Acad.

MIHAI DRGNESCU














NOUA CULTUR N SECOLUL XXI









Semne

Bucureti, 2004

NOUA CULTUR N SECOLUL XXI

Acad. Mihai Drgnescu






CUPRINS


1. INTRODUCERE
2. C. P. SNOW
3. JOHN BROCKMAN
4. JAMES ROBERT BROWN
5. GRIGORE T. POPA
6. CONSIDERAII FINALE
Ce ar nsemna comasarea seciilor tiinifice ale
Academiei Romne?
Statul romn nu se poate retrage din cercetarea
tiinific.
Societatea cunoaterii reprezint viitorul
apropiat


2







INTRODUCERE

De ce tiina nu este menionat n Constituia Romniei din 2003?

Suntem n era informaiei, iar societatea informaional se va transforma
n societatea cunoaterii, astfel nct era de ateptat ca o constituie din secolul
XXI s se refere n mod explicit la tiin i cunoatere. Constituia se refer
fie la cultur, fie la cultur i art, ultima fiind o sintagm depit, deoarece
arta este o parte a culturii, iar cultura este neleas implicit drept cultur
umanist, fr gndul la componenta ei tiinific. Cele de mai sus nu le
menionez pentru a combate constituia, pe care am votat-o i pe care o
consider mai bun dect precedenta. n plus, triesc cu gndul c odat cu
aderarea la Uniunea European vom mai avea o nou modificare a constituiei,
care va putea fi valabil pe un termen mai ndelungat n secolul XXI. Atunci
constituia va putea fi adaptat la marea realitate a vremurilor noastre i anume
rolul tiinei i tehnologiei n societate.
Ceea ce doresc s examinez n acest eseu este explicarea acestui fapt
surprinztor n textul constituiei care neglijeaz cel mai puternic motor actual
al evoluiei societii.
Voi lua n consideraie fapte semnificative care s-au petrecut la noi n
ar n ultimii ani, din punctul de vedere al importanei i rolului tiinei
(implicit al tehnologiei); apoi voi face apel la felul n care problema care ne-a
creat nedumeriri a fost tratat n lucrri semnificative din ri cu mare tradiie
tiinific i umanist. Se va constata c rdcinile problemei sunt mai vechi i
au creat dispute sau exprimri de consideraii cu participarea unor mari
personaliti ale culturii (n nelesul ei total).
n prealabil, pentru a preciza modul n care autorul acestui studiu
nelege cultura, recurg la cteva autocitate dintr-o lucrare recent
1
:

1
Mihai Drgnescu, Cultura i societatea cunoaterii, p. 441- 470, n vol. coord. Dan Tufi i Florin
Gh. Filip, Limba Romna n Societatea Informaional - Societatea Cunoaterii, Bucureti, 2002.


3





''Pornind de la [] diferena pe care o face UNESCO ntre cultura intangibil i cultura
tangibil, marile sfere (categorii) ale culturii pot fi considerate urmtoarele:
I. Cultura intangibil. 'Motenirea intangibil poate fi definit ca mbrind
toate formele de cultur tradiional i popular sau cultura folk, adic
produciile colective originate de o comunitate dat i bazate pe tradiie. Aceste
creaii sunt transmise oral sau prin gesturi i sunt modificate ntr-o perioad de
timp printr-un proces de re-creare colectiv. Ele includ tradiiile orale,
obiceiurile, limbajele, muzica, dansul, ritualurile, festivitile, medicina
tradiional i farmacopeea, artele culinare i tot felul de ndemnri speciale
legate de aspectele materiale ale culturii, cum sunt uneltele i habitatul [6]'. Fr
ndoial, noiunea de cultur intangibil a fost introdusa sub influena noiunii de
valoare intangibil din economie care a cptat o mare importan pentru
societatea cunoaterii (economia bazata pe cunoatere). Se mai adaug aici
valori, credine, cunoatere tacit.
II. Cultura umanist. Am preluat n acest studiu denumirea tradiional. Cultura
umanist cuprinde limbajele naturale, literatura, arta, istoria, filosofia, sportul.
Cultura umanist este o cultur tangibil, ca i tiina i tehnologia.
III. Cultura tiinific: tiina, tehnologia i cunoaterea. Aceast categorie a
culturii conine dou subcategorii:
III.a tiina, cunoaterea tiinific i tehnologic, cunoaterea tehnologic
pentru fabricaia de produse, dar i pentru utilizarea acestora, precum i
cunoaterea organizaional i economic, chiar dac unele obiecte ale
cunoaterii sunt tacite sau fac parte i din cultura intangibil. n categoria mare a
culturii, anumite obiecte pot aparine la dou sau mai multe subcategorii, acestea
nu sunt neaprat disjuncte.
III.b Uneltele fizice i informaionale, obiectele fizice i informauionale
produse sau fabricate, utilizarea lor, instituiile i organizaiile, care sunt
consecine, n cea mai mare msur, a cunoaterii tiinifice, tehnologice,
economice i organizaionale, poate chiar i a culturii intangibile.''
2


''Odat cu era informaiei vor apare desigur multe elemente noi ale
culturii datorit tehnologiei informaiei, crii i documentelor electronice,
internetului, tehnologiilor vorbirii, tehnologiilor bioelectronice i
bioinformatice, inteligenei artificiale i agenilor inteligeni informatici,
mediului ambiant inteligent, apariiei contiinei artificiale. Vor apare
schimbri n viaa intelectual, social i politic.''
3

.

