CfP:: esss – European Summer School for Scientometrics 2011

esss – European Summer School for Scientometrics

12-16 September 2011

Vienna, Austria

History: Scientometric procedures are increasingly used to analyse developments and trends in science and technology. Decisions to be taken often have severe implications. Consequently data handling, indicator construction and interpretation require competent expert knowledge, which is currently only available to a limited extent for all stakeholders in Central Europe not the least due to lacking training opportunities. Responding to the lack of a pertinent scientometrics education (especially in German speaking countries) and to the increasing demand (particularly of research quality managers), the University of Vienna (A), the Humboldt University of Berlin (D), the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance – iFQ - (D) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (B) joined cooperatively to found the European Summer School for Scientometrics (esss) in 2010.

Mission: esss offers training covering major aspects of quantitative analysis of science and technology and is especially designed for the needs of science policy makers, research quality managers, scientists and information specialists & librarians. Attendees can expect a sound overview of state-of-the-art scientometric methods and the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the most commonly used data bases, to learn how to construct relevant indicators and how to interpret the data. Theoretically imparted knowledge will be consolidated in hands-on trainings whenever suitable in order to guarantee a sustainable learning experience. Participants will challenge themselves academically, gain crucial experience, advance their careers and experience knowledge sharing and exchange of ideas with esss staff, lecturers and other participants.

Programme Overview

September 11th, 2011 -- Pre-Programme: "Bibliometrics in a Nutshell": Crash Course for Newbies. This course gives a basic overview of how to work with bibliometric databases and is addressed to participants who are short on experience in the field.

Conference

September 12th, 2011

Conference day 1: Introduction to Scientometrics: Theoretical and Practical Aspects

September 13th, 2011

Conference day 2: Procedures and Indicators

Seminars

September 14th Seminars day 1

- Journal Impact Measures

- h-index and Related Measures

September 15th Seminars day 2

- Cooperation, Co-authorship, Social Networks

- Mapping Science

September 16th Seminars day 3

Workshop: Research Evaluation in Practice

Registration

esss – European Summer School for Scientometrics 2011 starts with two conference days, which can be booked apart from the whole week event. The esss includes the conference and three days of seminars and hands-on trainings. Two conference-like introductory days addressing a broader audience are followed by three days with seminars, individual hands-on sessions and teamwork in small groups. Availability of seats for the whole esss week is limited to 50 participants (2 groups, each with 25 people). Availability of seats for this conference is limited to 100 participants. ESSS offers a reduced fee for students / Ph.D. students. Students need to mail us a valid student ID or a similar document for registration! Participants of the esss can register free of charge for the Pre-Programme: "Bibliometrics in a Nutshell, Crash Course for Newbies", on Sunday, September 11th, 2011 (2pm-4pm).

Further Details

It's the right medicine: Recognising regulatory data protection will benefit India's pharma industry

It's the right medicine: Recognising regulatory data protection will benefit India's pharma industry

Ranjit Shahani Times of India April 6, 2011

As the end of a long road in reaching a free trade agreement (FTA) between the 27-nation European Union and India seems in sight, it's time to reflect on certain important issues. Much has been written about the pitfalls of opening up India's growing industries to global competition. From an analysis of other countries, it's clear the cornerstone of a developed economy - and a key to sustained competitiveness - is long-term commitment to research and development. Since 2000, nine of the top 10 global R&D spenders hail from the so-called "rich nations' club", the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

But an R&D-based economy needs a favourable environment. The government needs to implement a range of policies that encourage public and private sector R&D investment of direct benefit to the people of India. R&D is inherently expensive and risky - with prolonged timelines and uncertain outcomes. The government needs to provide specific protections that create an environment where trained scientific personnel enjoy space and freedom to design new products benefiting society. Else, no Indian company, big or small, will garner the wherewithal to deploy the massive investments required.

According to the Centre for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University, the pharmaceuticals industry invests $1,318 million and 10-15 years on average to introduce a drug in the market. Of this, 60% is spent on data collection, reveals the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. With such deep investments and protracted research periods, the innovative pharma industry has every right to expect a return on investment. The lack of returns in the absence of robust IPR protection will discourage further R&D and foreign investments. In fact, prior to adoption of patent protection in 2005, homegrown pharma companies had only negligible amounts in R&D. Now they have begun to invest significant amounts, but still have miles to go before they can introduce their first new medicine.

Some protectionists voice concerns that intellectual property impedes availability of cheap medicines in India and elsewhere. Yet evidence indicates that, contrary to concerns at the time, the introduction of the India Patent (Amendment) Act 2005 has had no negative impact on India's pharma industry. Indeed, the latter is going from strength to strength. Moreover, prices of medicines in India are among the world's lowest. Truth be told, the real barrier to access is lack of a proper health care financing system.

A contentious issue in the India-EU negotiations is regulatory data protection (RDP). Some claim RDP will hurt the Indian generics industry. This charge is unsubstantiated, as the industry is healthier than ever before. As per IMS Health, for the 12 months ending September 2009, global prescription sales growth of generic drugs rose by 7.7% (up from 3.6% in 2008) against 5.7% for global pharma drugs. Furthermore, generics accounted for 72% of the total US pharma market volume in 2009 - an all-time high in the world's biggest pharma market.

RDP provides an important complementary IP right to patents, which are already accepted in India. But patents are not always available to protect new medicines where much has been invested to generate the regulatory data necessary for authorisation and marketing. RDP is essential to protect this investment for a limited period only, regardless of patentability. Absence of RDP is the most glaring gap in India's R&D environment.

RDP is imperative to attract FDI in the pharma sector. Introducing it will end the unfairness of a situation where investment in knowledge of the originator can be appropriated by another company without protection or compensation. DE or RDP should not to be confused with patents. Both offer distinct and separate intellectual property protection. RDP accepts exclusivity and patentability of data submitted to regulatory authorities as part of product registration meant exclusively for this purpose, thereby protecting and incentivising substantial financial investment in drug discovery and development. RDP is especially significant when strong patent protection for a specific product is not available, where the patent period has been eroded by a long development phase, or where patent enforcement systems are inadequate.

With life-threatening ailments, it may be argued that to facilitate timely market access and prevent expensive, repetitive animal and human clinical trials, competitors should be permitted access to the original proprietary data filed with regulatory authorities. Although this seems fair, it should be permitted only after the expiry of a reasonable protection period. Without this period of protection, data would never be generated and new medicines would never reach the public.

