知识共生产框架下科技伦理治理主体的基础性功能与其对应的实现方式

The fundamental functions and corresponding implementation methods of the subject of scientific and technological ethics governance under the framework of knowledge co production

摘要:

发达的经济不仅为科技创新带来了肥沃的土壤，同时也带了科技伦理方面的隐患。在面对越来越严峻的科技伦理治理难题时，政府、专家和公众等主体如何达成合作来共同打开科技伦理治理的“黑箱”，是学界关注的重点。本文基于科技伦理治理的概念，对知识共生产进行总结，并基于此进一步建构了科技伦理治理主体的知识共生产研究框架，分析科技伦理治理主体的基础性功能与其对应的实现方式。研究认为，作为其中具有代表性的三方，政府（治理知识型生产者）、专家（专业知识型生产者）和公众（助力知识型生产者）共同参与到科技伦理治理过程，分别具有政策架构支持、知识储备运用和外在助力推动的基础性功能，分别发挥了政府知识的治理作用、专家知识的专业作用和公众知识的辅助作用，并在这一治理过程中实现了知识共生产，从而有效推动科技伦理治理难题的妥善解决。对此，未来研究可以从框架、视角和理念三个方面进一步展开讨论。

Abstract:

A developed economy not only provides fertile soil for technological innovation, but also poses ethical risks in technology. In the face of increasingly severe ethical governance challenges in science and technology, how governments, experts, and the public can collaborate to jointly open the "black box" of ethical governance in science and technology is a focus of academic attention. This article is based on the concept of technology ethics governance, summarizes knowledge co production, and further constructs a research framework for knowledge co production of technology ethics governance subjects. It analyzes the fundamental functions of technology ethics governance subjects and their corresponding implementation methods. Research suggests that as representative of the three parties involved, the government (governing knowledge-based producers), experts (professional knowledge-based producers), and the public (assisting knowledge-based producers) jointly participate in the process of technological ethics governance, each with fundamental functions of policy framework support, knowledge reserve utilization, and external assistance promotion. They respectively play the governance role of government knowledge, the professional role of expert knowledge, and the auxiliary role of public knowledge, and achieve knowledge co production in this governance process, effectively promoting the proper resolution of technological ethics governance problems. Future research can further discuss this from three aspects: framework, perspective, and concept.