinnings of the emphasis by American foundations and U.S. government agencies, particularly USAID, on supporting non-governmental organizations in the region. However, few have addressed the role of scientists and scientific institutions in the evolution of civil society. Furthermore, little attention has been given to whether and why some types of non-governmental organizations (including Academies of Sciences), institutions, and professional societies are more effective in promoting civic engagement and democratic governance than others.

At the same time, there is a general sense within the international science and technology (S&T) community that the values of science "honesty, objectivity, and a respect for the intrinsic merit of a wide range of ideas and opinions" are essential to a democratic culture and thereby can help support democratization around the world. However, there has been little effort to assess under what circumstances individual scientists as well as academies of sciences and other scientific organizations help catalyze and sustain democratization. The academies of sciences in Eastern Europe provide important examples of both scientific institutions which have significantly advanced democratization and institutions which have impeded the process of democratization. Even within the academies, there have often been noteworthy differences in the impact of individuals, departments, and institutes.

Also, it is clear that the process of democratization and economic reform have had wide-ranging impacts on science in these countries. The changes have allowed new opportunities for international collaboration as well as new possibilities for external brain drain. The early 1990s saw a sharp decline in university enrollments in scientific fields as students opted for more lucrative careers. In addition, budgets of many research institutes were cut, encouraging researchers to search for grants and contracts at home and abroad to a degree previously unknown.

Against this backdrop, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, in cooperation with the National Research Council, organized a workshop on May 4-5 in Prague on "Science and Democracy." The purpose of this meeting was 1) to identify themes, theories, and case studies for future research on this topic, and 2) to consider more practical ways in which the scientific community can strengthen democracy in the region. Dr. Blanka Rihova (Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) and Dr. John Polanyi (University of Toronto) served as co-chairs.

This report summarizes the presentations and discussions at the workshop, and it is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the topic, underscoring the "ethos of science" and the role of science in democratic governance. In the second section, four approaches to addressing this topic are introduced: a historical perspective on science under communism, the role of transnational scientific cooperation, the importance of informal networks, and a typology to systemize the relationship between science and democracy. Five presentations by Central Europeans (from the Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania) on the place of science in their country before and after the transitions follow. The next section highlights several challenges faced by the scientific community in a democratizing country, and the final section summarizes the closing discussion.

Each participant made significant contributions to the meeting. Also, a number of staff members of the Czech Academy played important roles in the organizational and administrative aspects of the meeting. Dan Dvorak and his colleagues in the international department deserve special thanks. At the National Research Council, the efforts of Stephen Deets are also gratefully acknowledged.

I. Opening Remarks

Welcoming Statements by the Czech Hosts

The workshop was opened by Dr. J. Sokol (Czech Minister of Education, Youth, and Sports) on the evening on May 3, 1998. To Dr. Sokol, science is best characterized by the search for truth, a search which is not confined by political ideology. This spirit of inquiry and free exchange of ideas is not only vital for scientific progress but also for the functioning of democracy. These remarks on the similar values of science and democracy provoked a lively discussion on the role of scientists in a democratic society. One option for scientists is to enter politics, and Dr. Sokol noted that in the early 1990s, many scientists had entered politics. However, today it is less common, and scientists are returning to their labs. The most important impact scientists can have in promoting an open society is by transmitting scientific values to their students, which is one reason the previous Czech regime clearly separated universities and research institutes. Now there should be greater cooperation between universities and research institutes and more opportunities for scientists to move back and forth between the two. He added that teaching without research deadens one’s skills; and if one conducts research without teaching, one loses touch with reality.

As co-chair of the workshop, Dr. Blanka Rihova (Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) welcomed the participants on the morning of May 4. In her brief remarks, she noted the wide variety of impacts of science on society, stressing the importance of understanding how science can and does contribute to democracy.

Overview on Science and Democracy (John Polanyi)

In his welcoming remarks as co-chair, Dr. John Polanyi (University of Toronto) began by harkening back to the early days of Pugwash in the 1950’s, when there was considerable debate about whether scientists should become involved in issues of disarmament. He was advised not to go to the Pugwash meetings since they would descredit science and because arms issues had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science. He was also warned that Western scientists would see their reputations tarnished and would be considered dupes of the communists. Forty years later, it no longer seems strange for scientists to reach across borders to address issues that are not strictly scientific.

The political, economic, and social agenda being addressed by scientists is broadening, both domestically and internationally. Moving from questions of how science served society, scientists became more vocal about what society should look like, particularly with the advent of the nuclear age. With the start of the arms race, scientists could defend their involvement on the basis that they understood the technology. Similarly with issues such as ozone and resource depletion, scientists could say, "We are scientists giving technical advice." But this advice is given with their own Weltanschauung, their view of what they consider to be a civilized world. When scientists became involved in human rights, an area which is clearly not scientific, there were questions of what scientists could do. Soon it became clear that scientists had prestige and a reputation for openness and tolerance, and scientists could use these assets to set a standard of behavior as responsible citizens of the world.

Today the step from advocating human rights to helping to build democracy is not a big one. This is also a small step because science exemplifies some important facets of democracy. Most people are introduced to science as being a body of facts supported by irrefutable proofs. This is science as viewed from a distance. Close-up science is markedly different. It is a body of hypotheses arrived at by a general method, and that method is debate. The provisional “proofs” to which it gives rise register no more than the achievement of a consensus. This should not suggest that scientists doubt the existence of reality or that they are relativists. But they regard universal truths as being never more than partially revealed. As a result, science is about ideas, not ideology. This is why if one questions conventional scientific thinking, the skeptic is not burnt as a heretic, but hailed as a hero.

As for proof, it exists in the court of science only to the extent that it exists in any other courtroom where truth is valued. An incontestable proof is not a possibility envisioned by science. The reason that nature reveals itself only partially is that it comes through human perception to be expressed in a limited vocabulary. Nothing could be more dangerous to science or democracy than the concept of an unchallengable proof. This pernicious notion lies at the heart of all ideology, religious or secular. The supposed steam-roller of science has been repeatedly invoked in recent times by dictatorships in order to crush dissent. Such action is based on a fiction. Science advances, if it advances, only by persuading free people, and never by abrogating their freedom.

The common interest in science is clear; it is the advancement of understanding. All else must be secondary. But how is this to be ensured? In science, as in any democratic society, the best guarantee of integrity is openness. Science has its "authorities"; it could not function without them. A system in which equal weight was given to all individuals’ views would not be workable, any more than would be a system without trust. When Newton or Einstein spoke, the hall was silent. But that is not the same as saying it was silenced. Critical voices were heard, and new consensuses forged. As with democratic leadership in politics or commerce, the trust upon which scientific authority rests must be earned and re-earned. It is a gift that can be given and withdrawn.

Openness permits the scrutiny that must precede the act of granting authority. An act which is informed and voluntary puts power in the hands of the individual. The impetus for doing so is the recognition of the most fundamental of human rights: the right to be heard. The condition of openness on which democracy is based also occupies a central place in the ethos of science. This is not to say that the democracy that is science is identical to any other, ancient or modern. The scientist’s democracy is remarkable for functioning with a minimum formal structure. It operates internationally, yet it is devoid of a constitution, parliament, titular leaders, courts, judges, police, or prisons. Nonetheless, it is a society that depends, as all free societies do, on debate, on cooperation between members, on leadership, on rules of conduct, and on sanctions against those who flaunt the rules.

Science is also special in that truth is not judged by ascriptive characteristics of the person making the claim. One would think science should be riven by factionalism between nationalities, classes, religions, and ethnicities, and be prone to civil war; yet, by and large, it is not. The less fortunate (who abound) fail to take up arms against the more fortunate, because the system gives evidence of serving the interests of both. That it can do this with so little structure is testimony to the civilizing effects of education regarding common goals.

The sense of community in the society of science can be sufficiently strong to spread the contagion of democracy, and in fact, it has been. Through national and international forums the scientific community has been prominent in open debate on arms control, global resources, the environment, medical ethics, and human rights. While the laws of physics and chemistry have only a limited bearing on these topics, the ethos of science has guided civilized action.

Earlier Dr. Sokol was asked about the weakest link in Czech democracy, and he answered that people do not care whether or not democracy works. This is not just a Czech problem, for all democracies must be vigilant. But how do you encourage people to care? In democracy, the government is supposed to be us, not them. For this to be true, everyone must have a sense of participation, which in turn requires responsible, informed discussion by citizens to shape the government agenda. This is the core of civil society, and the openness and tolerance that characterises science could be used more widely to spread the habit of democracy.

In an effort to do this, step one should be to involve scientists from areas of the world where democracy is fragile in the international debate of technical issues that are a high priority in their region; for example, these could be education, shelter, communication, transportation, and pollution. Having put these individuals in touch in a favourable setting and established a common interest, step two would be to devolve this (inter-cultural democratic) organization to the local level that it serves, where it can act as an example of the power of cooperation. The underlying intention would be twofold: to strengthen "civil society" (the concept of civic responsibility) and to underscore common interests, for without such interests the existence of any society is no more than a truce within a war. For there can be no democracy without peace, no peace without trust, and no trust without shared purpose. The community of science has, for some time past, offered an example of shared purpose in action.