As the conclusion of an FTA approaches, it's imperative IPR provisions fostering innovation in the EU and India are adopted to benefit both. These will encourage emergence of a robust R&D-based industry alongside generics, each strengthening the other. Without new medicines produced by the innovative pharma industry, the generics industry would soon have an empty pipeline of products to manufacture and sell.

The rising role of India's generics industry in meeting the needs of various regions should be acknowledged. While its biggest export markets continue to be the US and EU, its role as a provider of cheap life-saving drugs to developing countries should continue not just for now but well into the future. This view is supported by none other than EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht.

India is well poised to make the transition from a generics pharma powerhouse to an innovation giant. But to transform this dream into reality, it needs to put in place proper patent protection policies that enforce IPR laws in letter and spirit.

(The writer is president, Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, Mumbai.) Source: ToI

SARDAR SAROVAR: Cooking the dam books

SARDAR SAROVAR: Cooking the dam books

by Himanshu Upadhyaya, CSSP, JNU

IndiaTogether.org 04 April 2011

In theory various rules govern the use of AIBP funds to execute projects. In practice, as the CAG reminds us, money is liberally diverted, and the States and the Centre both look away. Himanshu Upadhyaya reports.

04 April 2011 - S Jagdeesan, Managing Director of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL), told The Indian Express recently (link) that till December 31, 2010 Rs.32,645 crores have been spent on the Sardar Sarovar project, of which Rs.20,877.34 crores have been spent for the assets. So how much has been spent towards non-assets expenditure, such as interest on market borrowings and debt repayment?

A simple calculation says, Rs.11,767.66 crores. A figure that makes us stare attentively at the headline of the news item: "SSNNL chalks out Rs.10,500-crore plan to expedite project". So, while as high as 36 per cent of the total expenditure has been on interest and debt repayment, SSNNL is still scouting for more funds, now under the holy aim of 'expediting canal construction'.

Jagdeesan also claims that under the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP), the Centre has approved Rs.4500 crores as a grant for the canal work. While Jagdeesan might not speak on how much money SSNNL has got so far under AIBP funds and how has it spent them in the past, a recent performance audit of AIBP by Comptroller and Auditor General of India presents some disturbing facts.

The CAG's performance audit of AIBP impelemntation for the period 2003-2008 concludes that the programme has failed to achieve its objective despite release of nearly Rs.26,000 crores of central assistance from 1996 till 2008, of which Rs.5123 crores - i.e. 19.70 per cent - were released for just one project - Sardar Sarovar. The CAG notes that there were numerous deficiencies in planning and approval of AIBP projects and project execution was also deficient.

Cooking the books

Audit scrutiny also revealed large scale instances of diversion of AIBP funds for other purposes, grant of undue benefits, and other cases of irregular and unauthorized expenditure. Monitoring and evaluation systems, both at central and state levels, were also deficient.

On SSNNL's diversion of AIBP funds, the audit comment states, "Government of India released Rs.675.20 crores for extending irrigation benefit to Drought Prone Areas (DPA). Audit scrutiny revealed that ten branch canals - namely Narsinghpura, Maliya, Vallabhipur, Viramgam I and II, Kharaghoda, Jijanuwada, Goriya, Rajpura and Amanpura - were proposed to be developed under DPA. SSNNL provided utilisation certificates to GoI, certifying that the funds provided under DPA were spent on the branch canals. However, the branch canals covered under DPA had already been constructed or were under construction, when the DPA component under AIBP was introduced. This implied that SSNNL gave incorrect UCS to GoI, and the funds provided under DPA were used by it on works other than those covered under AIBP DPA."

Further, audit scrutiny revealed that during the period 2003-04 to 2004-05, against the actual expenditure of Rs 1702 crores incurred by SSNNL, the state government reported expenditure of Rs 2987 crore to GoI, thereby overstating expenditure incurred under AIBP by Rs 1158 crore. Being busy with such fraud, the SSP naturally performed abysmally, so much so that the CAG was prompted to note, "against the targeted irrigation potential of 14.40 lakh hectares, only 4.60 lakh hectares of irrigation potential was created, of which only 0.71 lakh hectares was utilised as of March 2008."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six states garnered 75 to 85 per cent of grants released under AIBP during the period 2005 to 2008 - Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Centre too looks away

All these simply means is that even as programme guidelines offered safeguards against such financial irregularities and despite CAG audits pointing out diversion of AIBP funds twice in past, the Union Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) failed to act on repeated violations of norms.

AIBP guidelines specify that the second installment of Central Loan Assistance/grant was to be released by the GoI only after the submission of Utilisation Certificates in respect of the first installment. CAG notes that Gujarat and two other states - Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka - violated this norm. The guidelines also stipulate (1998-99 onwards) that the states must submit audited Statement of Expenditure on the projects within nine months. In 2006, this standard was raised to say that release of central assistance for the subsequent years would not be considered if the audited statement of expenditure were not furnished within nine months.

The CAG notes that there were 12 states, including Gujarat, do not meet this requirement. Yet, the Central government continued to release its funds, in clear violation of the guidelines.

Gujarat was also one of six states which garnered 75 to 85 per cent of grants released under AIBP during the period 2005 to 2008. In terms of share of AIBP funds received, the state ranked third, after Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The CAG also took note of the fact that all six states cornered a large part of AIBP funds without showing corresponding performance in terms of project completion.

Taking note of this phenomenon, CAG recommends: "Since AIBP is addition central assistance programme, GoI may ensure equitable distribution of AIBP funds to states based on predefined criteria i.e. population dependent agriculture, Ultimate Irrigation Potential yet to be fulfilled and also past performance in completion/ commissioning of projects and utilization of targeted Irrigation Potential under AIBP. CAG also makes a strongly worded recommendation to tackle the issue of diversion of funds stating, "GoI may recover the amounts diverted by the State Governments, if necessary, by making deductions from the next installment of plan assistance to the defaulting state governments."

However, not only has MoWR failed to act on this recommendation, by promising grants worth Rs 4500 crores to SSP in coming years, it has clearly showed total disregard for CAG and overwhelming love for status quo. While the draft of this performance audit was issued to the Secretary, MoWR in August 2009, no response was received from the ministry despite written reminders, nor could an exit conference to discuss these audit findings be scheduled. The Action Taken Note on the previous performance audit was submitted after a long delay in 2008-09. In that Action Taken Note, MoWR claimed that it had stepped up evaluation of AIBP, and that improved monitoring mechanisms were now in place. It also explained away cost escalation as due to reasons beyond the control of the project executing agency and the Central Government.