'' n privina relaiei dintre cultura umanist i cultura tiinific, astzi nu se mai poate
vorbi de cultur, cu nelesul de cultur - n general, dar de fapt cu gndul la cultura
umanist.
Cultura - n general, are o mult prea puternic component tiinific (inclusiv tehnologic,
economic, organizaional, politic) pentru a mai accepta o asemenea simplificare, este
adevrat, continuatoarea unei tradiii care astzi este complet depit. Cultura, respectiv
cultura - n general, este cultura umanist i cultura tiinific, mpreun, ultima avnd, ca i
prima, un coninut extrem de bogat.
n spatele confuziei care se menine astzi atunci cnd vorbim de cultur se ntreine schisma
dintre cele dou culturi, datorit unor interese de grup. n etapa actual a societii, cultura
umanist nu-i mai poate erija numele general de cultur, de fapt nu ea, ci slujitorii ei care nu

2
Op.cit., p.462-463.
3
Idem, p.463.


4





s-au adaptat la vremurile cunoaterii. n societatea cunoaterii, nainte de trecerea la societatea
contiinei, cultura se va concentra n jurul cunoaterii.''
4


La noi n ar s-a creat o ntreag atmosfer cultural, de comportament
i mentaliti preluate pn i de oamenii politici i care au dus la
marginalizarea tiinei. Acest lucru a avut, n trecutul apropiat, i are consecine
n prezent, dar va avea consecine mult mai grele n viitor deoarece ar putea
mpiedica mersul firesc al societii noastre n secolul XXI.
S trec la fapte trite n ultimul timp. De ce Academia Oamenilor de
tiin a fost aruncat n strad de sora ei mai mare, Academia Romn, trind
o perioad de restrite de necrezut. Este un fapt obiectiv explicat prin
''drepturile'' Academiei ''mari'' de a nu fi inoportunat de nici o alt Academie,
cnd de fapt Academia Romn i Academia Oamenilor de tiin, Academia
de tiine Medicale, Academia de tiine Agricole i Academia de tiine
Tehnice formeaz un sistem cu dou trepte, justificate, i ar trebui s lucreze
mpreun pentru propirea i utilizarea cunoaterii n Romnia, fapt esenial
pentru societatea cunoaterii. Elitismul manifestat de Academia Romn,
condus de un timp de reprezentanii culturii umaniste, dar de fapt ai culturii
literare, cum vom vedea i din ceea ce s-a ntmplat n alte pri, ascunde, din
nefericie, un plan de gndire ferit fa de cel oficial exprimat, plan care
urmrete destrmarea forelor tiinifice ale rii. Cum se poate interpreta altfel
tendina exprimat i urmrit sub masca reformei cercetrii tiinifice n
Academie, de a comasa seciile tiinifice ale Academiei Romne n numai
dou secii, dect prin acelai plan ascuns de gndire care va duce la reducerea
drastic, n timp, a numrului oamenilor de tiin din Academie i
continuitatea i perpetuarea literailor la conducerea Academiei Romne care
este totui, n primul rnd, o Academie de tiine.
Nu este posibil s descriu aici o serie ntreag de aciuni conexe, n
acelai sens, ca spre exemplu hruirea moral a unor membri oameni de tiin

4
Idem, p.467.


5





ai Academiei Romne, lipsa democraiei civice (cu alt ocazie voi justifica
aceste afirmaii), dar ceea ce am desprins este faptul c nu este vorba de un
clivaj ntre umaniti i oameni de tiin, ci numai dintre o parte a umanitilor,
anume a literailor (n care nu intr lingvitii care sunt oameni de tiin) i
oamenii de tiin. Dintre literai, poeii formeaz un subgrup aparte, ei fiind
foarte ateni la ntreaga cultur (inclusiv la tiin i filosofie) cum au fost
Mihai Eminescu, Lucian Blaga, Marin Sorescu, Nichita Stnescu i este Adrian
Punescu. De un asemenea clivaj sunt contieni acei literai care l menin n
mod intenionat.
Pentru a m lmuri mai bine, dup acest laborator trit i dup
concluziile la care am ajuns, am dorit s cunosc dac i n alte pri s-au
petrecut sau se petrec lucruri similare. Pentru aceasta am recurs la un studiu
documentar, util i pentru un capitol din lucrarea mea n pregtire despre
societatea contiinei, noiune a crei viabilitate a fost demonstrat, pentru
moment, ntr-un studiu introductiv
5
.

C.P. SNOW
Punctul de pornire l constituie lucrarea lui C. P. Snow, The Two
Cultures
6
cuprinznd The Rede Lecture (1959)
7
i The Two Cultures: a Second
Look (1963)
8
. Cine a fost C.P. Snow (1905-1980)? Scriitor britanic foarte
cunoscut (a publicat seria de romane ''Strangers and Brothers'' ntre 1940 i
1970 despre viaa academic, public i privat a unui englez, romanele fiind
''o analiz meticuloas a omului birocratic i a influenei coruptoare a
puterii''
9
), om de tiin (doctorat n fizic la Universitatea din Cambridge, unde

5
Mihai Drgnescu, Societatea contiinei. Introducere, e-preprint, www.racai.ro/~dragam
6
C.P.Snow, The Two Cultures. E-book MSReader, Cambridge University Press (Virtual Publishing),
2000
7
publicat iniial sub titlul C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientifric Revolution, Encounter,
June, July, 1959.
8
republicat n volumul din nota 6.
9
*** The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1994, p.912.