Background and Goals of the Meeting (Glenn Schweitzer)

Glenn Schweitzer (National Research Council) next spoke about the involvement of scientists in governance in the United States. There are many scientific institutions that actively participate in the democratic processes in the United States. For example, twice each year the American Association for the Advancement of Science provides national platforms for debating issues that go to the heart of the American system of governance, such as the appropriate role of the courts and constraints on the media. The American Chemical Society has played a central role in shaping environmental regulations that balance industrial growth with broader societal interests while providing opportunities for citizen input into government decision-making.

The National Research Council (NRC) also been part of this process. It has conducted many studies over the years that address concerns over human rights, racial justice, and the roles of nongovernmental institutions as well as provided important fora for public debate. For example, the NRC Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) brings people together from these three areas to discuss common problems and issues. Richard Celeste, a former chair of GUIRR, recently has been appointed U.S. Ambassador to India, and he is already trying to replicate this model in India. The NRC is also just starting a study on "Science and Foreign Policy," which was prompted by the recognition that issues such as infectious diseases, bioethics and the human genome, and bioterrorism are increasingly important components of U.S. foreign policy and that the U.S. State Department needs greater input from the scientific community. In addition, the NRC has maintained its own international scientific programs. It has organized scientific exchanges in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union for over 30 years. The NRC has a Committee on Human Rights, which seeks to protect the rights of scientists around the world. And the U.S. office for the International Council of Scientific Unions, which is located at the NRC, and the new Inter-Academy Panel are important focal points for international discussions on science-related issues.

Finally, the NRC has conducted several studies on issues of democratization. While the most recent report was a volume entitled Transforming Post-Communist Political Economies, Glenn Schweitzer focused on an earlier study on "Measuring Progress Towards Democracy." This report considered approaches to measuring good governance, rights and freedoms, and free and fair elections; but it recognized that democracy needs a flexible definition. The report also discusses other measuring efforts, including the World Bank study on Exercise of Power in Managing Resources,the U.N. Development Program’s Freedom Parameters,which considers security, rule of law, and political participation, and various U.S. Agency for International Development indicators, including freedom of association and an independent judiciary. What these efforts have in common is that they divide democracy into smaller components, measure each separately, and then assess the relationship between them.

It is against this background that the NRC proposed this workshop to examine how natural scientists and scientific organizations are influencing the evolution of new types of democracies in Central Europe. There has already been mention of how the "ethos of science" is spread through the media, education system, and outreach programs and how professional societies and other scientific institutions can impact regulatory frameworks and governmental policies and provide important fora for government, industry, and academics. But are scientists in Central Europe interested, or are economic problems too great? More broadly, can the contribution of science to democracy be measured? Or at least can the inter-relationships be studied in a sound manner? And if there are feasible methodological approaches, what should be the next steps to clarifying the roles of scientists and engineers in promoting democratic goals, not only in Central Europe but in other areas of the world as well?

Discussion

The discussion following these presentations focused on two themes. The first was whether science can be considered as any kind of model for democracy. Dr. Michael Illner (Czech Institute of Sociology) said that while science is inherently democratic, as with any human institution, it can be authoritarian; he pointed out that science under authoritarian regimes still managed to function. Dr. Blagovest Sendov (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) argued that science is not democratic at all. Scientists do not prove a theory by voting; one scientist may have the truth and everyone else may be wrong. Dr. Rihova reminded everyone that whether science is a good model depends on how one conceives of democracy; a definition implying good governance and one implying unrestricted freedom will result in different answers. Dr. Ivo Slaus (Rudjer Boskovic Institute) added that too many in Central Europe equate democracy with voting. The rulers feel that since they won the elections, the scientists should go back to their laboratories and not worry about politics.

The second theme was the role of scientists in politics. Dr. Jiri Musil (Central European University) said that historically in periods of deep social conflicts, scientists have retreated, reflecting a Weberian idea of scientists shuttered away doing their science. Given the current conflicts over core values in Central Europe, we should not be surprised that scientists are again shy. Others argued that scientists have a natural role because of their prestige, although previously this prestige was enforced by the government, and now there is some public backlash against science. Some participants believed that although scientists may have prestige, many are simply not interested in politics. Instead the question should be what message should be conveyed to those who are interested in politics. Dr. Illner responded by saying studies on democracy usually focus on institutions. Institutions in the Czech Republic are safe, but there is a need to put flesh on their skeletons. How does a country develop a democratic culture? There is a need to promote democratic ethos within science, and part of this effort will be to make scientific networks more open to new people and ideas.

Several Central Europeans wondered whether scientists in North America are active in debates over public policy. Dr. Polanyi admitted it was not a huge number, but that it was increasing and influential. Glen Schweitzer concurred, noting that there are certainly issues in which scientists, engineers, and health professionals are very interested, such as health care and food safety. They tend to be more vocal on issues which directly affect them, but there is a small, but significant, percentage which is interested in a broader range of issues. However, Dr. Polanyi added that the problem is not like lifting a heavy weight; a small number can do quite a bit.

II. Approaches to Science and Democracy

Science in Communist Societies (David Holloway)

Dr. David Holloway (Stanford University) examined the historic role of science under communism, particularly in the Soviet Union. A topic of "Science and Democracy" presupposes the topic "Science and Authoritarianism," especially in relation to the former communist world. The Bolsheviks inherited from Marx and from a number of Russian thinkers an idea of science as a progressive and rationalizing force, and they claimed that Marxism was a scientific theory which shared with the natural sciences a materialist outlook and the dialectical method. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet regime provided considerable support for science, and many people outside the Soviet Union accepted the claim that the Soviet Union embodied (or was coming to embody) the ideal of a rational, scientific, social system. The works of J.D. Bernal exemplify this.

Western writing about Soviet science in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s was designed to show that, far from embodying science and rationality, the Soviet regime was actually opposed to science (or at least incompatible with it); the rise of Lysenko played a central part in this critique. But Western commentators also pointed to the enormous Soviet investment in science and engineering and to the danger that the West might lose the "race" in science and technology. This was a popular theme after the Sputnik but waned as it became increasingly clear that the communist world lagged in technological innovation.

There are still some who see communism as the embodiment of scientific rationality, though now that identification serves as an indictment of science rather than as praise of communism. Vaclav Havel has argued that the "end of communism has brought an end not just to the 19th and 20th centuries, but to the modern age as a whole. The modern era has been dominated by the culminating belief, expressed in different forms, that the world--and Being as such--is a wholly knowable system governed by a finite number of universal laws that man can grasp and rationally direct for his own benefit. It was an era in which there was a cult of depersonalized objectivity, an era in which objective knowledge was amassed and technologically exploited, an era of belief in automatic progress brokered by the scientific method. Communism was the perverse extreme of this trend."

As Loren Graham has shown in his The Ghost of the Executed Engineer, there is much to be said for this view. A powerful state, equipped with extensive scientific and technological resources and determined to transform nature no less than society, can do enormous harm to both nature and society. Technology detached from human values, freed from the constraints of civil society and democratic politics, is likely to do enormous damage--Chernobyl serves as a notable example. In this sense one can indeed argue that the Soviet experience with technology is the extreme example of a problem to be found in all modern societies, whether democratic or not.

This of course is only part of the story. Rorty has argued that there are two kinds of rationality. There is "technocratic" rationality, which Havel has in mind in the quote above. But rational also means "reasonable" and "sane." In this respect, rationality signifies the open and tolerant attitude which others have referred to as the "scientific ethos." The party clearly valued the first aspect of scientific rationality more than the second.

The communist authorities may have viewed science primarily as an instrument of power, but as others have noted, science is also a social system, an activity conducted in communities with their own techniques of persuasive argumentation. The relationship between these communities and the Soviet regime was a source of recurrent conflict, especially during the Stalinist years. The central issue was one of authority: who had the right to define what constituted scientific truth? The Communist Party claimed (in the final analysis) that right; scientific communities asserted that right for themselves, since it was they who had the competence to make scientific judgments. Since the regime wanted strong science for reliable advice, it could not easily override the views of scientists. But the politicization of scientific authority did create a complex politics of science and encouraged appeals to political criteria (e.g., compatability with Marxism-Leninism) in scientific disputes.

After Stalin's death the Soviet regime gradually relinquished its claim to authority in science; not in the allocation of funds to science, of course, but in adjudicating scientific theories. At the same time, the success of the nuclear weapons and rocket programs gave science enormous prestige. Two models of politics, based on science, began to win support in the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. The first was a technocratic vision: politics might be made more 'scientific' through the use of computers, optimal planning models, etc.; cybernetics--the science of control and communication--was in vogue. This conception of politics provided a framework for the revival of the social sciences, especially economics, as instruments of state administration. The second model of politics was to take science as the exemplar of civil society--or, more precisely, to use Habermas' term--of a public sphere for free and unprejudiced discussion. The power of argument, rather than the argument of power, was what characterized science in this view. This was never as widespread a conception as the more technocratic model of politics, but it reflected a belief among scientists that science was the area of greatest relative freedom in communist societies. Neither of these models was ever realized in practice, of course, and many of their adherents came in time to see that they would not provide the basis for reform. The technocratic critique of the command economy was a significant element in the Prague Spring. After 1968 the Soviet authorities took special pains to prevent the technocratic model from providing the basis for a critical analysis of the communist system. Yet even though these scientific models of politics were not realized in practice, it could be argued that they contributed to the delegitimization of communist rule by undermining the claim of the Party to be engaged in "scientific" politics.