MoWR also referred back to the AIBP guidelines themselves, arguing that if a State Government failed to utilise central assistance along with the state share, no further Central Assistance would be released to the State Government. But, as noted above, this is clearly not enforced. Audit comments on the Narmada canal component in Rajasthan also proves that when MoWR fails to enforce these built-in safeguards in AIBP guidelines, it clearly ends up encouraging continued diversion of funds. In that state, the 'date of completion' for AIBP work was extended. Also, although the rules specified that in case of delay, funds would be converted from grants to loans, this rule was simply overlooked.

We haven't heard yet when MoWR plans to file its Action Taken Note on last year's performance audit report. Will the Ministry repeat the same old story, or will it finally take cognizance of the repeated violations and diversion of funds, and initiate action to recover these monies?

Himanshu Upadhyaya is a researcher working on Public Finance and Accountability issues. He is pursuing his doctoral studies at the Centre for Studies in Science Policy, JNU.

Source: http://www.indiatogether.org/2011/apr/eco-ssp.htm

CSSP Discussion Forum launched

CSSP Discussion Forum is launched on Wednesday, 31st March 2011.

CSSP Discussion Forum is coordinated by the Centre for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP), Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. This forum is created to share information, knowledge networking and debating on the issues related to STS (Science, Technology & Society), Innovation Studies and Science Policy. This Forum is presently moderated by Dr. Anup Kumar Das and Swapan Kumar Patra of CSSP.

A registered member can share any relevant information to other members of this community and can make this a vibrant interactive platform.

To join this group click here http://groups.google.com/group/cssp-forum/ To post to this group, send email to cssp-forum@googlegroups.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

height=30 width=140 alt="Google Groups">

Subscribe to CSSP Discussion Forum

Email:

Visit this group

Conference on Global Networking and its Implications for Euro-Asia Business Management and Research

The 17th International Euro-Asia Research Conference on "Global Networking and its Implications for Euro-Asia Business Management and Research"

Venue: Noida campus of Indian of Management, Lucknow, India

Dates: 28-29 October 2011

Call for Papers
Following a number of conferences held in France, Ireland, Norway, Japan, China, Spain and Indonesia since 1994, the Seventeenth International Euro-Asia Research Conference will take place in New Delhi (India) on October the 28 and 29, 2011. Research contributions addressing any aspect of Global Networking and its Implications for Euro-Asia Business Management and Research are welcome. Besides this theme, other papers in the fields of economics and management with a particular reference to Asia may also be submitted.
The research conference is a joint undertaking between the Indian Institute of Management, India, Yokohama National University, Japan, IAE of The University of Poitiers France, The University of Pau (Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour), France, TELECOM Ecole de Management, France, The School of East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield, The U.K., and The University of Limerick, Ireland.
The Conference is intended to bring together researchers engaged in Management, Economics and related fields from Europe, Asia and other parts of the World. Doctoral students are also strongly encouraged to submit papers for consideration.

Conference Venue, Conference Fee
The conference will be at the Noida campus of Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, which is adjacent to New Delhi, India. The conference fee is 160 € (or 12,000 Indian Rupees) and includes welcome dinner, two lunches, two dinners, coffee breaks, a copy of the conference proceedings, and also includes local sight visits.

Submission Rules
Papers, in English should be original and not submitted for publication elsewhere. They may either be related to a particular country or be of a comparative nature. Papers accepted for presentation at the conference will be published as Conference Proceedings. Furthermore, a number of selected papers will be published in a scholarly journal or as a book.
A two-page abstract in English or French (including bibliography) should be submitted by March the 31st, 2011 to Ms Céline PHELIPPON, IAE – University of Poitiers, France at the following e-mail address: CPhelippon@iae.univ-poitiers.fr. Please address a copy of your submission to Professor Jacques JAUSSAUD at the following at jacques.jaussaud@univ-pau.fr.
A title page with a complete list of authors, their academic position, addresses, phone and fax numbers as well as E-mail should be included separately. The decision of the Scientific Committee will be communicated to the authors by April the 30th, 2011.
The final paper, including an abstract of around 300 words, should be forwarded by June the 15th, 2011. Length should not exceed 6,000 words or 15 single-spaced pages (including tables, figures, and references). Papers should be submitted in hard copy (or by e-mail as an attachment) as well as on disc (Word 6 or a later version).

Secretariat of the Euro-Asia Research Conference
Céline PHELIPPON
IAE de Poitiers, 20 rue Guillaume VII Le Troubadour, BP 639,
86022 Poitiers Cedex, France
Phone: + (33) 5 49 45 44 89 Fax: + (33) 5 49 45 44 90
E-mail: CPhelippon@iae.univ-poitiers.fr

Further Information

CfP:: ICTPI International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI)

13th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI)

Bogotá, Colombia

8-9 September 2011

About ICTPI-2011 in Bogotá

ICTPI-2011 is being organized by the Alianza Universidad-Empresa-Estado (AUEE) de Bogotá-Región, a joint venture that has been established by the universities based in this city, the business sector and government, with the purpose of promoting the application of science and technology to foster regional economic development by creating value through innovation. This is being done through strengthening university-industry collaboration. In Colombia there are similar initiatives that have emerged in various regions, reflecting the current national policy of regionalizing science and technology development programs.
The Colombian Government is significantly increasing the investment in science, technology and innovation by assigning part of the royalties received from a variety of sources to supporting programs in this area. This increased funding is closely related to the fact that a special emphasis is being placed on the use of science and technology as an instrument of economic regional development. For this reason, there is special interest in becoming better acquainted with such issues as:
a) A better understanding of recent experiences with National Innovation Policies in order to identify key elements or characteristics that have contributed to the success of these policies, or that have been major limitations to their effectiveness.
b) What are the main policy instruments through which Innovation Policies and Strategies are implemented?
c) How can the main stakeholders be involved in this process? How can private sector investment in technological development and innovation be promoted?
d) Two important dimensions of Technology and Innovation Policy are currently being discussed:

• The territorial dimension, which leads to issues related to promoting/supporting Regional Innovation Systems and the emergence of Regional Clusters.
• The sectorial dimension, which relates to "Sectorial Innovation Policies" in key sectors of the economy (i.e. agriculture, telecommunications, mining, etc.).
  

e) A better understanding of major technological trends that are shaping the Globalized Networked Economy, and thus the context in which we operate.

