Explain how advancement in science improve the quality of life for

humans.
Society values science because the application of scientific knowledge helps to meet many basic
human needs and improve living standards. Finding a cure for cancer and a clean form of energy
are only topical examples. Likewise, science is often justified to the public as driving economic
growth, which is seen as a return on investment for public funding. However, during the last few
decades, another goal of science has emerged: to find a way to use natural resources in a rational
way to ensure their continuity and the continuity of humanity itself; An endeavor currently
referred to as "sustainability."
Scientists often justify their work by using these and similar arguments - currently linked to
personal health and longer life expectancy, technological advances, economic profits, and / or
sustainability - in order to secure funding and gain social acceptance. They point out that most of
the tools, technologies, and drugs we use today are products or by-products of research, from
pens to rockets and from aspirin to organ transplantation. This progressive application of
scientific knowledge is captured in Isaac Asimov's book, A Chronology of Science and
Discovery, which beautifully describes how science shaped the world, from the discovery of fire
until the twentieth century.
However, there is another application of science that has been largely overlooked, but which has
enormous potential to meet the challenges facing humanity in current education. It is time to
seriously think about how science and research can contribute to education at all levels of
society; Not only to engage more people in research and teach them scientific knowledge, but
critically to provide them with a fundamental understanding of how science shapes the world and
human civilization. Education could become the most important application of science in the
coming decades.
"The time has come to seriously think about how science and research contribute to education at
all levels of society ..."
More and better education for citizens would enable informed debate and decision-making on the
fair and sustainable application of new technologies, which would help address problems such as
social inequality and the abuse of scientific discoveries. For example, an individual may see an
increase in well-being and life expectancy as a positive goal and will not take into account
current problems of inequality related to food supply and health resources.
However, the introduction of the view that science education should address how we apply
scientific knowledge to improve the human condition raises the question of whether scientific
research should be entirely in the service of human needs, or whether scientists should retain the
freedom to pursue knowledge for their sake. . Sake - albeit with the goal of final application.
This question has been heavily debated since the publication of the book of British physicist
John D. The state to maximize its utility - he was heavily influenced by Marxist thought.
Zoologist John R. Becker has the "Bernal" view, defending the "liberal" concept of science
according to which "the advancement of knowledge through scientific research has value in
itself". This approach has been called the "free science" approach.
The modern utilitarian approach has attempted to impose a clear social, political and economic
aspect of science. Perhaps the most recent example of this is the shift in European research
policy under the so-called Horizon 2020 funding framework, or H2020. This medium-term
program (2014-2020) is defined as “a financial instrument for the implementation of the
Innovation Union, which is a pioneering initiative in Europe 2020 aimed at securing the global
competitiveness of Europe.” This is a common view of science and technology in the so-called
developed world. The attention in the case of the H2020 program is that the economic arguments
are explicitly presented before all other reasons. Europe may be in danger of taking a step back
in forcing it to become a global economic leader at any cost.
"Europe may be in danger of taking a step back in forcing it to become a global economic leader
at any cost."

Will the development of science improve the living conditions of people

in the future?

From the history of science development, many examples of scientific discoveries can be given,
which gave humanity significant for the development of civilization and prosperity, various
inventions, the effects of scientific discoveries in the form of new materials, technologies, etc.
that have found practical application in various areas of production of economic goods that have
become in common use by people, they have increased prosperity and made life easier.
However, the answer to this question in the context of the future of the next several dozen or
more years, ie in the perspective of the development of science in the 21st century, is already
determined by new factors. To these factors should be added global problems and their negative
effects such as progressive global warming, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, increased risk
of various climatic cataclysms, increased environmental pollution, declining resources of raw
materials, arable land and clean water, the need to develop renewable sources of energy,
electromobility, recycling, etc., ie the need to develop business processes according to the model
of sustainable pro-ecological development, according to the green economy concept.
Whether thanks to the development of science people become happy, it depends mainly on the
results of scientific research, scientific discoveries, new concepts created, innovative solutions in
specific fields of knowledge regarding their applications in various areas of human life, but also
for life on Earth and the natural environment Earth.
Considering the impact of the development of civilization on the natural environment of the
planet Earth, progressive global warming, increasing climatic disasters, also the issues of pro-
ecological applications of scientific discoveries are important, because in the 21st century it will
be possible to save the planet Earth through a climate catastrophe. If this plan can be achieved in
the 21st century, then life on Earth will be saved, and thus people in later generations will be
happier.

The Role of Science and Technology in Society and

Governance
Introduction    
Representatives from Mexico, the USA and Canada met in Alberta, Canada, to
examine the impact of scientific change on society and its governance. Preparing for
the 1999 World Conference on Science, the group looked at many aspects of the links
between science and society — strengths, weaknesses, benefits, pitfalls and possible
future directions. The full report and its appendices summarizes the group’s
reflections and is addressed to the World Conference on Science.

Brief presentations on four selected topics where the applications of science affect
virtually everyone — agriculture and food production, genetic research in medicine,
global change, and energy — helped to ground the discussion in real issues. By
intention, many points raised cut across the specific introductory topics. The report
groups the resulting discussion under six broad themes: science in transition;
communication and education; North-South issues; economics versus sustainable
development; science policy and ethics; and integrating issues.

The meeting was not intended to define an official North American position; rather,
participants were invited in their capacity as professional scientists, to present their
personal perspectives on the changing role of science in society and governance in an
open forum. From this frank and penetrating exchange, a number of general
observations and conclusions emerged that are relevant to the concept and agenda of
the World Science Conference. These are accompanied by suggestions for action
recommended by some or several participants.

Science in Transition    

In the past, our scientific methods and institutions have tended to emphasize the study
of individual natural processes rather than systems, analysis more than synthesis, and
understanding nature more than predicting its behaviour. And in many instances,
science has focussed on short-term, small-scale problems, often in monodisciplinary
mode, rather than on long-term, large-scale or integrated problems. While these
approaches and perspectives have built up a considerable base of knowledge and led
to a vast portfolio of useful technologies, especially in the 20th century, many of the
problems now facing humankind can be solved only if we approach science more
holistically. Greater effort is needed to understand integrated natural systems on
multiple time and space scales.

Scientific findings must also be applied at the right scales. The impact of
technological interventions on individual people, communities and the environment
must also be carefully considered. To do this, science needs to become more
multidisciplinary and its practitioners should continue to promote cooperation and
integration between the social and natural sciences. A holistic approach also demands
that science draw on the contributions of the humanities (such as history and
philosophy), local knowledge systems, aboriginal wisdom, and the wide variety of
cultural values.

The influence of science on people’s lives is growing. While recent benefits to

humanity are unparalleled in the history of the human species, in some instances the
impact has been harmful or the long-term effects give causes for serious concerns. A
considerable measure of public mistrust of science and fear of technology exists
today. In part, this stems from the belief by some individuals and communities that
they will be the ones to suffer the indirect negative consequences of technical
innovations introduced to benefit only a privileged minority. The power of science to
bring about change places a duty on scientists to proceed with great caution both in
what they do and what they say. Scientists should reflect on the social consequences
of the technological applications or dissemination of partial information of their work
and explain to the public and policy makers alike the degree of scientific uncertainty
or incompleteness in their findings. At the same time, though, they should not hesitate
to fully exploit the predictive power of science, duly qualified, to help people cope
with environmental change, especially in cases of direct threats like natural disasters
or water shortages.

The current trend toward privatization in many countries is influencing the focus and
practice of science. While in some instances the net result may be to increase research
capacity and knowledge in selected areas, there is major concern that the trend may be
undermining public-sector science, especially fundamental research and efforts to
solve socially important problems of no interest to commercial enterprises. Patent
protection of private intellectual property, for example, makes the job of public
research more difficult. There is also concern over the social implications of private
ownership and control of technology, and its effect on broad public scientific literacy,
and on options for public choice.

Another major trend shaping science is globalization. The end of the Cold War,
growing technology demand from emerging economies, world recognition of the
interconnectedness of the planet’s biophysical systems and improved
communications, especially via the Internet -- all these forces are boosting cross-
border scientific cooperation and information exchange between individual
researchers, institutions and governments. However, much of the expansion is
occurring in just a handful of scientifically advanced countries. For science to be truly
global, more effort is needed to ensure all countries, rich and poor, and a wide range
of world cultures are included in collaborative research and technology transfer. This
is especially important in areas like global climate change which will affect, sooner or
later, all human beings. With the right policies in place, joint scientific work in critical
areas such as the Arctic, for example, could serve as a model for other types of global
cooperation.

A major challenge for global science is to find institutional arrangements conducive to

success. The proliferation of international networks and programs, the so-called
"acronym jungle", reflects a rather ad hoc approach, necessitated in part by the
narrowness of purposes of established scientific institutions and the lack of strategic,
integrated support by national governments in areas like global change or
international aid. What is needed is the formation of true international partnerships
that allow scientists in different disciplines and countries to fully support each other’s
aims and share resources and management duties to mutual advantage.

