Are there techno-scientific projects in Mexico?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.36.1591Abstract
The techno-scientific projects emerged during the 40’s decade, and were consolidated in the United States of America pending the last decades of last century. This work’s objective is to provide elements to understand how the techno-science systems of the developed countries function, to later visualize if there are similar projects in Mexico.
The methodology used was the documents revision and a brief historical analysis of science, technology and engineering evolution to understand the essence of the disciplines that provided knowledge for the emergence of the techno-science.
Furthermore, the relationship among science, technology, society and the techno-scientific projects is discussed from an axiological perspective. The results are that techno-science is not just the conjunction of the science and technology words, but a deeper issue that has to do with the action and the way in which big projects of research, development and innovation (R&D+i) should be performed. These projects must have national scope and high social impact. The conclusion is that while it is true that the techno-scientific projects are well consolidated in the United States of America and in some developed countries, this does not occur in developing countries and therefore the incipient techno-scientific work teams face serious difficulties to develop innovation projects within the Mexican science and technology system in the different productive and service sectors of the economy.
References
Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordman, A., Schwartz, A., (2011). Matters of Interest: The Objects of Research in Science and Technoscience. J Gen Philos Science. Vol. 42, pp. 365–383. DOI 10.1007/s10838-011-9172-y
Brooks, H., (1994). Understanding the Bush Report. Science the Endless Frontier 1945-1995: learning from the past, designing for the future. Conference Highlights. Consulted in: http://archive.cspo.org/products/conferences/bush/fulltexthighlights.pdf, page 13.
Brunner, J. J., (1998). Globalización Cultural y Posmodernidad. Breviarios Fondo de Cultura Económica, Chile, S.A., Santiago.
Bunge, M., (2004). La investigación científica: su estrategia y su filosofía. Siglo XXI, Eds. 3ª ed., 809 p.
Casas, R., Luna M., (Coord.) (1997). Gobierno, academia y empresas en México: Hacia una nueva configuración de relaciones. Plaza y Valdés, 1a Ed., pp.346.
Chandler, A. D., (1977).The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA. Belknap Press.
Chamizo, J. A., (2011). La imagen pública de la química. Educ. Quím. Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 320-331, 2011.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, ISSN 0187-893-X.
Chamizo, J. A., (2013). Technochemistry: One of the chemists’ ways of knowing. Found Chem. Vol.15, pp. 157–17, DOI 10.1007/s10698-013-9179-z
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., Sadtler, T. M., (2006).Disruptive Innovation for Social Change. Harvard Business Review. pp. 94-101.
CONACYT (2014).Programa de Estímulos a la Innovación. Disponible en http://www.conacyt.mx/index.php/fondos-y-apoyos/programa-de-estimulos-a-la-innovacion.Recuperado el 17 de noviembre de 2014.
CONACYT (2015). Información Financiera de fondos CONACYT. Recuperado de:
CONEVAL (2010), ‘Rezago educativo, acceso a los servicios de salud, seguridad social, calidad y espacios de la vivienda, acceso a servicios básicos de vivienda y a la alimentación’. http://internet.coneval.gob.mx/Informes/interactivo_nacional.swf
Diario Oficial de la Federación, (2008). Acuerdo por el que se establecen las Reglas de Operación para el otorgamiento de Apoyos del Fondo de Apoyo para la Micro, Pequeña y Mediana Empresa (FONDO PyME). Decimoquinta Sección. Secretaría de Economía.
Echeverria, J., (2003). La revolución tecnocientífica. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Madrid., 282p.
Echeverría, J., (2010-1). De la filosofía de la ciencia a la filosofía de la tecnociencia. Δαι´μων. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, No. 50, pp. 31-41. ISSN: 1130-0507.
Echeverría, J., (2010-2). Tecnociencia, tecnoética y tecnoaxiología. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 142-152.ISSN: 1900-6896.
Dillon, B. S., (2008). Creativity for Engineers. Series on Systems and Industrial Engineering Vol. 3. World Scientific Publishing Co., 1st Ed., pp. 181.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Cantisano, T. B. R., (2000). The future of the university and the University of the Future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy. Vol. 29, pp. 313-330.
Godin, B., Lane, J. P., (2012). A century of talks on research: what happened to development and production? Int. Journal Transitions and Innovation Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Gribbin, John (2006). Historia de la ciencia, 1543-2001 (2ª edición). Barcelona: Crítica, S.L. ISBN 84-8432-607-1.