Conference themes
The main themes of the Conference around which researchers are being invited to present papers are as follows:
1. Lessons learned from recent National Innovation Strategies:
2. Funding Strategies for Innovation:
3. Regulations in the Global Networked Economy and its impact on innovation:
4. Technological trends that shape the context in which innovation takes place:
5. The territorial dimension: Building Regional Innovation Systems
6. The sectorial dimension: Promoting innovation in the agricultural-rural sector:
7. The sectorial dimension: Promoting innovation in the service sector:
8. Education and Social Innovation:

Call for Papers:
Invitation to present papers:
The 13th ICTPI-2011 Conference will take place in Bogotá, Colombia, on September 8 and 9, 2011, on the topic of "Building a National Innovation Strategy in a Globally Networked Economy". Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit papers on any of the themes that have been selected for the Conference, which may be consulted in the section on "Themes of ICTPI-2011".
Paper selection will be based upon submission of an extended abstract of at least 300 words, which should be typed double-spaced in English. The extended abstracts should clearly state the objectives, methodology, results and conclusions of the work with supporting main references. It must include e-mail and/or FAX addresses. Please ensure that the abstract is representative of the research work to be submitted for presentation during the Conference and include KEY-WORDS and the MAIN THEME to which your presentation relates (select one from "Themes of ICTPI-2011".)

Interested authors may click here to submit their abstracts.

Important deadlines:
a) 1/2 Page Abstracts due before May 31, 2011
Abstracts should be no longer than 1.000 words and clearly present the objectives, methodologies and (expected) results of the work, as well as indicate the Conference topic(s) that the paper will address, or alternatively other topics under the Conference theme, and pertinent keywords
b) Notification of Action of Acceptance by June 20, 2011.
c) Full–papers due before August 15, 2011.

Further Details

Design!publiC: Bringing Design Thinking to the Challenges of Governance Innovation

Design!publiC: Bringing Design Thinking to the Challenges of Governance Innovation

Background

The problem of governance is perhaps as old as society, as old as the rule of law. But it is only more recently -- perhaps the last five hundred years of modernity -- that human societies have been able to conceive of different models of government, different modalities of public administration, all having different effects on the configuration of society. The problem of governments, of governmentality, and of governance is always also the problem of how to change the very processes and procedures of government, so as to enhance the ends of the state and to promote the collective good.

Since the establishment of India's republic, many kinds of changes have been made to the policies and practices of its state. We may think of, for instance, successive stages of land reforms, the privatization of large-scale and extractive industries, the subsequent abolition of the License Raj and so and so forth. We may also consider the computerization of state documents beginning in the 1980s, and more recently, the Right To Information Act (RTI). More recently there have been activist campaigns to reduce the discretionary powers of government and to thereby reduce the scope of corruption in public life.

While all these cases represent the continuous process of modification, reform, and change to government policy and even to its modes of functioning, this is not what we have in mind when we speak of ‘governance innovation.' Rather, intend a specific process of ethnographic inquiry into the real needs of citizens, followed by an inclusive approach to reorganizing and representing that information in such a way that it may promote collaborative problem-solving and solutioneering through the application of design thinking.

The concept of design thinking has emerged only recently, and it has been used to describe approaches to problem solving that include: (i) redefining the fundamental challenges at hand, (ii) evaluating multiple possible options and solutions in parallel, and (iii) prioritizing and selecting those which are likely to achieve the greatest benefits for further consideration. This approach may also be iterative, allowing decisions to be made in general and specific ways as an organization gets closer and closer to the solution. Design thinking turns out to be not an individual but collective and social process, requiring small and large groups to be able to work together in relation to the available information about the task or challenge at hand. Design thinking can lead to innovative ideas, to new insights, and to new actionable directions for organizations.

This general approach to innovation -- and the central role of design thinking -- has emerged from the private sector over the last quarter century, and has enjoyed particular success in regards to the development of new technology products, services and experience. The question we would like to address in this conference is whether and how this approach can be employed for the transformation public and governmental systems. More...

Download Design Public Book

Organizers:
Center for Knowledge Societies (CKS)
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)
Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) and others

INSEE Conference on Nature, Economy and Society: Understanding the Linkages

The Sixth Biennial Conference of INSEE

on

Nature, Economy and Society: Understanding the Linkages

October 20-22, 2011

Venue: Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad

Organized by

Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE) & Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad

The conference shall address a diverse repertoire of issues at the interface of nature, economy and society and explore how to use the understanding for policy formulation. Papers, panels and symposia on the themes and sub-themes identified are invited below:

1. Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services for Life and Human Well-being
2. Accounting for Nature: macro and micro economic approaches
3. Global and Local Impact of Economic Growth, Trade and Globalisation on the Environment (at different scales)
4. Alternative Approaches to Nature and Society and Assessing the Role of Knowledge and Power
5. Social Norms, Culture and Human Behaviour in relation to the Environment
6. Towards Green and Sustainable Socio-economic Systems: including ecological agriculture, energy efficient industry and sustainable urban habitats
7. Equity and Governance Issues in relation to the global, national and local commons

• Deadline for Abstract of 400 words [kindly mention the theme]: February 28, 2011
• Communication of acceptance of abstract: March 31, 2011
• Submission of Full paper of 12,000 words [maximum], to be reviewed: May 15, 2011
• Communication of Final acceptance: August 31, 2011.

Other Events planned:

• Pre-conference Workshop on ‘Pathways to Inter-disciplinarity’ (19th October, 2011)
• Workshop for PhD Students working on Environmental and Ecological Economics (22nd October, 2011)
• Panel Discussions on (a) Ecological/Rainfed Agriculture, and (b) Valuation Issues in South Asia.
• Other Interdisciplinary Panel proposals on Ecological Economics are invited. Visit www.ecoinsee.org for details.

For Information on other Panels, Plenary Speakers, Conference Publication, Prearranged Local Visits, Travel Grant, Conference Registration, Local Hospitality and Crèche kindly visit website www.ecoinsee.org.