Far from transforming communist politics (as many scientists and reformers hoped), science became (to a greater or lesser extent) Sovietized, according to one important line of argument (see, for example, Mark Popovsky’s Science In Chains). The political authorities exercised tight control over appointments to administrative positions and elections to honorific bodies like the Academies of Sciences. In addition, they sought to exclude political dissidents from universities and research institutions. Some very powerful scientific schools flourished in the communist world, but, considering the resources devoted to science, the results were less than might have been achieved under other conditions.

On the other hand, science did offer alternative visions of politics at a time when other elements of civil society were largely crushed. However, the collapse of communist rule has brought several changes to the place of science and scientists. First, science no longer offers an exclusive alternative model. Also, with the drastic budget cuts, scientists are turned inward and are focusing on defending themselves. Finally, science has lost much of its prestige; this is not only because of its association with the previous regime, but it is also blamed for wasteful, large-scale projects and for the environmental problems. So while one can argue that science has an inherent moral authority, that is not good enough. Science also has to be seen as self-regulating and as living up to its own standards.

Transnational Scientific Cooperation (Matthew Evangelista)

In his presentation, Matthew Evangelista (Cornell University) asked whether transnational contacts between scientists are a force for democracy. During the Cold War, scientists from around the world met under such auspices as the Pugwash Conferences on Science and International Affairs as well as informally to discuss ways to deal with the Soviet-American arms race and other international problems. Starting in the early 1980s, doctors formed International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which had similar goals. A number of observers, including the Nobel Committee in awarding the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize to Pugwash, have argued that these transnational contacts between scientists and physicians contributed to the end of the Cold War by providing influential suggestions for bringing the arms race under control. To the extent that the end of the Cold War and the arms race in turn contributed to the democratization of the countries of the former Soviet bloc, Pugwash and other such transnational movements can be said to have played a role.

Specifically Dr. Evangelista addressed the somewhat different question of whether Pugwash and other international organizations that brought together scientists from the opposing blocs foster democratic values in a more direct fashion. Did the scientists who participated in international meetings learn about democratic freedoms? Are there any lessons that can be applied to current efforts at democratic reform in the former state-socialist countries? For the most part Pugwash and the International Physicians movement avoided questions of human rights in favor of a focus on the nuclear threat, and they were often criticized for that stance. How then should we consider their impact on democratization? One approach is to distinguish between the effect of scientists’ meetings on the personal values of the participants themselves and the effect on their society at large.

Looking at the Soviet case, it appears that international scientific meetings were not necessary for fostering personal democratic values. Andrei Sakharov and others have claimed that it is the nature of science to favor intellectual freedom for the sake of pursuit of truth. Soviet scientists who participated in Pugwash were able to enjoy the expression of intellectual freedom to engage in scientific discussions with their foreign colleagues. These discussions yielded practical results in terms of proposed solutions to the arms race, but they were not the source of democratic values for the Soviet participants. In this view, Pugwash was not necessary to foster personal democratic values, because these values were already present among the participants. This is especially true regarding the pursuit of truth throught rational scientific arguement and the use of evidence, instead of staying within strict ideological boundaries. But it is unrealistic to argue that every scientist is committed to intellectual freedom and democracy as a matter of professional background. The example of Tromfim Lysenko and his impact on Soviet genetics offers ample evidence to the contrary. Clearly among scientists and physicians, as among any group of people, we can find a wide range of political attitudes, only some of which are congenial to democracy.

But what of the argument that international scientific contacts introduce democratic values to participants from countries that lack a democratic tradition? This seems to have been the case, for example, with Viktor Adamskii, a junior colleague of Sakharov’s at Arzamas-16. Adamskii wrote that he learned about democratic values by reading the Bullentin of Atomic Scientists in the library of his top-secret laboratory. What impressed him in the Bulletin was its descriptions of free debate among American scientists. Sometimes international contacts have reinforced the prejudices of Soviet participants and bolstered values contrary to the interests of democracy and peace. The transnational collaboration between scientists from the Russian and U.S. nuclear-weapons laboratories from the late 1980s to the present is a case in point. Their joint advocacy of continued funding of nuclear-weapons research on both sides, despite the end of the Cold War, has been a stumbling block to further progress in nuclear disarmament and has not served the interests of democratic control over foreign policy.

Furthermore, the Pugwash meetings and related informal contacts had little impact on Soviet society at large because they were conducted in private. Unlike the closed Pugwash meetings, starting in 1981 the annual conferences of the International Physicians movement were broadcast on Soviet television, often in their entirety. They presented extensive information about the consequences of nuclear war that had heretofore been unavailable to the Soviet public or even to relatively high level officials in the foreign-policy community. Some Soviet officials have claimed that these TV broadcasts contributed to the emergence of the "new thinking" in Soviet foreign policy under Gorbachev, and thus in a limited way to the democratization of Soviet politics.

The historical experiences of Pugwash and the International Physicians movement do not provide any clear guidelines for using international scientific contacts to promote democracy, but they do help pose some questions.

First, are scientists the most appropriate audience for efforts at promoting democratic values, or does the nature of their work make them already supporters of intellectual freedom? Recent surveys of public opinion hypothesize that people trained during the Soviet era in the natural sciences are generally more inclined towards democracy than those trained in certain branches of the humanities where ideology played a more prominent role in education. If it is demonstrated that scientists already espouse democratic values, would not other groups, such as military officers, benefit more from international contacts?

Second, are some international contacts likely to be counterproductive by bringing together scientists whose work does not serve the goals of democracy?

The third question, related to the second, raises concerns about justice. Many U.S. programs to help Russian scientists are focused on those who worked in the military-industrial sector, particularly on nuclear weapons. There are sound reasons for keeping such people occupied so that they do not seek to sell their talents to the highest international bidder. Recently similar concerns have been raised about finding employment for Russian scientists who developed biological weapons to keep them from working for terrorists. Even though such efforts can be supported on prudential grounds, one should consider how they must appear to former Soviet scientists who pursued peaceful research during the Cold War and are also underemployed. It must seem a real injustice to them to see scientists who worked on illegal weapons of mass destruction benefit from U.S. largesse while they themselves continue to suffer.

The final question concerns the limits of the lessons from U.S. experience for scientists from the former Soviet bloc. We like to think that all good things go together: democracy, free markets, intellectual freedom, and good science. One of the major changes that has accompanied the end of the Cold War has been a reevaluation of the relationship of government to science and a diminishing of government support for basic research. The demise of the state-socialist model of economic organization coincided with the triumph of neoliberal policies in the West that minimized the role of government in the economy (with the exception of the military-industrial sector). Under current circumstances many scientists can no longer depend on government support and must rely on the market if they have skills that are at all commercially viable. Given that market structures are better developed in the West than in the transition economies, it is not surprising that one of the main impacts of the increase in international contacts between Western and former Soviet-bloc scientists has been the phenomenon of "brain drain." If the U.S. model offers more lessons about free markets than about free intellectual exchange, then its benefits to the advance of science and democracy could be limited. Any program of international scientific exchanges intended to promote democracy must take into account the change in ideological and political context that emphasizes the market at the expense of government responsibility.

Informal Networks in Post-Communist Societies

In speaking about the importance of networks in understanding the post-communist transition, Dr. Janine Wedel (George Washington University) began by reminding the audience that under communism, scientists were members of the elite, worked in elite institutions, and were therefore dependent on the state, whether they opposed it or not. While there were salons of dissidents with moral authority, trust and personal connections were necessary to gain access to these salons. Under the current situation, money has replaced the value of knowledge; and much of the elite is now worried about making money. On one hand, people recognize that science and engineering are necessary for economic development, but they are not sure how science and engineering really fits into the new society. So there are unresolved questions about the moral authority of scientists and engineers under the new conditions.

Civil society has become one of the slogans of the transition, but what is involved in building civil society? One problem is that we tend to talk in terms of discontinuities instead of continuities. We assume that 1989 represents a fresh start, but in reality it is like a messy divorce with young children. We have to look at the legacy of communism and the effects of the almost ten years of reform. Before 1989 there were small circles of civil society based on trust, with civil society being defined broadly to include informal networks of family members and friends. These informal networks exchanged goods, services, and information. Not to be a member of any kind of network was to be marginalized. Western and Central European opinion-makers, especially after 1989, saw civil society as connective tissue of the new democracies. The West also envisioned that the new non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would play an important role in public policy; i.e., they would inform the public, business, and government. As such, NGOs were vehicles of technical assistance; this is clearly true for programs related to environmental issues, marketization, and election education. The goal has been to diminish the role of the centralized state and increase the role of a decentralized civil society. However, scientific organizations, by and large, have not been part of this equation.

But the assumptions were inaccurate. A few elite groups served as gatekeepers to the West; and Western providers of assistance had little real information on who was who in these countries and consequently became obsessed with labels (reformer, communist, populist, etc.). At the same time, the previous informal networks began to permeate the state, business community, and newly created institutions, with members taking full advantage of the new opportunities for making money and wielding influence. Additionally, information has remained a valuable commodity, one that often remains within the informal networks. So merely looking at formal institutions will not provide an adequate understanding of developments in these countries.

What is missing is an understanding that the essence of democracy and civil society is not about working with your friends, but in creating alliances and sharing information impersonally and across networks. Western aid actually reinforced existing hierarchies, giving advantages to people that already had them. The West also did not appreciate how these groups could operate monopolistically under the current realities.