Recommendations
Scientists and scientific institutions should    

 promote multidisciplinary approaches to research, encourage cooperation

between the social and natural sciences, and draw lessons from the humanities,
local knowledge systems and aboriginal wisdom;
 encourage a holistic approach to problem solving that takes into account a
realistic range of socioeconomic conditions and effects, as well as multiple time
and space scales, where appropriate;
 carefully explain the implications and the inherent limitations of their research
findings to the public;
 fully exploit the predictive power of science to serve social needs with candid
awareness of the limitations of scientific predictions;
 promote the inclusion of scientists from resource-poor countries in international
cooperative projects and maximize their access to information and technology;
 encourage the creation of science-coordination mechanisms at the highest level
of the United Nations, fully involving the governments of all countries, as a
way to promote integrated responses to global problems.

Communication and Education    

Within the general public, there is certain measure of mistrust and even fear of science
and technology (S&T). Some is based on public experience, but much is the
consequence of a significant communications gap between scientists and society.
Many reasons are advanced for these attitudes: public ignorance or misunderstanding
of science, inaccurate or biased media coverage, uneven distribution of the costs and
benefits of science among different sub-groups in society, lack of public control over
the applications of S&T, and the inability of some scientists to communicate ideas in
plain language. The issue of nuclear waste disposal is one example of how the gap
between scientific findings (which, in this case, suggest that safe disposal
technologies exist that are at least as safe as other industrial risks accepted by society)
and public opinion and behaviour (continuing opposition to the use of such
technologies) may sometimes appear intractable, that is, not amenable to solution
simply through improved communication or further technical research.

Good scientific communication via the mass media is especially important in those
areas directly and strongly affecting people’s lives — for example, before, during and
after natural disasters such as storms, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, as well as in
the general area of global change or depletion of natural resources. In communicating
their ideas, scientists should make clear the limitations of their predictions and other
pronouncements. But they should not shy away from public pronouncements just
because their messages contradict public wishes or expectations; indeed, they should
be prepared for negative reactions in those instances, and carefully explain the basis
for their scientific conclusions or opinions.

Apart from communication by the mass media which is largely unidirectional,

communication in the sense of an ongoing dialogue between scientists, the public, and
policy-makers is also important. This may take many forms: public policy
consultations and review committees, science fairs, open houses, and public
information services provided by universities, research institutes and private
companies. As the demand for transparency and accountability in science grows,
communication of this type — as well as public participation in decision making
about the applications of S&T — becomes imperative. Unfortunately, resources for
such dialogue are lacking not only among scientific institutions but among those
groups in society who have a particular stake in scientific developments and therefore
something to gain through contact with scientists. Increasing privitization of scientific
activity also discourages open communication of scientific findings and uncertainties.

Science education, particularly training in multidisciplinary and team approaches to

research, is also in need of reinforcement. Many science education programs still
focus on individual student assignments and individual evaluation, whereas the trend
in both the public and private sector is toward team work, and the needs of society are
increasingly met by the concerted efforts of many areas of investigation. Science, if it
is to appeal strongly to youth, also needs to be demystified by educators — that is,
presented in an attractive, stimulating fashion, with the abstractions of theory strongly
linked to everyday life.

Furthermore, students need to be more fully involved in public discussion of science

and its applications. Not only are they the ones who will be most affected by the
current direction of science, they are also the scientists and policy makers of
tomorrow.
Recommendations    

 To improve the quality of science journalism, the mass media should engage
more journalists with scientific training. At the same time, the mass media and
specialized educators should be enlisted to help train scientists or their
spokespersons in the fundamentals of public communication and to familiarize
them with the expectations and operating parameters of the mass media.
 The concept of scientific clearing houses — services to help journalists
interpret scientific data, decipher technical language, and distinguish
scientifically credible claims from unsubstantiated ones — should be promoted.
UNESCO national commissions should also consider setting up scientific
information services aimed at improving the quality and quantity of science
stories in the media and ensuring that differing viewpoints are presented.
 Science community partnerships -- for example, between research institutes,
private firms, the media, and governments — are an effective and practical way
to share the costs of communicating science to the public. These should be
encouraged.
 Educational authorities should encourage teamwork training and
multidisciplinary approaches to science education. They should also attempt to
demystify science to make it attractive to a larger proportion of students.
University and private-sector experience with team-oriented research should be
documented and analyzed with a view to identifying the best current practices
in North America.