6





timp de 20 de ani a lucrat n fizic molecular), administrator guvernamental
(consilier tiinific al guvernului britanic).
Lucrrile sale despre cele dou culturi, literar i tiinific (dei mai
trziu consider apariia unei a treia culturi, a tiinelor sociale i artelor
10
), au
trezit un mare interes n cele dou lumi ale culturii i au fost i sunt puncte de
referin pentru multe lucrri aprute ulterior n aceast problem.
C.P. Snow arat de la nceputul lucrrii sale din 1959:
''Anyone with similar experience woud have seen much the same
things and I think made very much the same comments about them.
It just happened to be an unusual experience. By training I was a
scientist: by vocation I was a writer. That was all. [] There have
been plenty of days when I have worked plenty of ours with scientists
and then gone off at night with some literary colleagues. [] It was
through living among these groups and much more, I think, throuh
moving regularly from one to the other and back again that I got
occupied with the problem of what, long before I put it on paper, I
christened to myself as the two cultures.''

Bazat pe aceast experien, scrie:

''I believe the intelectual life of the whole of western society is
increasingly beeing split into two polar groups. When I say the
intellectual life, I mean to include also a large part of our practical
life, because I should be the last person to suggest the two can at the
deepest level be distinguished.''

i mai departe scrie:

''Literary intelectuals at one pole - at the other scientists, and as the
most representative physical scientists. Between the two a gulf of
mutual incomprehension - sometimes (particularly among the
young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding.
They have a curious distorted image of each other.''

Snow, n cuprinsul lucrrii sale, gsete ruptura dintre cele dou culturi,
literar i tiinific , a avea originea n educaia tinerilor intelectuali, n nsui
sistemul de nvmnt.
Constat c n general oamenii de tiin au vederi de stnga n politic,
pe cnd oamenii de litere au vederi de dreapta, evident cu referire la societatea
britanic din acei ani.


7





Despre literai remarc:
''They still like to pretend that the traditional culture is the whole of
'culture', as though the natural order did not exist. [] As though the
scientific edifice of the physical world, was not, in its intellectual
depth, complexity and articulation the most beautiful and most
wonderful collective work of the mind of man. Yet most non-
scientists have no conception of that edifice at all. Even if they want
to have it they can't. [This] does't come by nature, but by training
or rather by absence of training. [] They don't know what they
miss. They give a pitying chuckle at the news of scientists who have
never read a major work of english literature. They dismiss them as
ignorant specialists. Yet their own ignorance and their own
specialisation is just as startling.''

i mai departe:

''There seems to be no place where the cultures meet. I am not going
to say that this a pity. It is much worse than that.''

Constat c aceast ruptur ntre cele dou culturi nu este numai un
fenomen specific englezesc, ci marcheaz ntreaga lume occidental. Separarea
celor dou culturi o consider foarte periculoas pentru viitor, pentru
creativitatea omului i societii, pentru civilizaie. Afirm c lupta, rzboiul
dintre literai i tiinifici (unde include oameni de tiin, dar i tehnologi), a
aprut odat cu revoluia tiinific. Dar problema este i mai veche, deoarece,
afirm Snow, cei din afara culturii tiinifice nu au fost capabili s neleag
nici revoluia industrial, anterioar revoluiei tiinifice: ''Intelectualii, n
particular intelectualii literari, sunt Ludii naturali'' afirm Snow (un Ludit este
un protestatar din sec. XIX mpotriva tehnologiei, iar n general, astzi, este
denumirea celui care se opune noilor tehnologii). Despre cauzele diviziunii
observate autorul nostru remarc:

10
Idem.


8






''The reason for the existence of the two cultures are many, deep and
complex, some rooted in social history, some in personal history, and
some in the inner dynamics of the different kinds of mental activity
themselves''

Este interesant i rolul menionat al istoriei individuale a personalitii
literare sau tiinifice. ntr-adevr, istoria i menatlitatea personal a unui
intelectual, fie literat, fie scientist, ajuns ntr-un post de conducere poate
influena n bine sau n ru relaia dintre cele dou culturi sau dintre
reprezentanii acestor culturi, ceea ce poate lua n anumite cazuri accente
dramatice, ca cele pe care le-am descris la nceputul acestui studiu.
Revoluia industrial, apreciat, corect, a fi nceput la mijlocul secolului
XVIII, o caracterizeaz prin utilizarea mainilor, a brbailor i femeilor n
fabrici, transformnd o mare parte din populaia agricol ntr-o populaie
industrial. Dar ''that change [] crept on us unawares (pe neateptate),
untouched by academics, hated by Luddites, practical Luddites and intellectual
ones''.
Revoluia tiinific (n literatura romn a fost numit tiinific i
tehnic) a adus aplicarea tiinei reale n industrie, considernd c aceast
revoluie a nceput odat cu electronica, energia atomic i automatizarea, adic
n secolul XX. n acelai timp observ:
''the highly educated members of the non-scientific culture
couldn't cope with the simplest concepts of pure science: it is
unexpected but, they would be even less happy with applied science''.

