Scholarlink

<p>The time urgency to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) calls for a paradigm shift in science to move beyond system boundaries and produce relevant knowledge that is both practical and broadly actionable. Through investigating deficiencies, tensions and disagreements within science and science systems in supporting the SDGs, we characterize major demand for scientific shifts in its focus, scope, processes, and the role of scientists, and suggestions for strengthening the capacity for science to generate disruption. We then highlight controversies and tradeoffs in technological vs. societal advancement, interdisciplinary vs. disciplinary complementarity, global vs. local knowledge creation and innovation, and scientific neutrality vs. objectivity. Deeper understanding and debate around these controversies is indispensable to create a common vision and safe space for transdisciplinary education and collaboration to systematically improve the “disruptiveness” of science in solving global complex challenges of this century. These are also required to ensure the coexistence and complementarity of distinct epistemic communities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

What makes the contribution of science towards a sustainable future so difficult? A controversy analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月2日

查看全文
  • Emi Minghui Gui,
  • Alvaro Romera,
  • Adriana Descalzo,
  • Patrick Caron,
  • Gabriel Isaac Lopez Porras,
  • Bahman Rostami-Tabar,
  • Riccardo Bommarco,
  • Thaura Ghneim-Herrera

摘要

The time urgency to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) calls for a paradigm shift in science to move beyond system boundaries and produce relevant knowledge that is both practical and broadly actionable. Through investigating deficiencies, tensions and disagreements within science and science systems in supporting the SDGs, we characterize major demand for scientific shifts in its focus, scope, processes, and the role of scientists, and suggestions for strengthening the capacity for science to generate disruption. We then highlight controversies and tradeoffs in technological vs. societal advancement, interdisciplinary vs. disciplinary complementarity, global vs. local knowledge creation and innovation, and scientific neutrality vs. objectivity. Deeper understanding and debate around these controversies is indispensable to create a common vision and safe space for transdisciplinary education and collaboration to systematically improve the “disruptiveness” of science in solving global complex challenges of this century. These are also required to ensure the coexistence and complementarity of distinct epistemic communities.