革新科學與技術之世界主義治理

Cosmopolitan Reform in Science and Technology Governance

當代各種跨界風險（transboundary risks）經由全球化，不但衝擊到世界各國而引發環境、健康、倫理與社會的疑慮，同時也挑戰各國政府的治理能耐。鑑於此，歐盟、IRGC、WHO近十年來分別提出重視風險溝通、公民參與科技評估的治理模式。而這些區域政府或國際組織推動科技民主的趨勢，已經造成世界風險治理（cosmopolitan risk governance）的新風潮，進一步影響南韓或台灣在科技評估的體制、價值或法制上的革新。本文除了比較這兩個新興工業國家之相關政策與科技基本法的變革程度，更重要的是，我們認為（The authors argue），跨國制度的建構（transnational institution building）並非那麼順暢和諧，尤其面對東亞這兩個國家長期的威權、菁英統治傳統所形塑之專家政治結構， 將有著巨大的挑戰性。亦即， 世界治理 （cosmopolitan governance）將是高度辯證發展過程，將隨著不同社會、政治脈絡而產生各種變異問題。尤其，此種新興工業化社會的遲滯風險的管制文化，是否為其他發展中國家（developing countries）的共同特徵，或仍然存在於已開發國家，值得深思。

Transboundary risks are an increasingly common occurrence in the contemporary world, and through the process of globalization, these transboundary risks have spread, giving rise to a growing number of environmental, health, ethical and social concerns, which in turn challenge the governance capacity of governments worldwide. In light of these developments, over the past ten years the EU, IRGC and WHO have begun to propose a form of governance which places greater emphasis on risk communication, public communication and S&T assessments. In this way these regional governments and international organizations have worked to promote a trend towards S&T democracy which has already created a new wave of cosmopolitan risk governance, which in turn is influencing South Korea and Taiwan’s S&T assessment system, value or legislative reforms. Besides making a comparison of the reform processes which have taken place in the related policies and Basic S&T law of two newly industrialized countries, Taiwan and South Korea; this paper also points out that efforts to build transnational institutional mechanisms for dealing with these issues have not gone smoothly. In particular the more authoritative form of government traditionally seen in these East Asian countries and the technocrat gover- nance system born out of these countries’ tradition of elite rule tradition both possess a serious challenge to building such transnational institutions. That is to say that cosmopolitan governance as a process produces different problems and challenges as it responds to the unique social and political context of different countries. More particularly it would be worth considering whether this type of slow moving risk regulatory culture is a shared characteristic of only newly industrialized societies or developing countries, or whether it actually exists in the mindset of developed countries too.