Contact:

Sushil Kumar Sen, Office Manager, INSEE, c/o. Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi Enclave, Delhi-110007 India

Fax: 011-27667410, email: sushil@iegindia.org

Further Details

Measuring R&D: Challenges Faced by Developing Countries

Measuring R&D: Challenges Faced by Developing Countries

Published by UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2010.
ISBN 978-92-9189-094-1

About

The study of knowledge systems relies heavily on the use of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) indicators to establish cross-national comparisons and to follow their evolution over time. Of the different types of STI indicators, research and experimental development (R&D) statistics are probably the most important. To produce R&D statistics, the methodology proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the Frascati Manual (FM) is used extensively in developing countries despite the fact that it was originally written for R&D surveys in OECD member countries. This confirms the FM as the most widely accepted international standard practice for R&D surveys. In addition, the involvement of UNESCO and other international organizations has only served to further its development and diffusion.

However, the characteristics of research systems in developing countries differ significantly from the ones that gave rise to the current statistical standard. When producing statistics and indicators, the tension between prioritizing international comparability – embodied in the frequently uncritical application of the FM by developing countries – and producing policy-relevant results that reflect the particular characteristics of these countries becomes evident. The main challenge is in obtaining cross-nationally comparable indicators while at the same time adequately reflecting the characteristics of developing countries.

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has taken on the task of preparing an Annex to the FM that will provide guidance to developing countries on how to use the standards proposed in the Manual for measuring R&D. The Annex will provide suggestions on how the concepts in the FM should be interpreted to ensure that data better reflect the particular characteristics of R&D activity in developing countries while still maintaining international comparability.

This Technical Paper is a stand-alone document on measuring R&D in developing countries and will serve as the basis for an Annex to the FM. In addition to providing guidance on how the concepts in the FM should be interpreted, this guide also offers suggestions on how to strengthen STI statistical systems in developing countries. This document will also address and provide recommendations for specific situations that fall outside the framework of the FM. In time, some of the recommendations in this guide could serve as input for future revisions of the Manual.

Download Full-text PDF

Related background documents:

• The Frascati Manual (developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD)
  
• The Characteristics of R&D in Developing Countries
  
• Measuring R&D in South Africa and in selected SADC countries: issues in implementing Frascati Manual based surveys
  
• Measuring R&D in developing countries: measurement priorities and methodological issues in Latin America
  

Further Details

Just Published "The British Empire and the Natural World: Environmental Encounters in South Asia"

The British Empire and the Natural World: Environmental Encounters in South Asia
Edited by Deepak Kumar, Vinita Damodaran and Rohan D'Souza
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011.

ISBN: 9780198069706, Hardback, 344 pages.
March 2011, Price: US$ 75.00/ INR 695.

Description
This volume provides multi-layered analysis of the environmental impacts under the colonial rule. Presenting detailed case studies from across the Indian subcontinent, it discusses different aspects of Empire-environment encounters like imagination of environment; politics of natural resource management; irrigation and flood control projects; cultural negotiations; and forest and ecological changes. The essays explore the nature of global environmental transformations in the nineteenth century, complex and varied inter-colonial exchanges, techniques and technologies, and the institutionalization of various environmental imaginings. The volume documents the shifts in recent environmental history of the subcontinent. Examining key debates on the subject, it also underlines the need to revisit the role of British Empire as an apt conceptual template for the writing of global environmental history.
This book will be of considerable interest to teachers, students, and scholars of ecological and environmental history particularly those concerned with modern India and the British Empire.

Features

• Presents a multi-layered analysis of environmental impact
• Detailed case studies from across Indian subcontinent
• Editors are renowned environmental historians

Table of Contents
Introduction by Deepak Kumar, Vinita Damodaran and Rohan D'Souza
Part I. Environmental Imaginations and Empire
Chapter 1. The Wild Andamans: Island Imageries and Colonial Encounter by Aparna Vaidik
Chapter 2. Walter Sherwill and the Visual Representation of Colonial Authority in Mid-nineteenth Century India by Daniel Rycroft
Part II. Making Natural Resources for Empire
Chapter 3. Imperial Design: The Royal Indian Engineering College and Public Works in Colonial India by Christopher V. Hill
Chapter 4. Redeeming Wood by Destroying the Forest: Shola, Plantations and Colonial Conservancy on the Nilgiris in the Nineteenth Century by Deborah Sutton
Chapter 5. Making Garden, Erasing Jungle: The Tea Enterprise in Colonial Assam by Jayeeta Sharma
Part III. Impacts and Negotiations: The Empire's Ecological Footprints
Chapter 6. Taming Liquid Gold' and Dam Technology: A Study of the Godavari Anicut by B. Eswara Rao
Chapter 7. Flood Control in North Bihar: An Environmental History from the 'Ground-Level' (1850-1954) by Praveen Singh
Part IV. Cultures Reshape Empire
Chapter 8. The Environmental and Cultural Legacy of Colonial Hydraulic Projects in Two South Indian Deltas by Peter L. Schmitthenner
Chapter 9. Collaboration and Conflict: Environmental Legacies and the Ho of Kolhan (1700 - 1918) by Asoka Kumar Sen
Part V.The Long Ecological Shadows of Empire
Chapter 10. Forests at the Edge of Empire: The Case of Nepal by D. G. Donovan
Chapter 11. Forest Policy and Ecological Change in Hyderabad State (1867-1948) by S. Abdul Thaha

About the Author(s)
Deepak Kumar is Professor at the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Vinita Damodaran is Senior Lecturer at the University of Sussex. Rohan D'Souza is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Further Details

CfP:: International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis: Discursive Spaces. Politics, Practices and Power

International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis: Discursive Spaces. Politics, Practices and Power

Dates: 23–25 June 2011

Location: Cardiff University, Wales, UK
Supported by: ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability & Society

Introduction and conference themes

The conference will provide a forum to explore long-standing themes in the interpretive tradition, in particular governance, democracy and deliberation, the use of discourse and interpretive methods in critical policy analysis, and the relationship of discourse to power. It will also explore new places and horizons for interpretive policy analysis. This will be particularly evident in the keynote presentations and roundtables which are focussed on the contribution of interpretive policy analysis to addressing major political and social questions of our times; the use of interpretivist and deliberative methods in non-Western contexts; and the inclusion of non-cognitive perspectives on human agency. The conference will also offer an opportunity to assess how interpretive methods can help to understand new forms of governance, the role of the state, and various modes of policymaking from the local to the global scale. It will provide an opportunity to discuss the theory and practice of democracy, and for debating different methods of interpretation and critical explanation.

Interpretive methods have now been well established in a wide range of research fields, from policy analysis to the sociology of knowledge, science and technology studies, international relations, cultural political economy, urban research, planning, and many others. They often inform policy and practices, in particular in areas like participatory and deliberative policy analysis and planning. The relationship between interpretive methods, governance and policy practice raises several important questions that underpin the conference themes listed below:

• Interpretive Methods and Policy Processes: How exactly can and do interpretive and critical methods inform the policy process? Under which circumstances are they accepted as legitimate modes of knowledge production? What evidence do we have about their impact on policy-making? How does interpretive policy analysis relate to everyday policy knowledge, how does it alter our understanding of modes of knowing, and how is this important for policy-making? Which modes of governance are conducive to, or even reliant on, critical policy analysis?
• Sustainable Development and Interpretive and Critical Policy Analysis: Developed as a response to a complex and global set of crisis-like phenomena, the term “sustainable development” is both dominant in many policy discourses and highly contested. How can interpretive and critical policy analysis help to clarify issues and enhance democratic approaches in the face of technocratic and even autocratic visions of sustainability? How can it encourage participatory and context-sensitive approaches? What is the contribution to creating links between global problems and local practices?
• Meaning, Practice and Policy: The complex interplay of meaning and practice has been a central theme of interpretive and critical policy analysis for a long time. How are meaning-making, framing and category-making important for the policy process? What are the merits and limitations of hermeneutic, pragmatist and structuralist informed approaches? How can they help us to understand changing modes of governance? What is their potential to enhance democracy?
• Emotions and Feelings in Policy: New avenues for interpretive and critical policy analysis have been opened up by recent research on the role of emotions, feelings and the unconscious in the policy process. How can we include non-cognitive dimensions in policy analysis? How does this contribute to our understanding of the policy process? What are the practical implications both for the research process and for policy-making?
• Globalising Interpretive Analysis: Interpretive and critical policy analysis has been developed in the context of Western democracies. How far have they travelled to other places? How do they fare in contexts that are often very different? What are the methodological limitations? What is their potential in less affluent, less open, less secularised societies (and are such deficit descriptions appropriate at all)? Are there regionally different approaches and ways forward? How is the critically reflexive concept of knowledge been received in non-Western contexts?
• Interpreting the State in Policy Analysis: The state has been a centrepiece of political thinking since its inception. But political thinking has often been led astray by essentialist and even idolizing notions of the state. How can interpretive, narrative or performative approaches inform more democratic views of the state? How does this enhance our understanding of governance? What are the practical implications for policy analysis?
  

Paper proposals are encouraged to engage with the conference themes, but are equally invited to address other themes and issues in the realm of interpretive policy analysis and adjacent fields. Conference papers might include one or more of the following topics:

• Theoretical: The contribution of a particular theoretical or philosophical approach to critical policy, policy discourse and power analysis, including the emerging focus on global policy.
• Empirical: Analytic and empirical case studies of discourse and power, especially in relation to policy practices, deliberation, and governance, both local and global; interpretive understandings of the policy process; the role of knowledge in the policy process.
• Substantive: Case studies from particular policy issue arenas, from the local to the global (e.g., local, reflexive and meta-governance; political economy; environmental policymaking, the politics of climate change and sustainable development; gender relations; global policy, global inequalities; bio-politics; food policy; urban and regional planning; and immigration policy).
• Methodological: Issues in doing interpretive and critical policy analysis (e.g., reflexivity in policy-analytic practices; issues in using new recording technologies; internet research; getting, and using, feedback from ‘informants’ evaluating software programs; non-verbal methods; mobile methodologies; mixed methods approaches).
• Practical: Clarification of interpretive approaches in use, such as varieties of discourse analysis, narrative analysis, deliberative policy inquiry, framing, rhetoric, category-making and metaphor.
• Policy Analysis and Practice: The relationship between policy analytic practices and democratic and/or other theories of governance.
  

Proposals for Papers

Paper proposals will be submitted via email directly to the panel convenors by 31 January 2011. Selected panels and convenors’ emails have been published on the conference website www.ipa-2011.cardiff.ac.uk. Proposals for papers that do not fit into one of the panels should be submitted to the “Open Section” and emailed to IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk, with “Paper proposal” in the subject heading. A maximum of two submissions per individual will be accepted. All paper proposals should be sent as Word file and contain:

• Number and title of panel
• Title of paper
• Name, institutional affiliation and email of the presenter(s)
• Abstract (max 300 words)
• Up to five keywords
  

Please use Arial 11 to facilitate further processing. Paper givers will be notified about acceptance of their papers by mid February. For those paper proposals that are accepted, full papers of no more than 6.000 words will be due one month prior to the conference date: 23 May 2011. They should be emailed to both IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk and the panel convenors, writing “Full paper” in the subject heading. Submitted conference papers will be accessible for registered participants through the conference website. Papers from the conference may be considered for a special issue of Critical Policy Studies, Editors - Frank Fischer (Rutgers University, USA) and Steven Griggs (De Montfort, UK); Forum Editors – Navdeep Mathur (Indian Institute of Management, India) and Douglas Torgerson (Trent University, Canada). To reach the editorial team of Critical Policy Studies, please contact Helen Hancock at h.i.hancock@bham.ac.uk.

Methodology Workshops

A number of the sessions will be devoted to methodological workshops. These 90-minute workshop sessions feature specialists in different aspects of interpretive policy analysis. The workshop sessions, following the approach employed in earlier conferences, build on the idea of a “master-class” in musical studies, where two more experienced researchers will meet a small number of “newer” researchers to discuss issues in using a particular methodological strategy or method. The emphasis will be on questions raised by the newer researchers, and their research will be treated as case studies to generate and engage relevant methodological issues. Presenters are asked to focus on their methods.

The workshops seek to create a setting where newer scholars can benefit from focused interaction with more seasoned experts in their field. The goal is to discuss questions about interpretive research and to exchange experiences on a range of relevant topics, such as discourse analysis, interviewing and participant observation. The sessions will be facilitated, and the discussants will be established figures in the field of interpretative policy analysis, such as Frank Fischer, Navdeep Mathur, Henk Wagenaar, and Dvora Yanow. The sessions are fully incorporated into the regular conference program; and, as part of an effort to create a collaborative learning environment, the sessions are open to all conference participants.