The important issue is the capacity in each country to organize civil society around broad interests instead of around personal networks. Science also has been grounded in such networks. How will the academies reach out? How will they disseminate their messages? Given the waning prestige of science, how will scientists engage people in public debates, including at the local level? If scientists do not want to become involved in polarized debates, maybe they should not become involved. Perhaps instead they can find a way to be involved in a non-partisan manner.

Mapping the Relation Between Science and Democracy

In order to better understand the relationship between science and democracy, Dr. Jozef Vyrost (Institute of Social Sciences of the Slovak Academy) proposed a comparative research design. The basis of this cross-cultural project would be to analyze the personal and institutional impacts of science and scientists in different societal subsystems.

Dr. Vyrost began by discussing how the meaning of democracy has changed over the centuries. While Plato and Aristotle viewed democracy as rule by the uncontrolled passions of the masses, after the French and American revolutions the term signified a representative government. However, modern scholars have broadened this definition to include a much wider array of conditions, as Glenn Schweitzer mentioned earlier. Democracy is no longer so much an end state as a goal towards which countries continually aspire. As a result, it has become harder to categorize countries as clearly democratic or non-democratic as we see hints of liberalism and illiberalism in all of them. Despite these problems, the historical record shows that by and large science (on an institutional level) and scientists (on a personal level) have influenced the process of democratization in society as a whole and in various social subsystems. In order to study current democracy, comparative research is needed. There are reasons to suspect that one could find historic antecedents to democracy in every democratic country, but only through comparative work can we discover which factors are really necessary.

Similarly, to study the role of scientists in democratization, it is necessary to look synchronically across countries and diachronically. Also, it helps to create a key concept to express the multidimensional and multilevel impact of science on democratization. Dr. Vyrost proposed the term "scientific expertise." One can think about scientific expertise as influencing democratization through two channels: institutions and individuals. Such an approach takes into account issues of prestige, both in terms of individuals and science as whole. In addition, the implementation of scientific expertise comes through interactions between individuals, between institutions, and between individuals and institutions. Finally, through these interactions we can analyze some of the tensions between the scientific values of the institutions and the values of the individuals. Subdividing the issue further, Dr. Vyrost noted that there are several areas or social subsystems in which the influence of scientific expertise can be identified and analyzed. These include the economy, legislation, regional authorities, and non-governmental organizations.

The resulting model for approaching science and democratization has three-dimensions. On one axis is time (past and present), another is level (personal and institutional), and the final axis consists of the content areas. Evaluating the content of these "boxes" would provide a clearer understanding of how science and democracy influence each other.

Discussion

During the discussion, Dr. Illner commended Dr. Wedel for reminding everyone that even before the Velvet Revolution, there were some nuclei of civil society, so it is not a complete break. This second society was a form of survival. In the formal sphere, something as innocent as a youth group was controlled from the top. But at the local level it did fulfill the interests of its members. The same could be said about research institutes. The Central Committee controlled the people at the top, but inside the institutes were small groups which freely debated issues. Dr. Balazs (Technopolis, Ltd.) concurred, noting how quickly scholars have forgotten that the previous system was alive and working. Science is not a pure activity, but it operates within the context of society and institutions. And the role of science and engineering in the transition and post-transition period have yet to be worked out.

Responding to Dr. Wedel’s comments on the loss of prestige of science and engineering, Dr. Evangelista cited a 1994 Russia poll in which scientists were viewed as less prestigious than politicians, journalists, and peasants. He wondered if this loss of prestige was due to the corrupting influence of money, the association with the old regime, or the lack of funding for science? And what can be done about it? Earlier it was suggested that increasing contacts with the West might bolster prestige, but is there a danger of creating a backlash in which people begin to see the scientific community as inauthentic and a force for imposing foreign values? While many doubted scientists really had such low prestige in Central Europe, Dr. Polanyi asked if more examples of how scientists are being fruitfully involved in civil society should be documented, such as when the Soviet Academy refused to expel Sakharov and Linus Pauling’s efforts to marshall scientists to speak out for a nuclear test ban in the face of strong U.S. Government opposition. Dr. Holloway wondered to what degree are the prestige and moral authority of scientists linked to the perception of scientific institutions? In the Soviet Union, science could provide a refuge for civil society, but perhaps these types of refuges are no longer needed. Additionally, the public must believe that the institutions will enforce honesty.

Glenn Schweitzer added that when communism fell, some of the strongest and best organized NGOs were the academies. Many Westerners viewed them as contaminated and ignored them, although by now it is clear they are not going to disappear. Dr. Paces (Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) responded that if there was a feeling that the academy was a communist-type system, then it was a very shallow perspective. The academies were never as closely watched as the universities. Professors who were fired from universities for political reasons often ended up with positions at academy institutes. This was particularly true with the wave of dismissals from Czechoslovak universities after 1968. This is one reason why the academy could transform itself from within while the transformation of the universities remains incomplete. As to the question of whether the academies are positioned to make substantial contributions to civil society, the answer varies across the region. However, there was general support for enhancing the academies’ ability to represent the scientific community.

With regards to Dr. Evangelista’s presentation, several participants questioned his conclusions about the limited impact of international meetings in changing the values of scientists. A number of participants felt that the changes were more subtle and the meetings were important in reinforcing values. Dr. Evangelista responded by noting some methodological problems in answering these kinds of questions since there is a lack of good data. He agreed that the benefits from participating in such meetings needs to be better understood, but he questioned whether there was something unique about the impact of international connections on scientists. For example, one should see the same effect with art historians. Finally, Dr. Evangelista reinterated that it was not Pugwash or international meetings themselves which bolstered democratic values, but the associated actions of individual scientists.

III. Perspectives on Science and Democracy in Central Europe

Science in the Czech Republic

To provide the context for discussions on issues of science and democracy in the Czech Republic, Dr. J Syka (Czech Council for Research and Development) gave an overview of the state of the science enterprise in the country. In 1989 the country had a relatively large research and development base; over 140,000 people were employed in the R&D sector, and the state’s total R&D budget was 2.5% of GDP. However, despite these glowing numbers, research was almost entirely absent from the universities, and a significant portion of R&D was really copying Western products. Scientific development also was hindered by the strong limits on international contacts. The few international contacts which did exist were often misused by politicians for propaganda purposes. In addition, the regime corrupted many representatives of sciences, particularly academicians, who were really appointed by the party Central Committee and not elected. Finally, the regime also damaged institutes and research groups by providing financing independent of productivity.

The political transition of 1989 ushered in numerous reforms at the Czech Academy, a process which was codified in the 1992 Act on the Academy. A new academic board was elected, the assembly of academicians was disbanded, and a new honorary society, the Czech Learned Society, was created. The academy also began evaluating its institutes with international scholars participating on the evaluation committees. In the end, the Academy closed 20 of 80 institutes, and the number of academy employees was cut in half from 13,000 in 1989 to 6,500 in 1994. Also, all of the country’s 120 industrial research institutes were privatized, as were many of the agricultural research institutes.

The government also enacted changes in the structure and funding of science. The Act on State Support of R&D (1992) created the Government R&D Council, and a national grant agency was set up in 1993. The Ministry of Industry and Trade now has a competition for applied research, supports the export of high technology, and has set up joint research centers. Education reforms began with the 1990 Act on Higher Education, which allowed new universities to be established, and as a result university enrollments have risen from 100,000 to 160,000. The Ministry of Education, together with the R&D Council, has a program for strengthening science at universities, and it has established 100 new labs in 27 universities. Finally, the new Act on Higher Education (1998) allows only universities to grant post-graduate degrees, and it transforms universities to non-profit organizations instead of state-owned institutes. However, government support for R&D fell to about .5% of GDP; the government has set a target of .7% by 2003. The situation is not so bleak, though, as industry now supports about 60% of R&D. Total R&D spending is about 1.1% of GDP, but this is still low by European standards.

Is Knowledge a Political Power? - The Potential and the Defeat of the Croatian R&D System

Dr. Ivo Slaus (Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb) began by citing Alvin Toffler’s argument that power is no longer primarily based on force and wealth, but that knowledge in its widest sense is crucial. This power shift can be seen as a time arrow: the future will be defined as a social system where knowledge is power; consequently, violence and war will not be tolerated. If the power structure in a certain society is still dominated by force, one could conclude that such a society is buried in the past. Formerly "socialist" countries, undergoing a process euphemistically called transition, represent an interesting case study for testing the above statement. Many argue that there is a high degree of similarity between science and democracy. This should mean that science is suffocated in totalitarian regimes, and science promotes democracy, pluralism, and tolerance (even if scientists and scholars themselves are often not tolerant, frequently rigid, conceited and narcissists). Of particular relevance is Galileo's principle "that the argument of a humble individual can prevail over the authority of thousands."

Totalitarian regimes destroy most of the pillars of society: the judicial, education, health, and R&D system. Some of these pillars are resilient and capable of functioning (fully or to some extent) even in these adverse conditions. Examples of R&D in Nazi Germany and in the USSR support this statement. The argument that the Soviet system was based on science and that science continued to flourish during the Nazi and Soviet regimes only proves how deeply rooted is the human desire to know. In spite of the fact that some scientific activities even prospered during these regimes, one should never forget the implication of the climate that made possible the concept of "The German Physics"--the suppression of quantum physics and Einstein's theory of relativity and distortions in biology and linguistics. The regime that puts social sciences and the humanities in a straight jacket suffocates research in general, even if it is temporarily supporting some narrow disciplines. Freedom is the essence of science, and many became scientists to preserve some of their freedom. The basic features of science are as follows: science is objective, cumulative, universal, and international. It is because of these features that science is particularly resilient and could withstand the tyranny of totalitarian regimes.