Hottois, G., (1984). Le signe et la technique. La philosophie a` l’e´preuve de la technique [The sign and the technique Philosophy to the test of the technique]. Aubier, Paris.
Iglesias, M., (2006). Reseña de "La revolución tecnocientífica" de Echeverría, Javier. Opción, vol. 22, No. 49, abril, 2006, pp. 126-130, Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela.
Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM (2015). Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología. Capítulo III Principios Orientadores del Apoyo a la Investigación Científica, Desarrollo Tecnológico e Innovación. Recuperado de: http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/30/14.htm?s=
Klein, U., (2005). Technoscience avant la letter. Perspectives on Science. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 226-266. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Lucena, J. C., (2007). De Criollos a Mexicanos: Engineers'Identity and the Construction of Mexico. History and Technology. Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 275–288.
Mansfield, E., Lee, J-Y., (1996). The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy. Vol. 25, pp. 1047-1058.
Martínez, V. P. I., (2013). De la ciencia a la tecnociencia: comparación entre el esquematismo Kuhniano del cambio científico y la actividad tecnocientífica, desde el discurso de Echeverría. Tesis de Licenciado en Filosofía, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Marx, L., (2010). Technology: the emergence of a hazardous concept. Technology and Culture, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 561-577.
Medina, M., (S/D). Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad en el siglo 21. Los retos de la tecnociencia y la cultura de CTS. Disponible en:
http://garritz.com/andoni_garritz_ruiz/documentos/Los%20estudios%20CTS/Medina_CTS_sigloXXI.pdf. Consultado 17 diciembre 2014.
Mwamila, B. L. M., Diyamett, B. D., (2009). Universities and socio-economic development in Tanzania: public perceptions and realities on the ground. Science and Policy. Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 85-90.
Porter, T. M. (1995).Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Picon, A., (2004). Engineers and Engineering History: Problems and Perspectives. History and Technology. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 421–436.
Pinnelli, T. E., (2014).Distinguishing Engineers from Scientists–The Case for an Engineering Knowledge Community. Science & Technology Libraries, 21:3-4, 131-163, DOI: 10.1300/J122v21n03_09
Piñón, G. F., (2000). Filosofía, Eticidad y Tecnociencia: los conflictos de la modernidad. En Ética y política: entre tradición y modernidad, Francisco Piñón Gaytán y Joel Flores Rentería (coords.), Ed. Plaza y Valdés/Centro Gramsci UAM, México; pp. 71-81.
Rashevsky, N., (1938/48). Mathematical Biophysics: Physico-Mathematical Foundations of Biology. University of Chicago Press. 2nd Ed.
Robinson, D., (1994). Show me the Money: Budgeting in a Complex R&D System. Science the Endless Frontier 1945-1995: learning from the past, designing for the future. Conference Highlights. Consulted in: http://archive.cspo.org/products/conferences/bush/fulltexthighlights.pdf; page 46.
Rosenberg, N., (1979). Economic Development and the Transfer of Technology: Some Historical Perspectives. Technology and Culture, Vol. 11 No. 4; pp. 550-575.
Rosenberg, N., (1997). The economic impact of Scientific Instrumentation Developed in Academic Laboratories., in Equipping Science for the 21st Century. John Irvine (Ed), pp. 43-55.
Rosenberg, N., (2010). Endogenous forces in 20th Century America. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and the Growth Mechanism of the Free Enterprise Economies, In: Studies in Science and the Innovation process, Selected Works by Nathan Rosenberg. World Scientific Publishing Co. Ltd.
Schatzberg, E., (2006). Technik comes to America: Changing meanings of technology before 1930. Technology and Culture, Volume 47, Number 3, pp. 486-512.
Schummer, J., (2012). Why Mathematical Chemistry cannot copy Mathematical Physics and how to avoid the imminent epistemological pitfalls. International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 18, pp.71-89.
Solla Price D. J., (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. 119 pp. Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Solla Price, D. J., (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, Vol. 149(3683), pp. 510-515.
UNESCO, (2010). Report Engineering: Issues Challenges and Opportunities for Development. UNESCO Publishing, France; pp.396.
Veblen, T., (1906).The Place of Science in Modern Civilization. American Journal of Sociology.Vol. 11 pp. 585–609.
Vérin, H., (1982). Entrepreneurs, Entreprises: Histoire d’une Idée. Paris: PUF, 1982
Wiesner, J. B., (1979). Vannevar Bush (1890-1974). Biographical Memoir. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
