IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 2001. 3. University, ... orating, and transmitting culture. We use the word âcultureâ in both senses given by the ...
GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION Valerio Cimagalli and Marco Balsi
University, Technology, and Society
sium on Technology and Society (ISTAS `97) was held for the first time in Europe and was devoted to “Technology and Society at a Time of Sweeping Change.” It seemed quite natural that the second ISTAS held in Europe should be devoted to thinking over the role of University in such a change, and to exploring the The University is one of the most impact of this change on the University. important institutions characterizing The attention of ISTAS 2000 was Western civilization. For about seven focused on three subjects: Technology, centuries, Universities have accomSociety, and University. How are they plished their duty of preserving, elabrelated? As noted above, the duty of the orating, and transmitting culture. We University is twofold: a) to improve and Valerio Cimagalli use the word “culture” in both senses extend knowledge (in our case technologiven by the Unabridged Webster Dicgy) and b) to transmit its achievements by tionary, i.e., “The act of, or any labor forming professional competence of its or means employed for, training, disstudents. Both these tasks presume that ciplining, or refining the moral and the target to be reached should be clearly intellectual nature of [humanity]” and identified. So another question arises: “The state of being cultivated; result Who, or which institution, is entitled to Marco Balsi of cultivation; physical improvement; identify the target? This is a complex matenlightenment and discipline acquired ter. We may receive some help by consultby mental and moral training; civilization; refinement ing a report of the National Institute of Standards and in manners and taste.” In doing so, Universities have Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department strongly contributed to broadening human knowledge of Commerce’s Technology Administration, estabof the resources and laws of nature and, as a conse- lished in 1901. The report, “Assessing the Economic quence, have strongly contributed to the continuous evolution of styles of living. In no other civilization one can find a similar instiUses of Economic Analysis in R&D Policy tution. In fact, although in many civilizations and in different ages we can find small communities devoted to Strategic high level teaching (see, e.g., the old Greek “Academy” Planning of Plato), the University possesses the unique characteristic of broadening its horizon to all the different branches of human knowledge while melting in one Budget Economic Policy community scholars and teachers of such branches. Approval Rationales But a question arises. Is such a paradigm still valid at the beginning of the third millennium, with the explosive growth of technology that pervades all the aspects of our life? In 1997, the International SympoEconomic Impact Assesment
Profs. Valerio Cimagalli and Marco Balsi, are with the Department of Electronic Engineering, “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Italy.
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 2001
Fig. 1.
3
Economic Model of a Technology-Based Industry
Strategic Planning
Production
Market Development
Generic Technology
gy lo no ch te fra In
Proprietary Technology
Science Base
Fig. 2. Impact of Government R&D Programs,” by G. Tassey, NIST Senior Economist,1 contains two flow graphs (reprinted here as Figs. 1 and 2) that show first, that the mechanism of funding R&D (and the innovatory work of Universities for extending knowledge is no doubt R&D, requiring considerable funding) is a feedback process; and second, that “Science Base” and “Generic Technology” (cornerstones of an Engineering Faculty) are strictly related to the Technology-Based Industry, the target of which is “Value Added.” Of course “value added” cannot be sic et simpliciter assumed as the only (nor the main) target of the University. No doubt, economy is also important to society. The life of a society, and of individual men and women, also depends on many factors such as food, health, capability, ethics, and welfare, that should be taken into account when valuing the impact of technology on society. So the role of University becomes even more complex as it has to face a great variety of agents, many more than in the past. The University links technology and society as a bridge with heavy traffic in both directions. Such traffic ought to be directed according to the needs of society, and debate at ISTAS 2000 considered what Universities are doing and how they can cope with future perspectives. The link between technology and university is very 1This report was presented to the Technology Transfer Society on May 20, 1999, and can be found at: http://www.nist.gov/director/methodologytalk.pdf
4
tight. While searching on the web is not a scientific method, it can give an idea of how the people in general perceive some interrelationValue ships. Searching with two of Added the most popular search engines, with the words “technology” AND (...), we found the results shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (ordinates are thousands of entries). Although the result of this search per se is not a proof, it puts into evidence the responsibility of the university towards society in relation to the development and use of technology. An intriguing matter is to ascertain to what extent the university is free in managing the development of technology and its transfer to society. Fig. 5 attempts to show how the university is embedded in a feedback system where funding plays an important role. Can the University be considered a decision center? In their article in this special issue, W.F. Lawless and T. Castelao argue that the University can be considered – inasmuch as a decision center – a model of integration between competition and cooperation. The authors develop an interesting theory for validating such an assertion. In their dynamic model, “the university participates with scientists and engineers to create new technology, with society to create new social structures to replicate and distribute new technology, and with activists to closely monitor that public needs are being addressed.” So at least three fields of activity are recognized for the university, namely technology, social structures, and public needs. This implies that the multidisciplinary character deeply rooted in the university is not a residue of the past, but on the contrary it is a flexible model, probably useful also for facing the problems of corporations and other organizational systems. The way the University modifies itself to keep up with the needs of an evolving society is studied by H. Etzkowitz in his paper “The Second Academic Revolution and the Rise of the Entrepreneurial University.” He points out that today “academic scientists become inventors, developers, and entrepreneurs.” As a consequence, “when scientific knowledge is appropriated, whether by scientists or others, to generate income, science itself is transformed from a cultural process that consumes the surplus of a society into a productive
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 2001
force that generates new income out of an aspect of culture.” Once more the relationship between culture and profit turns out to be a crucial affair in the life of the university. How to choose toward what subjects it is better to direct scientific investigation? Should the capability of generating new income be the only criterion? It is worth probing these questions further. Etzkowitz’s paper is a cornerstone, useful to understand the present evolving status of Western universities. A possible aim of the university is using its scientific capabilities to the advantage of the local community. Diffusing academic capabilities throughout the larger community may be a socially useful way of transferring technology. In their paper, D. O’Neil and C. Huff describe an interesting project, carried out at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta. Such a project deals with information and communication technology, as “the precursor to knowledge is access to the relevant information.” A university structure takes care of managing educational projects addressed to elementary and secondary schools, where both professors and students of K-12 are involved. The authors claim that the soul of this project may be found into these words of Goethe: “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” Although this principle may be undersigned by any person, its application can give rise to some trouble
Technology near...
University Health Food Society Economy Ethics Welfare Capability
(From Altavista) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Fig. 3. Technology related to ... (From Google) University 1400 Health 1200 Food 1000 Society 800 Economy 600 Ethics Welfare Capability
400 200 0
Fig. 4.
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 2001
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
TARGET FUNDS
Who decides the policy of university research?
Fig. 5. for university professors, as it could conflict with the iron rule “publish or perish.” This important question is also discussed in the paper. Individuals are important anywhere, of course. So we must remember that engineers are the very important people that the university graduates. In a great number of workplaces, engineers transfer technology to society. Often they are responsible for choices upon which the welfare of many people depend. Often they have to face matters that aren’t of merely technical or deontological nature, but that imply ethics and economy. Can an engineer look only at the technical part of the problem he is dealing with, leaving to other people the most important decisions? Or should he be asked to assume the whole responsibility of his own work? The paper by R.C. Hudspith deals with “the need to prepare engineers to be aware of and sensitive to the cultural, political, and social aspects of their work.” Hudspith describes an Engineering and Society degree Program (E&SP) offered at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The E&SP is open to students from all engineering departments (not only from Electrical Engineering). In spite of taking five instead of four years, about twenty students are enrolled every year. Graduates say that they felt the extra year was worthwhile. The papers presented in this issue of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine give a realistic panorama of the debates that took place at ISTAS 2000. Even better, these articles can be considered as appropriate flashes, lighting the most important aspects of a crucial question at the beginning of the third millennium. In fact, any further reflection on the present role of the University towards technology and society should take into account these four items: a) the place of University in the feedback chain outlined in Fig. 5; b) the modified relationship between culture and income now occurring in the university; c) the transfer of new technologies in response to social needs of the local community; d) the responsibility of the engineer with respect not only to technical accomplishments, but also to social, economic, and ethical affairs. We hope that the ideas discussed at ISTAS 2000 and in this special issue will give rise to further interesting and fruitful contributions in this magazine.
5