When communism collapsed it left the landscape with no institutions of civil society, no democracy, no free market; in other words, a system that could easily collapse into mafia-type crime connected with the political power structure. Those institutions that existed had questionable potential and were poorly adapted to interface with democratic institutions. The only exception to this pattern was the R&D system, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, partly due to the basic features of scientific activity listed above.

In Yugoslavia nonalignment opened the country to various influences and self-management, and though it was controlled by an Orwellian demon, the communist party, it did contain some aspects of direct democracy. In 1990—at the time of the free elections in the former Yugoslavia—the Croatian R&D system was well integrated into the world R&D system. About 30% of the Croatian R&D potential was actually living and working permanently abroad and maintained some, albeit weak, links with Croatia, and another 30% was intertwined in international research projects. Of all the components of the Yugoslav society, the R&D system was by far the most Westernized, implying that the concepts of civil society were immersed in the very structure of that system. It is quite painful to have to admit that segments of the R&D potential did play a particularly despicable role since the early 1980s.

Though the strength of the Croatian R&D potential (and of the entire Yugoslav R&D potential) has been steadily declining since about 1975, in 1991 it was still strong enough to play a crucial role in the famous Appeal to stop the war in Croatia, which was signed and supported by over hundred Nobel laureates. It ensured that Croatian scientific societies and scientific institutions became members of international and European associations, including the International Coucil of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the InterAcademy Panel, ALLEA, and most other European and international scientific and scholarly association. In contrast, the government of Croatia is still at the bottom of the list for joining any significant association of European integration. In spite of the war in Croatia, the country has maintained the activities of all universities and scientific institutes and its involvement in regional and international research projects, although the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik was completely destroyed and many departments of the University of Osijek were severely damaged.

The decline of the strength of the Croatian R&D potential started around 1975. Assessed through science indicators and case studies, Yugoslavia in early 1960s was in a group of countries with Spain, Austria, Finland, Hungary, and Bulgaria, and ahead of Greece, Romania, Iceland, Turkey, Albania, and Portugal. By 1980 Yugoslavia was behind Austria, Spain, Finland and Hungary, and now it is at the very bottom among European countries. The collapse of Yugoslavia was not sudden. In the opinion of Dr. Slaus, the collapse began much earlier, and an adequate historical study is still do be done. It is interesting that the decline of the R&D strength coincides with the second attempt of Yugoslavia to build a nuclear bomb in 1974. Even during the period of a prolonged collapse of Yugoslavia, Croatian scholars promoted the establishment of international centers of excellence in Yugoslavia (e.g. International Institute for Molecular Genetics in Split and the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik) and established strong links with the diaspora.

Though there have been some accomplishments since 1991 (e.g., the development of the research-academia computing system and rebuilding the destroyed Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik), the Croatian R&D system suffered a major defeat, and the main structure of scientific and technological system has been destroyed. It is hard to evaluate the current brain drain, but hardly any scientist or scholar who lived and worked abroad has returned to Croatia. Contrary to expectation, there is no creative surge in social sciences and in the humanities. There is even a pressure to distort history, economics, and other disciplines to suit the current political vogue. The entire R&D system is structured in a strict pyramid subordinated to the government. The government appoints all review commissions and the directors of all institutes. The lack of autonomy of the universities is best illustrated by the fact that the rectors of all universities were long-time, trusted party officials. All promotions were stopped for several years, and a review (essentially an administrative one, since the final decision rests on the ministry) of all scientific and scholarly personnel is currently being made, invalidating promotions of the last 30 years, which were often based on recommendations by outstanding international referees. Similar procedures, praised by the government and the ruling party, are applied also to the evaluation of scientific and scholarly proposals. The government is the sole source of financial support for scientific research and for higher education, and obedience is guaranteed by financial support or threats to withdraw it. The R&D institutes in industry were wiped out in a process which accompanied the downsizing of "socialist gigantic factories," which made them an easy and cheap target of the so-called privatization.

Why was the Croatian R&D system defeated? What were the reasons for its defeat? Is the stupidity of those who are helping to destroy the R&D potential so enormous that they do not understand what they are doing, or are they doing it deliberately? Since it has been argued that the R&D system, universities, and scientific and scholarly institutes are the best engines to help society develop as a free market, pluralistic, democratic society, their destruction will facilitate the endurance of any totalitarian system and will considerably slow-down a process of democratization and a transition to free market economy. There is no doubt that the R&D community and the intelligentsia (the two are not synonyms and have salient distinctions) participated in their own defeat through self-delusion, false hopes based on a defeat of what seemed to be the last totalitarian regime, cowardice, fear, and petty self-interests. This case study is interesting in general since it shows how those who cannot accept the future will attempt to negate that knowledge is the power by destroying the R&D system of their country. This also underscores the meaning of the word patriotism. Scientific research is patriotic just because it is scientific.

Science in Emerging Democracies: A Bulgarian Perspective

Although not as strongly as Dr. Slaus, Blagovest Sendov (Institute of Mathematics of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) also painted of picture of post-communist science in decline. Before 1990 the scientific community in Bulgaria was not completely isolated, like Dr. Syka described the Czech situation. The academy maintained active contacts with the outside world, its officials were members of ICSU and other international scientific organizations, and if the academy made international agreements, there was money to support the projects. The scientists with these international contacts were certainly more prepared for the transition as they were more familiar with capitalist and democratic systems. Scientists were also an important force challenging intellectual taboos within the country, and they managed to take up research topics which were not favored by the government.

The end of the Cold War had a dramatic impact on all aspects of the countries in Central Europe. And Dr. Sendov stressed that everyone must recognize that the Cold War was won by the West. International scientific organizations such as Pugwash helped to make sure that this war was not fought with weapons, but the East clearly lost nonetheless. However, the war continues inside these "transition" countries, despite the fact that all agree the countries are going towards democracy and a market economy. After World War II, Germany and Japan changed tremendously, rebuilt themselves like a Western democracy. In the East, the transition has not been entirely successful, and the winners were not prepared for their victory. The West has yet to really help these countries to rebuild; instead it is too often continuing the process of destroying them.

In the future, it is important to rely on the existing scientific structures, and the West should be more open to strengthening these institutions. Certainly this is true for these academies; for if there is a question if the academies can be used to support democracy, the answer is a strong yes.

Science and Scientists in Hungary

Dr. Katalin Balazs (Technolopolis, Ltd.) began by noting how scientific community defends its own interests and how it is embedded in a specific socio-economic system. This can be seen from the changing role of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. During the communist period, academies had a strange role in Central Europe because they were a conglomeration of an honor society, research organization, and science policy maker. The Hungarian Academy of Science subscribed to the basic model in the region, complete with academicians and research institutes. While science was relatively well-funded for ideological reasons, in Hungary this began to change in the early 1980s. With the budget cuts, institutes began to provide various services to supplement research budgets, including increasing industrial contracts. After 1989 a vacuum opened in science. The collapse of industry sharply reduced industrial demand for applied science, and the government became consumed with the economic transition, shifting issues of science to the back burner. In the 1990s, the economic pressures on many research institutes has increased. As new legal opportunities have made it easier for institutes to transform themselves into private firms, many have done so.

The Hungarian Academy, however, inheirited a structural problem, and there is constant tension between the academy as an honorary society amd as a research organization. Dr. Balazs said she had long argued that Hungarians should implement reforms similar to those in the Czech Republic, where the honorary society would be separate and the research institutes would be transformed into something like national laboratories. Instead, the Law on the Academy transformed the academy into a private entity with title to its property, but it guaranteed the academy state-funding. In addition, it declared the academy assembly to be a "public board of science." The result was a confusing system. The academy believes it should make science policy, but this role is shared with the Ministy of Culture and Education and other agencies. And despite these overlapping responsibilities, these organizations do not always communicate well, and it is difficult to organize public fora to bring together the broad range of groups interested in science policy.

Dr. Balazs believes more attention should be focused on issues of democratization and autonomy of the scientific community. These words clearly mean something different to the academy leadership and to the researchers. It is an issue because the academy president and the academicians still have considerable formal powers over the academy, which causes some to fear a gradual recentralization. Finally, it is difficult for scientists to represent the public interest, particularly broader economic interests, because they must also represent their own interests. There needs to be better ways to bring together government, science, and industry to deal with economic and science policy issues.

On the Role of Scientists in Contemporary Society with Special Reference to

Countries in Transition (Virgil Constantinescu)

In the West, academies emerged after the nation and the state, while in Central Europe they came before. According to Dr. Virgil Constantinescu (Romanian Ambassador to Belgium), this is an important factor in their prestige. The founding members of the Romanian Academy included inhabitants of Bukovina, the Banat, Transylvania, Macedonia, etc.; in other words, people who were seen as being part of the Romanian nation but lived outside the political boundareis of Romania. Furthermore, inspired by the descriptions in Bacon’s New Atlantis, in 1923 the Romanian Academy declared itself to be "Academia militans," an academy which would be active in society. But the status of the academy declined considerably after World War II. By the 1980s the Romanian Academy was fortunate to be unfortunate. It lost its institutes and employees (in 1985 the academy had 11 employees), and by the end of the decade a significant number of academicians had died.

After his brief overview of the Romanian Academy, Dr. Constantinescu sketched his thoughts on the role of science in society. First, the perception of science at the end of this century is comparable to the one at the end of the last century. Thus, the perception of science is less triumphant and less deterministic. Scientists and scientific institutions have achieved enormous progress, but they have done little to clarifty the correct perception of science within the society. The history of this century shows that mankind did not display much wisdom (two world wars plus communism), that the development of the world was unequal and was leading to a possible clash of civilizations, that the clash between man and nature already exists, and that society is afraid of science and of future progress of science, especially in such fields as nuclear, ecology, and biology.

A second issue is the distortions to the perception of science due the past decades of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe. There are distortions from communist times, such as the complete inversion of the scale of values coupled with career promotion on political grounds. In addition, Romania suffers from distortions from Ceausescu’s time superimposed on the more common communist ones, which might partially explain why progress in Romania has been slow. By and large, it is also important to mention the lack of initiative and entrepreneurship leading to social inertia and resistance to change, as well as a tendency to avoid working properly. In addition, there are many distortions associated with the transition period, such as the political void, a certain crisis of motivation, a certain nostalgia (especially among retired people), and a certain resurgence of nationalism and extremism. In addition, those who suffered under communist persecutions exhibit a certain resentment; they at least want the truth about what happened and feel that many facts will remain hidden, perhaps forever.

In an established democracy, scientist and intellectuals have no direct political role, but rather they serve a part of an alert feed-back system as well as counseling the administration. The example of the U.S. academic community is relevant in this respect. The role of scientists seems to be greater in a country in transition, especially in view of changing mentalities. Science was comparatively less distorted by the communist regime; and scientists, at least some of them, were less isolated and were exposed to internationally accepted standards of research quality. There are at least three ways in which a scientist (intellectual) may involve himself in political and civic life. The first is to enter fully into politics, such as the writer Vaclav Havel, but also the professor of geology Emil Constantinescu, and to be elected to some political position. Second, one could accept a position of responsibility within their community (e.g., dean, university president, occaisonally minister of culture and/or education, sometimes even Minister of Foreign Affairs, such as Geremek in Poland and Plesu in Romania). But by far the most import is through the anonymous daily work of educating the young generation, telling them which are the real values, helping them forge their own personality, and integrating them into the Euro-Atlantic environment.

Finally, the role of scientific institutions in preserving and developing the research potential in a country in transition is an acute problem. In many respects it is a matter of survival since it aims to ensure that in the post-transition phase science might be able to play its role for the development of the country. Today the research potential is diminishing while the brain drain (both internal and external) is increasing. In spite of a number of differences, the inheirited research system in most countries in transition is tri-polar, containing units of research in departmental and a few private research institutes, the university research system, and the system belonging to the national academy of sciences. However, the proper role of each type of institute remains unresolved in many of these countries.

Discussion

The presentations on the state of science and democracy in Central Europe set the stage for discussion of a number of issues. Dr. Musil asked if one could describe the social, cultural, and economic conditions under which natural and social sciences flourish. He noted three possibilities: 1) there is no relationship between these factors and science, 2) there is an indirect relationship, and 3) there is a direct relationship. He hypothesized that social science is like litmus paper which reacts very quickly to totalitarianism; natural science is destroyed more slowly. Dr. Slaus disagreed with this notion of relative sensitivity. In Germany in the 1930s, quantum physics and the theory of relatively were among the first areas to be attacked. Also, one can look at the historical record and wonder why science performed so poorly in Ming China or in Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century, and one would have to conclude that the level of freedom is key. If the rulers believe everything is known, then there is no need for science. Dr. Polanyi agreed that the Nazi’s destroyed science in short order, dispersing and terrorizing many in the field. Dr. Sendov, on the other hand, expressed the view that science is a global enterprise, and international frictions and tensions promote government funding for science. He and others cited the impact of Sputnik on American science. Dr. Musil countered that one must differentiate between applied science and theory. Money and challenges help applied science, but freedom is vital for theory.

Another issue was whether certain scientific institutional arrangements reflect democracy. For example, Dr. Sendov asked how the Czech reforms were related to democracy. Bulgaria created a grants agency similar to the U.S. National Science Foundation in 1985, so having a grants program is not a clear sign of democracy. There were questions about the creation of the Czech Learned Society and whether the removal of academicians from the Academy was necessary. Dr. Paces explained that Vaclav Havel nominated the first 36 members of the Czech Learned Society, and there are now about 60 members and 20 foreign associates. Most of the members are natural scientists, although there are some social scientists. The society expresses its views on governmental and scientific matters, and its prestige derives from the high standards for membership. Of the old academicians, only the ones elected in the 1980s were approved by the Central Committee. Dr. Sendov asked how the Czech Learned Society, a self-perpetuating body whose members were initially named by Vaclav Havel, is substantially different than a self-perpetuating body which was initially named by the Central Committee. Dr. Illner defended the abolition of the academicians. Clearly in social sciences, scholars became members because of political considerations. He said there were simply too many questions about the qualifications of the other academicians, and there was no easy way to sort it out. The Learned Society is a private body, and it is important to note that the first 36 members were appointed by Havel not as part of his constitutional duties, but in his capacity as a man of great moral authority. Dr. Slaus noted that in Yugoslavia, there were eight academies, which really functioned as learned societies. Three have disappeared, and two played a negative role during the war. So, the pattern of learned societies is no better than ministries or Soviet-style academies.

A number of the Czech scientists challenged Dr. Sendov’s characterization of science under the previous regime. Dr. Ivan Havel (Center of Theoretical Study) said that while as an institution the academy may have facilitated international cooperation, the number of these contacts was very limited and every conversation with a foreigner had to be reported to the secret police. When Dr. Sendov responded that he was never asked to report on his conversations and the party never had the degree of influence over membership that the party in Czechoslovakia apparently exercised, there was some speculation as to why Bulgarian science may have had more freedom. Dr. Sendov noted that while Hungary had the 1956 Revolution, Czechoslovakia experienced Prague Spring in 1968, and Poland saw the rise of Solidarity in the 1980s, Bulgaria continued to be largely agricultural and economically backwards. Possibly this meant that the Bulgarian government felt more secure in its position and could afford to grant scientists additional freedoms.

Despite the wide differences in the reform process across the region, no country’s transformation of the science sector had been a complete success. Dr. Syka said that in retrospect that he would have resisted the privatization of all industrial research institutes. With the academy and universities, he thinks few mistakes were made. Research at the universities has expanded as envisioned, although they need to focus on improving quality. But one lingering problem in the region is accurately characterizing the state of science. Whereas Dr. Syka mentioned in his presentation that the number of scientific workers in the Czech Republic had fallen from 140,000 to 40,000, it was pointed out that the definition of a scientific worker has changed, so the numbers are not exactly comparable. A recent OECD study estimated that there were 26,000 scientists. Dr. Syka added that 140,000 was much too high; there were too many research institutes and too many programs, and probably 20,000-30,000 were not doing research anyway. By West European standards, he estimated the Czech Republic should have 50-60,000 people involved in science, and more people should be involved in industrially-related research.

Whatever the exact numbers, there were strong feelings that there should be more young people working in science. Dr. Musil noted that in the universities, there is still no mobility of faculty, either through retirement or job turnover, which makes it very difficult for young people to secure academic jobs. As a result, he said the university is like an old people’s home. Dr. Balazs echoed this view, saying that when she left her institute, she was still considered part of the younger generation, which was absurd because she had graduated twenty years before. There was agreement that salaries, apartments, and other compensation issues are all part of this complex problem.

The problem of brain drain also is important. One participant noted that there are many Hungarian scientists who spend part of each year abroad and part in Hungary, and Dr. Balazs mentioned that a couple of years ago she proposed a study on the "double-life" of scientists, but it was not funded. There are different sets of scientists in this category. Some are well-known internationally, such as Janos Kornai, while others, including many at the biotechnology institutes in Szeged, are not doing high quality research abroad, but are working in foreign laboratories part-time to fund their research at home. Also, there are many doctoral students abroad, and it is not clear that they will ever come home. Many participants argued that the scientific communities in the region needed to do a better job maintaining ties with its émigré communities. However, Dr. Constantinescu explained that the Romanian Academy recently organized a conference on "Romania and Romanians in Contemporary Science," but the conditions in Romania are not yet attractive for many to come back, other than some retirees with French pensions.

There were questions about the proper public role of scientists during the transition. Dr. Balazs expressed some surprise at how excited some participants were about the political possibilities of the scientific community. She described how in May 1988, the first Hungarian independent trade union was formed by scientific workers at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and subsequently this union was important in the formation of one of the liberal political parties, the Alliance of Free Democrats. But many of these political activists have now gone back to their research, feeling they are better at research than politics. Still, as many echoed Dr. Sendov’s sentiment that people across Central Europe feel that the transition has failed and that the challenge of integrating into the West is greater than expected, there was a consensus that scientists should do a better job of defining the problems, informing the public and politiciansof the options, and working towards solutions of social and economic challenges. Also, scientists must warn politicians of disturbing potential dangers and disturbing trends. Glenn Schweitzer gave the example that in Russia studies showing life expectancy had fallen to 57 years for men really shook people up.

