Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) 320 and (iii) identify the elements in these approaches that can contribute to a conception of science that is relevant for its transposition to the science of impacts. This science axially incorporates social robustness as a basis for assessing the quality of science. This enables the follow- ing section to incorporate some propositions from the RRI approach in order to present the “socio-technical robustness” concept-device more precisely as an elucidation of the concept of scientific impact on new research and innovation cultures. The propositions are structured around the dimensions of inclusivity, responsiveness and anticipatory learning geared towards Science with and for Society. 2.1 Mode 2 co-evolutionary science-society dynamics The Mode 2 approach identifies a series of attributes in sci- ence dynamics that suggest the emergence, at the end of last centu- ry, of substantive transformations in the way knowledge was being produced; a new form coexisting alongside the old, traditional and fa- miliar form. This new mode of knowledge production affects not only what knowledge is produced, but also how it is produced, the context in which it is pursued, the way it is organised, the reward system used and mechanisms controlling the quality of what is produced (Gibbons et al. 1994: 7). Gibbons and his associates make a conceptual distinction be- tween what they call Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production. By Mode 1, the authors refer to a form of knowledge production, to a complex of ide s, methods, values and norms that has grown t control the dissemination of the initial Newtonian model to an increasing number of research fields in order to ensure its conformity with what is considered as sound scientific practice (idem, 9). The main peculiarity of Mode 1 is the separation between ba- sic science and applied science. Both knowledge production and validation are managed according to their own, different criteria in each field. Similarly, the practices developed in each field have different dynamics, values and objectives. A fundamental feature of Mode 1 is the autonomy and legitimacy of science with regard to other societal spheres. While acknowledging the emergence of Mode 2, Gibbons and associates still agree, in 1994, that Mode 1 continues to be the hegemonic model. Its guidelines continue to be definitive when setting epistemological, methodological, organisational and even evaluative (assessment) criteria in the scientific field and, moreover, the social perception of science is still structured to a great extent around its cri- teria of authority, objectivity, legitimacy of knowledge, etc.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz