Science and Technology in the Public sphere from the philosophical and political perspectives

我们的重点是分析作为一种认识力量和物质力量的技术科学与作为一种政治力量的技术科学之间的微妙而复杂的关系。前者的特点是在科学界提供认知上的“辩护”，后者则是提供政治上的“合法性”。这种关系长期被忽视，仍然被忽视，产生了如此多的失败和争议的技术科学问题，如疯牛病，转基因生物和核电站。分析结果发表在小林（2002）中。“此外，我们还解决了如何管理先进国家的技术科学的问题。第一步是阐释认知“辩护”的功能。我们可以证明，科学共同体中的认知“辩护”被理解为科学合理性的表达，但这种合理性只适用于这些共同体。另一方面，当一个在科学共同体内得到证明的知识主张被带到社会决策中时， ...更多信息 作为一种合法化的知识，这些知识主张所嵌入的语境的差异。FUJIGAKI（2003）对此进行了分析。第二步是探讨专家和公众注意到语境差异并走向构建共同语境的可能性。我们把注意力集中在参与式技术评估上，因为这些评估显示了一种由包括专家、政策制定者、NPO和公众在内的各种利益相关者进行审议讨论的新风格。2000年在日本举行的转基因生物共识会议，是对这些评价的回顾和具体事例的理论分析，发表在小林（KOBAYASHI）（2004）。2004年，我们组织了一个研讨会，汇集了日本参与式技术评价的事例，分享了经验，并探讨了未来的任务。同时，对快堆安全性的“文殊试验”进行了分析。通过这种分析，我们可以表明，当今的技术科学问题对于法律的体系来说是很难处理的，因为法院没有合理的标准来判断科学专家之间的对抗，而这种对抗在这类审判中很常见。少

Our focus point is to analyze a subtle and complicated relation between techno-science as a cognitive and material power, and as a political power. The former is characterized as providing cognitive "justification" within scientific communities, and the latter is as providing political "legitimacy". This relation long ignored and still being ignored, produces so many failures and controversies about techno-science issues such as BSE, GMOs, and nuclear power plants. The result of analysis was published in KOBAYASHI (2002). "Further, we tackled the problem of how to govern techno-science in advanced countries. The first step was to explicate the function of cognitive "justification". We could show that cognitive "justification" in scientific communities is understood as an expression of scientific rationality, but this rationality is applicable just within these communities. On the other hand, when a knowledge claim justified within a scientific community is brought to the social decisio … More n making as a legitimized knowledge, the difference of contexts in which these knowledge claims are embedded. This analysis was showed in FUJIGAKI (2003). The second step was to explore the possibility that experts and general public notice the difference of context and move toward to construct a common context each other. We direct our attention to participatory technology assessments, because these assessments showed a new style of deliberative discussion by many kinds of stakeholders including experts, policy makers, NPOs, and general public. The review of these assessments and theoretical analysis of a concrete example, that is, the consensus conference on GMOs held in 2000 in Japan was published in KOBAYASHI (2004).In 2004, we organized a workshop to make together examples of participatory technology assessments in Japan, to share their experience and to explore the future tasks. At the same time, we tried to analyze "Monju trial" which is on the safety of a Fast Breeder Reactor. In this analysis we could show that techno-science issues in the present days are quite hard for the legal system to deal with, because the court has no rational criteria for judging confrontation between scientific experts which is usual in this type of trials. Less