The final issue concerned the importance of Western funding for science in the region. Dr. Slaus emphasized that if R&D had been funded from abroad, the scientific community would not have been under the complete control of the government and the scientists could have been braver about voicing their own opinons. The Soros Foundation has had some success in promiting independence in the social sciences. Instead, the government has financially blackmailed the institutes and is paying off scientists to keep quiet. And it would not have taken an extraordinary amount of international assistance. To put it into perspective, the cost of the war in Yugoslavia is estimated at $50 billion. Germany alone spent $10 billion on taking care of the refugees. Clearly many problems cannot be solved by more technology. But basic research is needed to help students think creatively, and it is relatively cheap.

IV. Issues in Science and Democracy

Risk of Mediocrity in Science

If people are concerned about the status and prestige of science, according to Dr. Jiri Musil (Central European University), they should be concerned about the risk of mediocrity in science. While there are many risks, Dr. Musil noted that mediocrity was a topic that has not garnered much scholarly attention. There are hints of it in Ernest Gellner’s criticisms of Karl Popper for not asking what questions are even relevant or trivial. However, it is often not clear beforehand what will be important.

In Western science there is a belief that important questions must be theoretically relevant. Under communism, however, social scientists had to avoid theory questions. As Marxism-Leninism was the only theory, there was no point in challenging or trying to change it. The natural and technological sciences were legitimized by the view that science and engineering were an integral part of a productive society, but innovation was only allowed by the "high priests." As has become clear, the greater the power of the high priests, the greater the mediocrity. While all societies have mechanism that support lines of conventional thinking, under communism it is extreme.

To avoid pervasive mediocrity, societies must promote creative thinking, and there are many different ways to do this. Certainly there was a flowering of creativity in the late nineteenth century when science was involved in nation building and there was competition between countries. Dr. Musil stressed that the following socio-economic conditions are necessary: 1) mobility and lack of social barriers, 2) competition between scientists, and 3) cultural openness. He concluded by reminding everyone that mediocrity is a normal and necessary sociological phenomena, but societies must have excellence, too.

Competition and Cooperation in Science

While competition is necessary to avoid complete mediocrity, Dr. V. Paces (Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) focused his remarks on why cooperation is also needed. Before 1990, there was almost no competition in science in Central Europe, and no one cared what or even whether they published. Instead, there was an official plan for science, and scientists were supposed to focus on the plan. Scientists realized after 1990 that they had a major challenge in trying to improve the quality of science. One such effort was the establishment of new grants programs by the government and in the academy. For government grants, proposals needed at least three peer reviewers, one of whom had to be from abroad. As a result, the output of the academy has doubled over the last decade, despite the sharp drop in funding and personnel.

At the same time, the grants system brought some problems. The most important of these problems was the atomization of some programs which were actually working well. Also, under the current system institute directors have little ability to strategically plan the development of the research institutes. Since so many people are working on small projects funded by outside grants, directors have little influence over scientists and hence over the direction of the institute. In addition, under the grants system it has become even harder for young scientists to survive because they have trouble securing grants. Since there is only a 30% overall success rate, generally younger scientists have to try to join a team of more established scientists. Finally, the grants system has discouraged scientists from embarking on risky projects as they are more difficult to get funded. Certainly Albert Einstein and his revolutionary theories would never get funding in today’s environment.

Today issues of domestic cooperation and competition can no longer be separated from the international scientific community. One emerging issue is the proprietary nature of an increasing percentage of international science. Companies are buying research results across the globe and refusing to publish them. Other scientific groups working on parallel studies then see their funding cut-off as the problem has been "solved," even though few know the solution. Another problem is that international scientific institutions often incorporate political struggles between countries. For example, the European Union created an international biology institute in the 1960s, and there has long been pressure on the institute to have the geographic distribution of its personnel reflect the percentage each country pays of the total budget. There also has been a long fight over the amount Germany owes. Dues of member states are calculated as a percentage of GDP, but the Germans continue to base their calculations on the GDP of the former West Germany. Dr. Paces felt these political intrigues are reducing the quality of science.

Dialogue Across Disciplines

While the topic of bridging the divide between the domestic and international scientific communities and the relation to democracy was already discussed, Dr. Ivan Havel (Center of Theoretical Study) spoke about a different kind of gap, the gap between natural science and the humanities. In 1993 Collini talked about the changing map of disciplines. The landscape of knowledge is fragmented, but this is more a communication problem than a territorial problem. Historically disciplines clustered around concepts, assumptions, questions, and methods; this process left gaps between the disciplines. There are several approaches to dealing with these spaces. One is "multi-disciplinarity," which looks at one issue from many disciplines. "Inter-disciplinarity" includes areas where two or more disciplines overlap, such as bio-chemistry and psycho-linguistics. Finally, "trans-disciplinarity" takes a concept or theme across many disciplines. Examples would be the notion of feedback or collective systems. This concept requires considerable mutual understanding, and there is a need for more trans-disciplinary themes to bring different disciplines into common communication.

What is the meaning of science in society? How does it interact with society? Applied research is meeting the needs of industry, medicine, and other areas. Here we see the importance of free markets and a free society. The universities are engaged in science education, and students must be able to think creatively, not merely taught how to solve specific problems. Finally, the media is supposed to help satisfy public curiosity about the world in which we live. Science should take seriously what the public is interested in; for if science does not, pseudo-science will.

There has been considerable discussion about the status of science. The consensus seems to be that our voices would be louder if scientists had more prestige. However, scientists might have it if they did a better job at satisfying public curiosity. Dr. Havel said if someone gave him a million dollars, he would use it to broaden public understanding of science. If science is a quest for the truth, it is not procedurally democratic because no one votes for it. But it is democratic because it cannot be silenced by authoritarianism. Science is a model because of the constant debate, and, to paraphrase Karl Popper, it can be seem as a collection of permanently falsifiable hypotheses. However, science is falsifying hypotheses in order to find universal truths, whereas politics is a never-ending experiment.

Science - Society - Media

Picking up on one of Dr. Havel’s points, Dr. J. Spizek (Institute of Microbiology of the Czech Academy) focused on the problem of science and the media. Before 1989 there was almost no media coverage of science issues. Most of the articles that did appear were laudatory pieces translated from Russian. Today there is not considerably more. Dr. Spizek went through the New York Times from January through September 1997 and found 205 articles on scientific issues. During the same period in Mlada,a leading Czech daily, there were only 26, and most of these were translations from Nature and Science.There were considerably more articles on pseudo-science issues. Part of the problem is training journalists on how to write about science. But scientists must be more proactive about contacting the media, and scientists must be able to communicate with the journalists in a way that is easily understandable.

Social Sciences - Actors or Observers of Transformation? (M. Illner)

According to Dr. M. Illner (Institute of Sociology of Czech Academy), social scientists have a dual role in the political transition as both actors and observers. As an observer, social scientists are responsible for analyzing the process of democratization. In this respect, this is a golden age for social scientists as they are called upon to study such issues as institutions, participation, political culture, ethnic tensions, and political parties. Along with this, there has been a wave of international specialists coming to the region. Although the problems are not dominant, this has resulted in some academic pathologies. One approach is "scientific trolling," which is when scholars come to collect data, take advantage of local interests in interacting with Westerners, and leave nothing behind; Central Europeans view this as stealing information. There has also been an upsurge in superficiality, as specialists with no understanding of Central Europe descend for a few days and write articles as if they were instant experts. Finally, there is scientific sightseeing. Prague is a beautiful city, as are many others in the region, and so many people want to have conferences in Prague even when it would be more sensible to organize these meetings somewhere else. As a result, the valuable time of Central European scholars is spent constantly organizing events. Of course, there are many other problems with social science in the region, such as limited human resources and libraries.

If social scientists are to act in the public arena, it is most important for them to provide accurate knowledge and disseminate it appropriately. This is not only so that the public is informed, but also so they are less susceptible to pseudo-scientists, populists, and demagogues. Many scientists enter politics directly, particularly economists, but even those who do not need better communication skills and channels of communications.

The media has covered sociology and other social science topics quite well. For example, there has been considerable reporting on public opinion work. So, social scientists cannot complain about lack of interest. While the media often distorts and oversimplifies research results, at least journalists try to be fair and accurate. However, the research has little impact on public policy. Even when the government commissions social science research, government officials often have no interest in reading the results. For example, in the early 1990s there was considerable discussion on constitutional design, particularly with regards to federalism and regional structures. The Parliament asked the Institute of Sociology to conduct surveys on public attitudes towards different options. But once the report was given to them, the Parliament never wanted to discuss it, and some people involved with the research were verbally attacked by certain political parties. However, the Institute has just finished a project on attitudes towards Germans, Sudeten Germans, and Czech-German relations, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed interest in it.

Finally, social science institutions do act as NGOs. While many of these institutions are not free of government funding, they do engage in free inquiry. There are also some professional organizations. While they have some success in facilitating communication between certain groups, they have been relatively poor at disseminating knowledge and influencing policy.

V. Concluding Discussion

Concluding Discussion

During the concluding session, the participants focused on the salient themes that arose during the meetings and on actions and projects which correspond to these themes. Specifically, the issues concerned the values of science, the science community as an element of civil society, how the scientific community could improve governance, the status of the academies of science, and the role of the international community.