Din punct de vedere politic remarc urmtoarele orientri:

''In the same way pure scientists still, though less than
twenty years ago, have statistically a higher proportion in politics left
of center than any other proportion: not so engineers who are
conservative almost to a man. Not reactionary in the extreme literary


9





sense, but just conservative. They are absorbed in making things, and
the present social order is good enough for them.
Pure scientists have by and large dim-witted about engineers
and applied science. They could not get intersted. They wouldn't
recognize that many of the problems were as intellectually exacting
as pure problems, and that many of the solutions were as satisfyiung
and beautiful.''
Una din problemele care l-au preocupat pe Snow, n contextul social al
celor dou culturi, a fost, nc de pe atunci diferena dintre bogai i sraci la
scar mondial, n sensul c rile industrializate deveneau din ce n ce mai
bogate n raport cu celelalte ri, zi de zi. Considera un mare pericol
perpetuarea acestei situaii. Rezolvarea o vede prin revoluia tiinific, dar ea
nu poate reui dect prin capital, n special maini n acea perioad. Dar
capitalul nu poate fi produs endogen, el trebuie s provin din afar. Concluzia
volumului su din 1959 estre urmtoarea:
''Closing the gap between our cultures is a necessity in the most
abstract intellectual sense, as well as in the most practical.''

n volumul ''The two cultures: a second look'' (1963)
11
reia ideile din
volumul anterior rspunznd unor observaii la primul volum sau chiar critici
mai severe ca urmare unei mari atenii acordate lucrrii sale. Snow confirm
afirmaiile sale anterioare scriind:
''It is something like this. In our society (that is, advanced western
society) we have lost even the pretence of a common culture. []
This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal
life.''
Sunt foarte semnificative constatrile sale, consolidate, se poate spune,
despre lumea literar:
''I did not mean that literary intellectuals act as the main decision-
makers of the western world. I meant that literary intelectuals
represent, vocalise, and to some extent shape and predict the
mood of the nonscientific culture: they do not make the decisions,
but their words seep into the minds of those who do. Between
these two groups - the scientists and the literary intellectuals -

11
C. P. Snow, The two cultures: a second look, 1963, republicat n vol. menionat n nota 6.


10





there is little communication, and instead of fellow feeling,
something like hostility.''

Despre mediul cultural al activitii politice remarc:

''Some social historians, as well as being on speaking terms with
scientists, have felt bound to turn their attention to the literary
intelctuals, or more exactly to some manifestations of the literary
culture at its extreme.'' []
''Let me try again to make myself clear. It is dangerous to have two
cultures which can't or don't communicate. In a time when science
is determining much of our destiny, that is, whether we live or die,
it is dangerous in the most practical terms. Scientists can give bad
advice and decision makers can't know whether it is good or bad. On
the other hand scientists in a divided culture provide a knowledge of
some potentialities which is theirs alone. All this makes the political
process more complex, and in some ways more dangerous, than we
should be prepared to tolerate for long, either for the purpose of
avoiding disasters. or for fulfilling - what is waiting us as a challenge
to our conscience and goodwill - a definable social hope.''

Al doilea volum al lui Snow se ncheie cu urmtoarea afirmaie:

''With good fortune, however, we can educate a large proportion
of our better minds so that they are not ignorant of imaginative
experience, both in the arts and in science, nor ignorant either of
the endowments of applied science, of the remediable suffering of
most of their fellow humans, and of the responsibilities which,
once they are seen, cannot be denied.''

Despre lucrarea lui Snow ntr-un scurt eseu remarcam;

''Evident, lucrarea lui Snow a provocat multe reacii, dar ideile sale au gsit cel
mai mare ecou n SUA, iar n ceea ce m privete, din experiena mea ca om de
tiin, filosof al tiinei i ca manager al cercetrii i aplicrii ei, consider c
punctul su de vedere a fost i este nc ntemeiat. mi pare ru, numai, c nu
am cunoscut lucrarea sa la timpul ei, i chiar ceva mai trziu, deoarece m-ar fi
ajutat s ajung la ideile sale cu mult mai devreme.
Ecoul lui Snow n SUA, cel mai puternic fa de toate celelalte ri, este
explicabil, deoarece SUA a fost nu numai promotorul revoluiei tiinifice i


11





tehnice din secolul XX, dar i o ar pragmatic care i-a dezvoltat economia i
industria ca urmare a acestei revoluii''
12
.

JOHN BROCKMAN

Cel care a preluat n toat amploarea firul gndirii lui Snow, n condiiile
noi ale ultimului deceniu al sec. XX i nceputul sec. XXI, este John
Brockman, preedintele unui forum dedicat celei de a treia culturi, care public
n 1991 pe Internet un eseu intitulat ''The third culture''
13
n care arat:
''In a second edition of The Two Cultures, published in 1963,
Snow added a new essay, "The Two Cultures: A Second Look," in
which he optimistically suggested that a new culture, a "third
culture," would emerge and close the communications gap between
the literary intellectuals and the scientists. In Snow's third culture, the
literary intellectuals would be on speaking terms with the scientists.
Although I borrow Snow's phrase, it does not describe the third
culture he predicted. Literary intellectuals are not communicating
with scientists. Scientists are communicating directly with the
general public.''
Brockman propune o redefinire a celei de a treia culturi, n care
tiina i oamenii de tiin joac rolul central. Apoi editeaz, urmrind
aceast idee, trei volume ''The third culture'' (1996)
14
, ''The next fifty years''
(2002)
15
, ''The new humanists; science at the edge'' (2003)
16
, care conin, pe
lng punctele de vedere ale editorului, idei exprimate de un mare numr de
oameni de tiin americani proemineni. Dar n acelai timp, Brockman, dei
n primele dou volume menionate mai nainte se ndeprteaz de Snow,
propunnd ca a treia cultur s fie una centrat n jurul tiinei, n ultimul
volum revine spre ideea din al doilea eseu al lui Snow.
Astfel, n lucrarea din 1996, Brockman arta:

''The third culture consists of those scientists and other
thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and

12
Mihai Drgnescu, Cultura (care anume?) i filosofia politic, e-preprint, PDF, 24 noiembrie 2003,
http://www.racai.ro/~dragam
13
John Brockman, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/index.html
14
ed. John Brockman, The Third Culture, Simon & Schuster, Touchstone, New York, 1996.
15
ed. John Brockman, The next fifty years, Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 2002.
16
ed. John Brockman, The New Humanists, science at the edge, Barnes & Noble Books, New York,
2003.


12





expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual
in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who
and what we are.
In the past few years, the playing field of American
intellectual life has shifted, and the traditional intellectual has
become increasIngly marginalized. A 1950s education in Freud,
Marx, and modernism is not a sufficient qualification for a thinking
person in the 1990s. Indeed, the traditional American intellectuals
are, in a sense, increasingly reactionary, and quite often proudly (and
perversely) ignorant of many of the truly significant intellectual
accomplishments of our time. Their culture, which dismisses science,
is often nonempirical. It uses its own jargon and washes its own
laundry. It is chiefly characterized by comment on comments, the
swelling spiral of commentary eventually reaching the point where
the real world gets lost ''
17
.

i mai departe:

''The wide appeal of the third-culture thinkers is not due
solely to their writing ability; what traditionally has been called
"science" has today become "public culture"
18
[] ''Unlike previous
intellectual pursuits, the achievements of the third culture are not the
marginal disputes of a quarrelsome mandarin class: they will affect
the lives of everybody on the planet'' [] America now is the
intellectual seedbed for Europe and Asia. This trend started with the
prewar emigration of Albert Einstein and other European scientists
and was further fueled by the post-Sputnik boom in scientific
education in our universities. The emergence of the third culture
introduces new modes of intellectual discourse and reaffirms the
preeminence of America in the realm of important ideas. Throughout
history, intellectual life has been marked by the fact that only a small
number of people have done the serious thinking for everybody else.
What we are witnessing is a passing of the torch from one group
of thinkers, the traditional literary intellectuals, to a new group,
the Intellectuals of the emerging third culture''
19
[] ''There is a
new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe,
and all of the things we know in it, and it is the intellectuals with
these new ideas and images-those scientists doing things and writing
their own books-who drive our times''
20
.

n volumul din anul 2002, menine acelai punct de vedere:

''Science is the big news, and it is scientists who are
asking the big questions. Through their books and articles they

17
John Brockman, Introduction. The emerging third culture, n vol. ed. John Brockman, The Third
Culture, op.cit., p. 17.
18
Idem, p. 18.
19
Idem, p. 19.
20
Idem, p. 21.


13





have become the new public intellectuals, leaders of a new kind
of public culture''
21
.

n volumul din 2003, apare o schimbare, revenind la ideia lui Snow de
reunire a culturilor, n noile condiii cnd cultura tiinific devine
predominant. Mai mult, ncearc s defineasc ceea ce numete noul
umanism:

''The scientists of the third culture share their work and ideas
not just with each other but with a newly educated public, through
their books. Focusing on the real world, they have led us into one of
the most dazzling periods of intellectual activity in human history.
The achievements of the third culture are not the marginal disputes of
a quarrelsome mandarin class; they affect the lives of everybody on
the planet. The emergence of this new culture is evidence of a great
intellectual hunger, a desire for the new and important ideas that
drive our times: revolutionary developments in molecular biology,
genetic engineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, artificial
life, chaos theory, massive parallelism, neural nets, the inflationary
universe, fractals, complex adaptive systems, linguistics,
superstrings, biodiversity, the human genome, expert systems,
punctuated equilibrium, cellular automata, fuzzy logic, virtual reality,
cyberspace, and teraflop machines. Among others''
22
.

ntr-un paragraf intitulat HUMANISM AND THE INTELLECTUAL WHOLE
recomand de fapt o rentoarcere la nelesul umanismului din sec. XV i arat:

''Around the fifteenth century, the word "humanism" was tied
in with the idea of one intellectual whole. A Florentine nobleman
knew that to read Dante but ignore science was ridiculous. Leonardo
was a great artist, a great scientist, a great technologist. Michelangelo
was an even greater artist and engineer. These men were
intellectually holistic giants. To them, the idea of embracing
humanism while remaining ignorant of the latest scientific and
technological achievements would have been incomprehensible. The
time has come to reestablish that holistic definition. In the twentieth
century, a period of great scientific advancement, instead of having
science and technology at the center of the intellectual world - of
having a unity in which scholarship included science and technology
along with literature and art - the official culture kicked them out.
Traditional humanities scholars looked at science and technology as
some sort of technical special product. Elite universities nudged
science out of the liberal arts undergraduate curricuIum-and out of

21
John Brockman, Introduction, n vol. ed. John Brockman, The next fifty years, op.cit., p. xiii.
22
John Brockman, Introduction: the New Humanists, n vol. ed. John Brockman, The New Humanists,
science at the edge, op.cit., p. 2.


14





the minds of many young people, who, as the new academic
establishment, so marginalized themselves that they are no longer
within shouting distance of the action.''
23
.

