Leader
International Science or
Science of International
Competitiveness?
Science policy swears by internationality. The need to enhance
Finland's competitiveness in a toughening international
environment is often given as a reason for this.
The link between the internationality of science and the
competitiveness of the country is seen as so strong that it is
even taken for granted. But are the internationality of science and the
competitiveness of the state really compatible or even easily reconcilable
objectives?
Science - especially basic research - is international and disciplinary
organization is the basis of international research. Over time,
these disciplines may have changed, been merged together, become
fragmented or disappeared, but the logic of change is driven by the
nature of scientific problems and the answers found to them.
It is a different thing to utilize science to strengthen the competitiveness
of the country. The most important guiding light in this is
not making quality scientific discoveries or interpretations; instead
it comes down to using scientific knowledge to gain economic and
technological advantage over other countries. Scientific problems
are not the primary logic guiding this operation; rather it is driven by
central national projects that are usually defined by politicians.
Talk of the crisis of an all-round education university probably
often means, translated into this context, that ever bigger chunks of
truly "international" science - or generally science that operates on its own terms - are made to serve national interests,
the pursuit of competitiveness. At the same time scientists
fear that this approach is short-sighted not
just scientifically but also in a broader view.
Historical examples demonstrate that connecting
science and scientists too closely to national strategies
tends not to raise the international level of the science
of the country. Rather the opposite, it may have led
to "nationally specific" interpretations of sciences
and their central problems and thus even isolated researchers
from the international world of science.
It is significant that certain basic sciences that are
relatively major in other countries have been "small
disciplines" here. Resources have been politically or
strategically channelled to which ever thematic areas
have seemed promising from the point of view
of national success. The direction of universities and
competitive public funding emphasize the profiling
and strategic fields of research demanded by the upper
level. Funding is used to get an ever tighter grip on
universities, but is more of the same always the best
option?
International science is not free of authority either,
but there positions are not connected to national
key projects, but for example to managing central
publishing channels and research networks. These
are used to change the direction of scientific discussion.
This authority is significant, but it is based on
appreciation that has been gained in the researcher
community, and it is best gained through basic research,
not through the administration of science or
its commercial applications. This is the kind of authority
Finns should have more than they do now.
But is the quality of science in different countries
still not connected to their success? Yes. When
applied research or product development beats its
head against the wall, answers need to be sought
from scientific basic research. It can describe the
environment where the wall exists and advise on an
alternative way around it. This is why basic research
and international competitiveness are ultimately not
mutually exclusive goals. The route to innovations is
just not a short cut. Rather, it requires trust in science
and understanding the time science takes. This is the
choice that scientifically successful countries have
had the courage to make.
Petri Koikkalainen
Chair, The Finnish Union of
University Researchers and
Teachers
- Painetussa lehdessä sivu 40
|