Scientific Values

Dr. Polanyi summarized the reason to focus on the role of science in democracy. First, it is a community with some moral standing and it demands tolerance from its members, although on some occasions it does not live up to these ideals. Second, it puts truth first; and this is what really drives science. This is not to imply that other professions do not have a valuable ethos or the ability to claim moral authority, but science and technology are central to our age. Dr. Polanyi said he could more easily imagine a country arresting all of its poets than all of its scientists and engineers, and this gives the S&T community a special responsibility. Dr. Balazs reminded everyone that scientists are also social actors, and one must sort out the social role and the scientific role.

While the topic of the meeting is science and democracy, Dr. Evangelista noted how heavily funding concerns are weighing on the Central Europeans. To make the link between these two issues, one could show that scientists are more inclined to support democratic values; therefore, preventing brain drain would be important to stemming the flow of people who are democratically oriented. However, no one has really proved this. Second, people have described the transformation of the academies and the bridging of research and teaching. But Dr. Evangelista wondered if this has really impacted democracy. The question remains whether there is a significant spread of democratic values from academy researchers to other segments of society.

Science as Civil Society

Several people noted that a goal was to find a way to use the science community as an additional NGO to improve democracy and democratic debate. If the question is how to extend the agenda of science in the public arena, Dr. Polanyi pointed to four debates in Canada as examples of where scientists could be better involved. First, the science community could increase appreciation of French culture in English-speaking Canada and vice versa, for he would consider the secession of Quebec a failure of Canadian democracy. Second, scientists should be spending more time on the contemporary meaning of defense. While no one currently threatens Canada militarily and the country relies on international law and peacekeeping, the government continues to buy advanced offensive weaponry. Other projects would address decaying nuclear power plants and the incredible amount of garbage produced in the West. He then challenged the Central Europeans to begin to develop their own lists of issues to tackle, and thereby act not only as scientists but as citizens. Dr. Constantinescu responded by listing such common issues as environmental management of the Danube River and urban pollution, and he was confident the scientific communities could address them. However, he added that the lingering obsessions with the forty-five years of communism and the poor working conditions remain as barriers to looking towards the future.

Dr. Musil took a step back and noted some problems in considering the Czech science community as an "NGO." The definition of civil society implies considerable organization from below. Instead, most changes in the region are from above, which is similar to Dr. Evangelista’s point about reform of the academies. Dr. Musil advocated looking at how scientists are self-organizing instead of the role of the academies. Second, he believes in the Czech Republic everything is highly politicized, and political parties are more important than in the United States. As scientists who want to be involved fear being coopted by parties, they remain shy. Also, because of the degree of politicization, the scientific community would have trouble coming to agreement on specific issues.

If politics and civil society are so fragmented, Dr. Wedel wondered about the possibilities of building umbrella groups instead of having small groups who discuss issues only among themselves. It is important to recognize the scientific community is not one NGO, but there needs to be better understanding of the conditions under which these groups come closer together. Dr. Balazs pointed out this implies studying existing institutions and groups which try to serve as a bridge or convenor of other groups. How do they foster communication, teach, and play other roles in the public sphere?

Building on the list of barriers to scientists being active in the public arena, Dr. Illner noted in Central Europe there is a wave of anti-rationality as socialism always declared itself to be scientific. Now science is discredited because it was misused, and social science in particular failed to foresee the transition. It is hard to overcome because this anti-intellectualism is continually fueled by some politicians. The scientific community needs to be able to provide reliable, impartial information. This information then needs to be communicated to the government. So, scientists must first perform their duty as scientists for they cannot advocate certain positions if the information is incomplete or misanalyzed. For this capacity building is needed. But he cautioned that capacity building programs should focus on research abilities. He said that once the Institute of Sociology was pressured to organize small environmental NGOs by Western donors; this was really beyond the mission of the institute.

Science and Governance

While providing scientific advice to government may not be "democracy," it is governance. Dr. Holloway asked how resources should be channeled to scientists so they can be active in civil society in their own way and assist in governance. Dr. Polanyi wondered if the question should be what will engage the government and its agenda as scientists cannot wait around for the government to ask for something or to give them resources. Still, Dr. Illner said they would appreciate advice on how to improve relations with the government. The scientific community’s poor relations with Parliament not only harms the ability to secure funding but also the ability to convince members to listen to their advice. Unlike the United States, scientists are rarely asked to testify. Glenn Schweitzer added that one can make the argument that if the scientific base is not healthy, it is not going to be much use in supporting democracy or governance, but how healthy is healthy?

Agreeing that the relationship between the scientific community and government is a problem across the region, Dr. Sendov supported the idea of a study on scientific advice to the government. After the democratization process began, countries experimented with different types of activities. In Bulgaria, for example, there is a science advisory board, but the members do not represent anyone but themselves. The NRC, on the other hand, has a distinguished record on this topic. Questions could include: How is advice organized in the region? What are the differing roles of the academies, universities, and individuals?

Dr. Polanyi cited the model of the NRC, which was described by Glenn Schweitzer earlier, to illustrate how some of the issues under discussion come together. There are now almost 10,000 scientists on NRC commissions working at the interface between science and society, working as an NGO should. But why do scientists get involved in these projects? While some have indicated that because the American economy is doing well, scientists have the time, money, and energy to do it, Dr. Polanyi said this is a specious argument. Since science can be much more profitable in the United States than in Central Europe, this means that scientists are giving up more by devoting their time to these public concerns. They do it because it is expected of them by the profession, and they are applauded for doing it. Glenn Schweitzer concurred and added several more reasons. First is the sense of duty, particularly if the person is a member of one of the NRC’s three honorary bodies (the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). In addition, they appreciate the opportunity to meet with government officials, particularly if they are from outside of Washington, DC. Third, scientists have the opportunity to be informed on the latest policy developments and to express their opinions on them. Finally, there is the matter of self-interest as it looks good on their resume.

Several others agreed that the academies in Central Europe could continue to play an important role. Even with their transformations, they maintain good domestic and international links. In turn this means it is hard to find an institution better positioned than the academies to coordinate multi-disciplinary studies, which are key to most public policy questions.

International Dimension

The final theme was the role of the international scientific community in contributing to democracy and governance. As Dr. Slaus pointed out, while the U.S. model is good, it is not good enough. Even if Croatian scientists decide to carry out studies relevant to public policy, there are not enough of them to carry out this responsibility, and therefore the committees and discussions must be international. The international scientists should also provide a measure of objectivity. He added that the current Croatian government has managed to find domestic scientists to support each of its ill-conceived projects.

The discussion then turned to organizations and activities which could be involved in projects related to science and democracy in specific countries. Several participants noted that UNESCO and the NATO Science Program could play constructive roles in this area. In addition to research and workshops devoted to the theme "science and democracy," including such sub-topics as the role of international exchanges in imparting democratic values, training programs in science journalism should be supported. Finally, many of the Central Europeans expressed their hope that they would continue to be eligible for foreign assistance to help with democratic consolidation. They are concerned about being prematurely told their country had become an established democracy and no longer warranted special attention while widespread authoritarian thinking continues and xenophobia and violence increase.

Appendix A

Agenda

SUNDAY 3 MAY

Welcoming Remarks by J. Sokol, Minister of Education, Youths, and Sports of the Czech Republic

MONDAY 4 MAY

Item I. Introductory Remarks
Welcome by Dr. Blanka Rihova, Czech Chair
Welcome by Dr. John Polanyi, NRC Chair
Overview and Goals of Project (G. E. Schweitzer, Director, Office of International Affairs, National
Academy of Sciences, USA)

Item II. Concepts of Democracy and Markets
Management of Transition in Science and Economy in Post Communist Countries (J. Syka, Vice-Chairman of the Council for Research and Development of the Government of the Czech Republic)
Discussion
Observation on Transitions to Market Economies (J. Wedel, Department of Sociology, George Washington University, USA)
Discussion

Item III. Case Studies of Science and Democratization in Czech Republic
The Risk of Mediocrity in Science (J. Musil, Central European University, Prague)
Discussion
Balancing Competition and Cooperation in Science (V. Paces, Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
Discussion
General Discussion
Lunch

Item IV. Case Studies from Other European Countries
Katalin Balazs, Technopolis Ltd., London
Ivo Slaus, Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb
Jozef Vyrost, SAV Institute of Social Sciences, Kosice
Virgil Constatinescu, Romanian Ambassador to Belgium
Blagovest Sendov, BAN Institute of Mathematics

TUESDAY 5 MAY

Item V. Development of Methodologies
Role of Scientists in Building Civic Societies (J. Polanyi, Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Canada)
Discussion
Significance of Participation in International Scientific Organizations (M. Evangelista, Department of Government, Cornell University, USA
Discussion
Dialogue Across Disciplines (I. M. Havel, Director of the Center for Theoretical Study, Joint Research Institute of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and of Charles University)
Discussion
Perspective on Historical Factors (D. Holloway, Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, USA)
Discussion

Item VI. Reflections on Related Issues
Science - Society- Media - Government (J. Spizek, Director of the Institute of Microbiology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Social Sciences - Actors or Observers of Transformation? (M.Illner, Director of the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Discussion
Lunch
Summary of Discussions
Development of Methodologies and Next Steps

Appendix B

List of Participants