''There are encouraging signs that the third culture now
includes scholars in the humanities who think the way scientists do.
Like their colleagues in the sciences, they believe there is a real
world and their job is to understand it and explain it. They test their
ideas in terms of logical coherence, explanatory power, conformity
with empirical facts. They do not defer to intellectual authorities:
Anyone's ideas can be challenged, and understanding and knowledge
accumulate through such challenges. They are not reducing the
humanities to biological and physical principles, but they do
believe that art, literature, history, politics-a whole panoply of
humanist concerns-need to take the sciences into account.
Connections do exist: Our arts, our philosophies, our literature are the
product of human minds interacting with one another, and the human
mind is a product of the human brain, which is organized in part by
the human genome and evolved by the physical processes of
evolution. Like scientists, the science-based humanities scholars are
intellectually eclectic, seeking ideas from a variety of sources and
adopting the ones that prove their worth, rather than working within
'systems' or 'schools'. As such, they are not Marxist scholars or
Freudian scholars or Catholic scholars. They think like scientists,
know science, and easily communicate with scientists; their principal
difference from scientists is in the subject matter they write about,
not their intellectual style.
Science-based thinking among enlightened humanities scholars is
now part of public culture.
In short, something radically new is in the air: new ways of
understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking
that call into question many of our basic assumpdons. A realistic
biology of the mind, advances in physics, information technology,
genetics, neurobiology, engineering, the chemistry of materials-all
are challenging basic assumptions of who and what we are, of what it
means to be human. The arts and the sciences are again joining to-
gether as one culture, the third culture. Those involved in this
effort-on either side of C. P. Snow's old divide-are at the center of
today's intellectual action. They are the new humanists''
24
.


JAMES ROBERT BROWN
James Robert Brown, profesor de filosofie la Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, public lucrarea ''Who rules in science'' (2001)
25
, n

23
Idem, p.2-3.
24
Idem, p. 7-8.
25
James Robert Brown, Who rules in science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
2001.


15





care arat c mbinarea dintre tiin, epistemologie i politic este un lucru
foarte nou, foarte interesant i foarte important. Brown caut s rspund la
cteva lucruri cruciale:
''What role, if any, does science play in creating,
sustaining, or changing social order? What role, if any, do
social factors play in the production and maitenance of
scientific theories? What view of science should the Left adopt
to best promote its social goals? ''
26

i pentru Brown, lucrarea lui Snow din 1959 este un punct de reper:

''It wasn't so long ago that C. P. Snow wrote his famous Two
Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, a work often cited in the
current round of the science wars. But what gets cited is Snow's
lament that the two cultures - scientific and literary - don't much
understand one another. This is only a small part of Snow's message.
His other claims are much more important. He declared, for instance,
that the literati are instinctively on the political Right and have been
responsible for some of the great horrors of our times. Scientists, he
claimed, are instinctively on the Left and would do a much better job
of solving social problems. In short, Snow's little book is about who
should rule.
Today's version of the science wars exactly reverses things.
One famous polemic refers to the critics of science as "the academic
left" and the Right is identified - if only implicitly - as pro-science.
Aside from this striking reversal of positions, much of the current
debate is still about political power''
27


''This gives some idea of the spectrum of opinion and some
idea of why we can't be precise in characterizing Left and Right. But
if we say that for the Left, social and econornic equality are
paramount, we won't go too far wrong. And how social and
economic equality relate to attitudes to science is the
fundamental question. []
The literati were much irritated by C. P. Snow's Two Cultures and
the Scientific Revolution (1959/63). In this now classic work, Snow
asserted that there are two cultures, in England and indeed
throughout much of the world, that have little or nothing to say to one
another, and that this is an unfortunate and even dangerous turn. One
culture is scientific, the other literary''
28



''Snow identifies the scientific culture with the Left (at least
statistically) and the literati with the Right. He confidently asserts

26
Idem, p. 28.
27
James Robert Brown, Preface la vol. Who rules in science, op.cit., p.x.
28
James Robert Brown, Who rules in science, op.cit., p.5.


16





that scientific culture could deal much better with serious social
problems, and he even makes the inflammatory claim that the major
literary figures of the early twentieth century-Yeats, Pound, and
Wyndham Lewls-brought us a little closer to Auschwitz.
What did Snow care about? He cared about who does rule and
who sbould rule. The literati, in his view, were part of the
existing ruling class, a pack of muddle-headed right-wingers who
have not been able to deliver a decent living to the great mass of
humanity. The scientific Left could do very much better and
should be given the chance''
29
.

La ntrebarea cine trebuie s conduc, Brown rspunde fr ezitare:
Poporul, desigur ('' Who should rule? The people, of course''
30
).

Referitor la tiin, mai departe, afirm:

''Perhaps the greatest threat to science is not social
constructivism, the religious Right, and not the attitudes of environmen-
talists. It is the commercialization of knowledge. This issue is closely
connected to the central themes of this book, since it involves both
epistemology and politics, but it is also a topic that can be addressed directly
and independently. It seems appropriate to close this book with a little
tirade. In recent years, we have all watched the increasing
commercialization of the campus. The numerous advertising posters and the
golden arches of fast-food outlets may be an affront to our aesthetic
sensibilities, but they are, arguably, no worse than ugly. Some of the other
new features of commercialized campus life do, however, constitute a
serious threat to things we rightly revere. Privatization and the business
model are the potential menaces.
What do these notions mean? They involve an increased dependence on
industry and philanthropy for operating the university; an increased amount
of our resources being directed to applied or so-called practical subjects,
both in teaching and in research; a proprietary treatment of research results,
with the commercial interest in secrecy overriding the public's interest in
free, shared knowledge; and an attempt to run the university more like a
business that treats industry and students as clients and academics as service
providers with something to sell. We pay increasing attention to the
immediate needs and demands of our customers and, as the old saw goes,
"the customer is always right"
31
.

''When Derek Bok was president of Harvard University, he warned that
strong leadership would be needed to protect our research goals from the
eroding effects of commercial concerns. He was right to sound the alarm,
but it will take a great deal more than strong leadership in the university. It
will require massive government government protection and promotion of
public knowledge, Patent laws, for instance, must not allow the privatization
of the public good. University research must be funded overwhelmingly
from the public purse. And the public rather than corporations or individuals
scientists (or even secretive governments)-must own the results''
32
.
.

