321 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) Mode 1 is therefore associated with traditional research, which is characterised by the primacy of a disciplinary context in the produc- tion process where homogeneity and the establishment of hierarchies predominate. Knowledge production is performed in hierarchical and stable institutions such as universities, laboratories and research cen- tres. The objectives, together with the definition and solution of prob- lems, respond to the researchers’ interests and curiosity, and quality control, for its part, is subject to evaluation by the scientific peer com- munity. Finally, impact on the public sphere is made at the moment results are achieved, this is the moment par excellence at which the scientific process transcends the boundaries of science. Mode 2, in contrast, is characterised by a heterogeneous and het- erarchical, transdisciplinary scientific production process. Research is conducted in non-hierarchical organisations that are formed according to the specific application context, and may or may not be permanent. Its goal is oriented by its usefulness and social applicability, both in defining and solving problems. Quality control resides in social acceptance and consensus where, in addition, the agents involved in the problem intervene. Results are usually protected by means of patents. In short, the fundamental transformation characterising Mode 2 is, at its core, a convergence between basic and applied science and, in general terms, the gradual transgression of the boundaries that have traditionally separated the scientific field from society as a whole. Con- sequently, the science-society boundaries are becoming more permea- ble and we are witnessing a process that is more far-reaching than previously seen, where the definition of scientific knowledge organisation and production modes (at both levels: socio-cognitive practices and the science-society relationship), increasingly admit the influence of criteria, objectives and values originating from socio-economic and political institutions and agents. Similarly, in Mode 2 there is much greater and more open interaction among scientists and other social actors.5 Mode 2 is seen as an irreversible process involving substantive changes in the science-society relationship6. It is worth highlighting 7 attributes here that provide a framework for understanding and analysing this approach: 5 The works by Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1998 and 2001) are also important references in a vision of science as a dynamic system that not only depends on factors internal to its organisations, but is also immersed in relationships of mutual dependence although, in this case, they refer to a “triple helix” prioritising three entities of analysis: science, industry and government. 6 However, its extent of permeability is not without question, even in the field of nanoscience (Jansen et al. 2010).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz