Building a harmonious society and reducing social inequality is an arduous task. Usually, people think of using public welfare policies, health policies, education policies, social insurance policies, etc. to achieve the above goals, but they do not think of the potential contribution of science and technology policies in this regard. Others believe that transformed scientific and technological achievements can always bring benefits to society, at least not exacerbating social inequality. Edward Woodhouse of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the United States and Daniel Salevich of Arizona State University's Science, Policy and Achievements Consortium wrote that if not, new technological capabilities will exacerbate social inequality.
They argued that social inequality not only comes from unreasonable distribution patterns, unequal access opportunities and the poor's inability to afford certain products and services, but also is related to the structure of research and development. There are several factors here. First, in many countries the ratio of private R&D investment to public R&D investment is rising. Private R&D investment is for profit and does not give prominence to whether R&D results can help reduce social inequality. Second, people are currently keen on innovation because innovation drives economic growth, not because innovation has a social equalizing effect. Third, the needs for innovation between the rich and the poor are very different, but the needs of the rich can be responded to. Today, scientific research projects around the world aimed at dealing with the various disease burdens that endanger the health of people in developing countries (accounting for more than 90% of the global disease burden) receive less than 10% of funding, and most of the health R&D funding is spent on Study the "disease of wealth".
Since research and development activities have had a negative impact on existing social inequality, the government should use science and technology policies to make adjustments. Specifically, six types of policy measures can be considered or issues in six aspects should be paid attention to.
First, R&D topics should pay more attention to the poor. The focus on "orphan diseases" that the author mentioned in an article published by this newspaper on July 18, 2005 is a typical example of selecting scientific research topics focusing on the interests of the poor and the weak in a broad sense. Haier's design of a very "sturdy" washing machine suitable for washing sweet potatoes for farmers is another example.
Second, the decision-making process should attract the participation of more social groups. For example, in the United States, past science and technology policies have been greatly influenced by the military. Some scholars in the United States believe that only when new groups that are more concerned about peace participate in the science and technology policy-making process can it be possible to balance the strong influence of the military to a certain extent.
Third, research and development should pay more attention to the creation of public products. In 2007, Japan's Toyota Company ran an advertisement for its new Camry model: "Any car has a navigation system, but what if it adds an immune system?" The so-called "immune system" here refers to adding a navigation system to the car. Get an air conditioning purification system (HVAC) that reduces mold spores, microorganisms, fungi, bacteria and odors in your cabin. Such technological achievements can only benefit wealthy car owners, while reducing the overall pollution level of the air can benefit everyone.
Fourth, we must focus on R&D projects that can lower the prices of products and services. Many products such as color TVs and mobile phones in our country are already very cheap and affordable for farmers. This has reduced social inequality in a certain way. However, some new technologies and new processes that have reduced the unit price of products have also led to a reduction in employment. Which one is greater, the benefits brought about by the adoption of cheap products and services by less wealthy groups, or the losses caused by an increase in the number of unemployed people in society? It should still be carefully evaluated.
Fifth, the scientific and technological community should adopt a realistic attitude towards the prospects of the equalized impact of new technologies. For example, some people in the United States strongly advocate that nanotechnology will also be of great help to the poor. For example, they say that nanopores (Nanopores) filters can improve the quality of drinking water for the poor. The problem is that the use of wells and pumps, a much cheaper technology, can also improve the quality of drinking water for the poor.
Sixth, for the sake of social equality, the progress of certain technologies can be slowed down.
In fact, in the United States, poor people are often used as test subjects in the development process of new drugs, so they bear the risk of unexpected drug side effects. By slowing down the progress of certain technologies, the poor will have the opportunity to obtain more risk information, people will have time to establish some political organizations to protect the rights and interests of the poor, and the government will have time to introduce compensatory policy measures.
The content and formulation process of my country's science and technology policies should reflect the concept of a harmonious society, and the reduction of social inequality should be considered as one of the potential effects of science and technology policies. In the past, people generally believed that as long as scientific and technological achievements are transformed into real productivity, science and technology will naturally realize its own social benefits. The problem is not that simple. Regardless of social equality factors, there will be a big difference starting from the first step of selecting scientific research topics. The author once argued that the bedroom decoration of second-hand houses has become a very popular industry in our country and may continue to be popular for a long time. The current common model is that the owner finds a decoration company, which is responsible for simple or complex decoration design, and then subcontracts the specific decoration business. The contractors are mainly migrant workers, and their technical means are generally relatively backward. Therefore, in the process of removing old decoration materials and carrying out new decoration, there will be loud noise and dust, which will be very destructive to the original building, making the owners and neighbors miserable. In fact, there are huge business opportunities here for both scientific research and development institutions and decoration companies. For decoration companies, if they regard demolition (demolition) and erection (decoration) as a whole, and work hard not only on the level of design and decoration, but also on the quality and efficiency of demolition, they will significantly outperform their competitors. For the vast number of scientific research and development institutions in the field of mechanical design and manufacturing, if they focus on this promising application field and develop a variety of low-noise, dust-suppressing mechanized or semi-mechanized special demolition tools, they will not only enjoy the benefits in the decoration market , and it is possible to obtain a patent and become unique in the world. Unfortunately, no one seems to have done this. One reason is that potential adopters of the technology are less affluent migrant workers. For the mechanical industry, what is fashionable is CIMS (Computer Integrated Manufacturing System) and so on. It seems that only these things can reflect the level.
In short, in the process of building a harmonious society, the vision of science and technology policymakers needs to be further broadened. Science and technology must not only support development and lead the future, but also contribute to reducing social inequality.