In order to take part in a workshop session, newer researchers invited to present their work in one of these will be asked to introduce their research project, pointing to particular methodological questions that have arisen in their research and/or field experiences that they would like to explore in the workshop. If you wish to be considered for inclusion in a Methodology Workshop, please submit your proposal to the conference email IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk no later than 31 January 2011, writing “Methodology workshop proposal” in the subject heading of your email.

Your submission should include

• your name, institutional affiliation and email
• title of your research project
• your career stage (e.g., year of your PhD studies, year PhD dissertation defense is anticipated, year of post-doc work and date PhD was received, etc.)
• a brief description of your research project, its methodological approach and the problem that you would like to discuss (500-600 words, double-spaced, Arial 11).

For additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Methodology Workshop Advisory Board by sending an E-Mail to IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk, writing “Methodology workshop” in the subject heading. Full papers for the methodology workshops should have no more than 3.000 words and will be due one month prior to the conference date: 23 May 2011. They should be emailed to both IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk and the panel convenors, writing "Methodology workshop paper" paper in the subject heading.

• Call for Papers Deadline: January 31, 2011
• Call for Participation in Methodology Workshop Deadline: January 31, 2011
• Inquiries to: IPA-2011@cardiff.ac.uk
• Abstract submissions to direct to panel convenors (please see list and contact details on the conference website)

More Information

CfP:: Y-SASM 2011 - Engendering and Degendering South Asian Studies

Young South Asia Scholars Meet (Y-SASM) 2011

19-21 May 2011

Venue: Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

Call for Papers: Engendering and Degendering South Asian Studies

In response to the positive feedback to the workshop held at the Zentrum Moderner Orient (Berlin) in July last year, the Young South Asia Scholars Meet (Y-SASM) has been established as an annual workshop. The Y-SASM is to be held on a rotational basis at host universities, which this year will be the South Asian Studies Seminar of the Humboldt University, Berlin. The workshop will be held from the 19th -21st of May, 2011.

Last year, the workshop had the declared aim of providing young South Asianists with a platform for exchange and interaction that could further the integration and proliferation of research networks across the German-speaking region and beyond. The workshop reflected the vibrancy of South Asian Studies in the region and we hope that its institutionalization in the form of Y-SASM will contribute to and facilitate this trend.

In contrast to last year’s workshop, Y-SASM 2011 will have a thematic focus in order to encourage fruitful discussion. The topic of the Y-SASM 2011 is gender.

For quite some time now South Asian gender studies has been successfully highlighting the role of women in South Asian History. With recent developments in the field, however, we hold that gender studies can no longer be equated to women studies. Instead gender has increasingly evolved as a critical perspective with an inherently interdisciplinary character which can thus throw light on a far wider range of settings, constellations and problems in the South Asian region.

Historically, gender as an academic perspective has its roots in feminist theory and women studies, which emerged as an exclusively interventionist paradigm in the late 1960s and early 1970s and manifested itself in diverse feminist movements across the world, including South Asia. Since then, gender studies has come into its own as an academic field that questions existing forms of knowledge production. Significantly, it has come a long way in finding a balance between its role as a critical and theoretical perspective and its normative interventionist ideals. Indeed, the need for deconstructing binary categories such as 'women' and 'men' and the importance of questioning derivative binaries of sexuality is now highlighted. For example, since the 1990s, queer theory has been at the forefront in contesting the categorization of gender and sexuality essentialist lines. In the same way, there is need to continue emphasizing the gender perspective in South Asian Studies while simultaneously questioning its binary premises; thereby both engendering and degendering South Asian studies.

Thus, this workshop is interested in papers from various disciplinary backgrounds that can highlight how the gender perspective is enriching South Asian studies. We are looking for contributions pertaining to:

1. Sexualities and Gender
2. Gender and Technology
3. Historiography of Gender in South Asian Studies
4. Gender and Violence
5. Gender and Work
6. Gender: Development, Education and Health
7. Gender, Caste and Tribe
8. Gender: Communalism, Religion and Law
9. Gender in Literature and Media
10. Gender: the National and the Transnational

Y-SASM wishes to combine its aim of facilitating lively thematically focused debate with its goal of promoting exchange between new and young scholars. Thus, in addition to the thematic panels, one section of the workshop will be devoted to providing space to scholars to presenting their new projects. These presentations may be held on topics that fall outside the theme of the workshop.

Please send your abstracts (400-500 words) to the organizers no later than 15th February 2011. Other than those who will be directly participating in the workshop (through presentation), we invite all interested scholars working on South Asia to take part in the workshop. We hope, in this way, to begin the work of building up a new network of younger scholars working on South Asia. Currently, our funding situation is unclear and we therefore we strongly request our participants and guests to arrange for their own travel and accommodation.

Organisers:

Sadia Bajwa (Humboldt University, Berlin), Maria Framke (Jacobs University Bremen), Mette Gabler (Humboldt University, Berlin), Maria Moritz (Jacobs University, Bremen), Nitin Sinha (Zentrum Moderner Orient, Berlin)

Contact:
Sadia Bajwa: sadia.bajwa[at]asa.hu-berlin.de

More Information

Science Communication Without Frontiers: Proceedings of PCST 2010

New Publication

Science Communication Without Frontiers: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Public Communication of Science & Technology (PCST 2010). December 6-10, 2010; New Delhi, India. Organized by International Network on Public Communication of Science and Technology network (PCST), National Council for Science & Technology Communication (NCSTC), and Indian Science Communication Society (ISCOS)

About PCST

Public Communication of Science & Technology (PCST) is important for the economic and social wellbeing of society and for the exercise of participatory democracy. It implies the ability to respond to technical issues and problems that pervade our daily lives. It does not mean detailed knowledge of scientific principles, phenomena or technologies, but rather an appreciation of the way science works and how the community can interact with science to help shape its work. New technologies and new media can trigger and sustain public interest in S&T, allowing a dialogue to developing and preparing the people for change.

The 11th PCST Conference deliberated on both practical and theoretical aspects of science communication, in a globalised world with major inequalities and development challenges. Over 500 science communication practitioners and analysts from all continents compared experiences and perspectives on science-based issues of today and tomorrow.

Proceedings Include

• Sharma, Aviram (2010). People's Perception of Public Participation in Regulatory Decision Making: The Case of Bottled Water Quality Standards in India, pp. 284.

Downlad PCST-2010 Proceedings in PDF Format

Bruno Latour: I would define politics as the composition of a common world

'I would define politics as the composition of a common world'

Interview with Bruno Latour, thinker and social anthropologist.

Bruno Latour is one of France's most innovative, provocative and stimulating thinkers and social anthropologists. Given French Cartesian orthodoxy, it is not surprising that he is more appreciated in the Anglo-Saxon world, where his books such as "We Have Never Been Modern" (1993) are better known than in his native France. Jon Thompson, the publisher and chief editor of Polity Press, London, described him as France's most original and interesting thinker and in 2007, Bruno Latour was listed as the 10th most-cited intellectual in the humanities and social sciences by The Times Higher Education Guide.

Mr. Latour's seminal work has been in the field of Science and Technology Studies. With his "Actor Network Theory" he has advanced the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory. Thus scientific activity is viewed as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices, reconstructed, not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Mr. Latour will be in India this week conducting workshops in New Delhi. In this exclusive interview with The Hindu's Vaiju Naravane in Paris, he discusses the new challenges facing humanity and of India's role in the climate debate.

BRUND LATOUR: 'On governments the question becomes complicated because we are now talking about the politics of Nature and that's a rather new quandary.

I wish to start this interview with a discussion of one of your most famous books — "We Have Never Been Modern". Could you explain what you meant by that? What made you write this book and where do you go now?

The Great Narrative of the Western definition of the world was based on a certain idea of Science and Technology and once we began, 30 or 40 years ago to study the practices of the making of science and technology, we realised that this definition could not sustain the old idea of western rationality taking, in a way the place of archaic attachment to the past.

The Great Narrative was based on the idea of Science which was largely mythical. Science has always been linked to the other cultures of the Western World, although it has always described itself as apart — separated from politics, values, religion and so on. But when you begin to work on a history of Science — Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Kantor or whoever, you find on the contrary, that things have never been severed, that there has always been a continuous re-connection with the rest of cultures and especially with the rest of politics.

So until the end of the 20th century the western Great Narrative was caught in a contradiction between its practice which was constant attachment between Science and Culture and its official description of itself as being rational, objective, separate, as being universal in that it operated everywhere in the same way. Now what is interesting from the Indian perspective is that the whole discourse about modernising or not modernising, about progressing or not progressing, between being archaic or not, was based on the baseline shibboleth provided by this idea of modernisation. Now if you change this baseline and if modernisation is not what has been going on in the so-called West, the “we” of We Have Never Been Modern, then it opens up many new conversations between the former modernising and the former modernised. And of course this fits very well with the large body of literature, mainly from India on post-colonial studies.

I would like to refer to a recent essay of yours in which you say and I quote: "… the meteorologists don't agree with the chemists; they are talking about cyclical fluctuations unrelated to human activity. … The horizons, the stakes, the time frames, the actors — none of these is commensurable and yet, there they are, caught up in the same story…" So what is going on in this debate over climate change and what happens to the role of governments?

On governments the question becomes complicated because we are now talking about the politics of Nature and that's a rather new quandary. Nature was not supposed to be part of anything — it was supposed to be out there. Not in the ancient tradition where there was no separation to begin with between Nature and society but now, when we have returned to a most interesting position, where Nature is back in politics. However, Nature is not able to unify the discussion so far because people are entering into controversies about Nature. And these controversies cannot be quashed by saying — you are not a scientist or you are not the government or from the West or whatever, and this is a very new arena for politics as well as for scientists and citizens. And that is the new area I am trying to map, so to speak. But no one has answers for that. No one has ever had to bring the climate into parliament! We are struggling collectively and India again is very important here because of its new role in Cancun and the climate debate.

In New Delhi you are holding talks with ecologists, engineers who develop digital technologies with social science applications and those engaged in both the climate change and globalisation debate from the emerging countries' point of view. Where do you think the meeting ground lies?

The responses have to be issue-specific, of course. But the first thing is to have a meeting ground which is defined neither by the need of Nature, as if Nature was able to exist universally and outside politics, nor by defining it only by market forces, although market forces have to be defined and organised as well. So it's more of a negative common ground, I would say. Do we agree that the problem cannot be solved by other than composing a common world? The composition of a common world would be the definition of politics.

You are one of France's most original, stimulating and provocative thinkers and yet, you are much better known and better appreciated outside France. Do you think this has to do with France's rigid Cartesian mindset and orthodoxy?

In France there is a specific reason. Science and Modernisation have been so entangled from the time of the French Revolution that it is difficult in here to reopen this question of universality, science, colonial expansion and so on without entering into many, many delicate and “hot” issues about identities. So the French identity has largely been based on a certain idea of Science and expansion and all these questions are now being debated and put into jeopardy. Everything here hinges on a certain idea of science and it's an idea of science that I am tackling and they don't like that too much! Of course there is the same discourse in India where attacking Science and Technology is considered reactionary and so forth. So the idea that there is no other alternative, that is, if you do not talk about Science and Technology in a “progress” mode, you are a reactionary is the same everywhere. In India, France or America, the same temptation is there. That is now changing because of the ecology crisis.

You have been working on the idea of eco-theology. Could you talk about that?

Given that we have to look for alternatives to the politics of Nature, I was interested in seeing if there is in the old tradition of Christian theology – I don't know enough about Indian tradition — about respect for Creation. Not about Nature but respect for Creation. And it happens that in the Orthodox Christian tradition of Central and Eastern Europe there is a large body of theological work around the question of Creation. My interest is that there is a disconnect between the science and the size of the threat that people mention about Nature, the planet and the climate and the emotion that this triggers. So we are supposed to be extremely frightened people, but despite that we appear to sleep pretty well. So either the threat is not that strong, or we have not built the kind of emotion we have built for war, for religious conflict and all sorts of other issues which make us very emotive.

Or that our fright is so great that it has numbed us …

That's also a very clear possibility and that's not a very good attitude either, nonetheless. That's why I'm interested in seeing and checking if there is in religious tradition where you fathom this question about emotion about Creation. And again, India is a very interesting place for that.

Source: The Hindu, January 5, 2011.

Other Interviews

• We are all reactionaries today
• Decoding the Collective Experiment
• There is no information, only transformation
• An Interview with Bruno Latour by T. Hugh Crawford
• Collective Socio-Scientific Experiments: experiments which are no longer conducted in the laboratory but involve wider communities and in some cases the population of the world as a whole
• The Metaphorical/Literal Divide
• Things that Speak
• Making the 'Res Public'