29
Idem, p. 6.
30
Idem, p.206.
31
Idem, p.208-209.
32
Idem, p.210-211.


17






''I do not for a moment believe scientists should be living in an
ivory tower, indifferent to the world outside. The question is to whom they
should be accountable-to use a favorite term of privatizers. The answer is
simple: the public. Scientists owe it to them to keep knowledge free for all.
Science is the single most important institution in our lives. That claim
ought to make us sit up and take notice-but it doesn't. We've become
complacent. Coming to understand how science works and how it can be
made to serve us better is surely-along with the elimination of poverty, to
which it is connected-the first task for us all''
33


Un capitol special al volumului lui Brown este dedicat democratizrii
tiinei (cap. 8 , p.169-188).

''There is a multitude of diverse respects in which science
might become more democratic:
The practice of science. Research could be carried out by a more
democratically selected group of researchers.
The practice of reporting scientific results. Disclosing one's social
situation (especially economic) could be made part of the publishing
process.
The fruits of science. The benefits of scientific and technological
research could be shared more equitably''
34
.


''There are several things that come to mind as to the meaning of the
democratization of science: there is dernocratization of research
funding, democratization of the choice of research problems,
democratization in the form of a wider representation of social
groups, and democratization of policy issues conceming which
technologies to use or avoid. All of these matter greatly. The
principal focus of this book, however, has been on cognitive
questions - to what extent, if any, is science objective? In asking
questions about the democratization of science, our chief concern is
with objectivity. However, other aspects of democratization will
inevitably arise along the way. [] One opinion, common among
scientists and philosophers since Plato, says that science is not and
should not be democratic. Truth is truth, evidence is evidence - it's
not a matter of taking a vote''
35
.

Brown citeaz poziia lui Andrew Ross privind democratizarea tiinei,
care cerea ca s se ia puterea din mna experilor i s se dea mai mult
importan populaiei locale care are interese relevante
36
. n modelul Ross

33
Idem, p. 212.
34
Idem, p.188
35
Idem, p. 169.
36
Idem, p. 171.


18





democratizarea tiinei se obine prin mprirea puterii: fermierul local s
mpart cu expertul chimist inputul necesar pentru luarea deciziei
37
.

''One thing that is stressed by almost all champions of a more
democratic science is the capacity of ordinary people to understand
scientific issues. [] This is in part to combat "the cult of the
expert," so often a mere camouflage for pursuits contrary to the
public good. Yet there's a terrible ambiguity in the idea that the
general public can understand scientific issues''
38
.


Voi aduga la cele de mai sus dou idei exprimate de Isabelle
Stengers
39
. Prima, ilustrat prin dou citate, se refer la democratizarea tiinei
din punctul de vedere al transmiterii cunoaterii tiinifice:

''ISABELLE STENGERS: Je crois d'abord qu'il faut viter didentifier les
sciences telles que nous les connaissons avec ce quon imagine tre l'< esprit
scientifique>, totalement rationnel, objectif, etc. Ce que nous appelons
<science> rsulte d'un processus historique et politique, et n'est pas, mme
par approximation, la traduction de ce que rclamerait un tel < esprit>. Il est
clair qu'aujourdhui la formation et le fonctionnernent des institutions
scientifiques semblent dtourner activement les chercheurs de penser < hors
discipline >. On entretient mme lide que la crativit du scientifique
dpend d'un certain mpris de telles questions, soi-disant striles. Cette
attitude procde la fois d'un rflexe de dfense -sauvegarder la sacrosainte
autonomie en bouclant les frontires- et du dsir, nettement plus offensif, de
faire autorit sans devoir tenir compte de savoirs de types diffrents''
40
.

''ISABELLE STENGERS: Eh bien, je pense quil faut enterrer lide d'une
mthode rationnelle qui explique les savoirs scientifiques. Ca, c'est la
reconstruction de lhistoire. La vraie histoire des sciences, ce sont des
aventures, une collection d'aventures indites et passionnes. Je souhaiterais
que les enseignants racontent ces aventures leurs lves, plutt que de leur
faire parcourir bride abattue quatre sicles de rsultats en physique ou en
chimie. La culture scientifique dsirable, ce nest pas celle des rsultats, des
quations ou des principes, c'est celle qui permet de comprendre les passions
singulires de ceux qui les ont produite''
41
.
.

A doua idee se refer la civilizaie n tiin, care dup Isabelle Stengers
nseamn relaii cu un caracter civilizat, ntre domeniile tiinifice i oamenii de

37
Idem, p.172.
38
Idem, p.180.
39
Isabelle Stengers, Et si un jour les science devenait civilises, propos rcueillis par lisa Brune,
La Recherche, septembre 2003, p.67-70.
40
Idem, p.67.
41
Idem, p. 70


19





tiin respectivi, ntre ei i structurile diverse ale societii, colaborri n spirit
interdisciplinar etc.
.
GRIGORE T. POPA

n anii 1940, Grigore T. Popa (1892-1948), personalitate remarcabil a
medicinii i biologiei romneti, membru al Academiei Romne (1936),
elaboreaz o serie de trei lucrri de mare respiraie cultural, tiinific i
filosofic, prezentate prin conferine n Aula Academiei Romne i apoi
publicate, cu omisiuni importante, n Memoriile Seciei tiinifice ale
Academiei Romne. Ele au fost reunite n anul 2002, n totalitatea lor, ntr-un
volum sub denumirea "Reforma spiritului"
42
.
Consideraiile care urmeaz au la baz un eseu introductiv la acest
volum
43
.
nainte de jumtatea secolului XX, Grigore Popa afirm imperativul ca
societatea s se bazeze pe tiin. Pentru el structura societii i funcionarea
ei se bazeaz pe tiin. Pornind de la relaia dintre om i societate, de la ideea
c societatea perfecioneaz omul i omul perfecioneaz societatea, Gr. Popa
considera tiina ca baz de primenire a omului. Chiar transformarea omului va
avea la baz tiina afirm Gr. Popa. Iar aceasta se va face printr-o reorganizare
a creierului:

"Reorganizarea creierului cuprinde n sine tot mecanismul
progresului. La aceast idee m-am asociat i eu [] artnd cum
decurg relele societii moderne din discordanele al cror substrat se
afl n sistemul nervos central. Aici trebuiesc ndreptate toate puterile
noastre de cercetare i examinare tiinific a resorturilor psihice ale
omului i poate c va arta calea unei adnci refaceri spirituale"
44
.

Cteva consideraii redate mai jos justific necesitatea ca tiina s fie o
preocupare fundamental pentru orice societate:

42
Grigore T, Popa, Reforma spiritului, editat de Petre Popescu-Gogan i Claudia Voiculescu, Editura
Viaa Medical Romneasc, Bucureti, 2002.
43
Mihai Drgnescu, Grigore T. Popa: O gndire despre cunoatere, moralitate i societate, p. 11-19 ,
n vol. Grigore T, Popa, Reforma spiritului, op.cit.


20





"Acest proces de insensibilizare fa de natura tiinei este
mai ales pronunat n rile care primesc prin adopie, i nu prin
creaie, toate binefacerile ei. Insensibilizarea tiinific este ns
primejdioas pentru societatea n care se stabilete, pentru c prin ea
se face o fals apreciere - care poate fi uneori simpl desconsideraie
exagerat a rezultatelor tiinei; de aici iese o comportare uuratic.
Prin primire de-a gata a binefacerilor tiinei, nu se face o serioas
participare la creaie i invenie (i acestea sunt stimulurile principale
ale progresului uman). Societatea care se afl ntr-o astfel de situaie
cade n dependena altor societi i viitorul ei se ntunec"
45
.

Este adevrat, recunoate statelor industrializate faptul de a fi dezvoltat
tiina, dar constat c viaa tuturor societilor se va baza tot mai mult pe
tiin. De aceea consider c i pentru societatea romneasc, pentru fiina
noastr ca stat i popor, s dezvoltm nu numai o tiin colar, ci i o tiin
prin investigaie, nu numai o tiin doctoral de catedr. Lipsa ateniei
acordate tiinei la noi n prima jumtate a secolului XX o caracterizeaz
astfel:
"n atenia publicului nostru st pe primul plan literatura
uoar i istoria. Noi nc mai suntem convini c trebuie s
valorificm drepturile pe baza demonstraiei istorice i continum s
scuzm napoierea noastr prin circumstanele defavorabile ale
trecutului, circumstane n care s-a gsit poporul romnesc. De aceea
tiinei i se pstreaz o situaie inferioar, putnd fi neglijat
adesea pn la periclitarea intereselor naionale"
46
.

Ct de actuale sunt aceste consideraii! Academia Romn, care n
secolul XXI ar trebui s fie n primul rnd o Academie de tiine, pstrnd i
caracterul ei tradiional de Academie de limb i litere, de istorie i unitate
naional, dar n primul rnd o academie de tiine, teoretizeaz astzi prin
anumii exponeni rolul culturii, nelegnd prin aceasta mai mult literatura i
arta, ca singurele care pot salva fiina naional. Iari simplificare, produs din
porniri subiective i impulsive. Interesele naionale cer, cum a spus Gr. Popa,
complexitate i echilibru de factori.

44
Grigore T, Popa, Reforma spiritului, op.cit.
45
Idem.
46
Idem.


21





n lucrarea sa, Grigore T. Popa descrie o istorie a tiinei urmrindu-l pe
John Bernal
47
, dar face observaii interesante:
''Grecii [...] au fcut prima organizare de stat a tiinei la
Alexandria unde au nfiinat 'Muzeul' n care erau strnse la un loc o
mare bibliotec, un fel de universitate i un rudiment de institut de
cercetri. Acest strlucit nceput, dac ar fi continuat, probabil c s-ar
fi ajuns nc din antichitate la dezvoltarea tehnicii i s-ar fi evitat
poate cderea civilizaiei n lunga amorire a evului mediu.
Superstiia egiptean ns de care vorbea Elliot-Smith a nvins i
'Muzeul' din Alexandria a degenerat ajungnd s cultive pedanteria i
misticismul. tiina a intrat n eclips i n toat perioada roman s-a
dezvoltat (fr a ajunge ns la strlucirea greac) aproape numai
literatura i filozofia. []Operele filozofice ale Grecilor au ptruns
in mai mare msur, prin traducerile arabe, n Europa de Vest, pe
cnd ctigurile materiale, dobndite prin tiin, au fost neglijate.
Meseriai i negustori rsriteni aduceau de-a gata produsele
orientale (mtase, pietre scumpe, mirodenii si droguri) i societatea
dobndise o oarecare stabilitate, bazat pe o economie rudimentar,
n care nu existau stimuluri pentru descoperire. n acelai timp se
organizaser puternic breslele nchise, cu secrete i opreliti, datorit
crora nu se putea face o difuzie a ideilor inventive i se mpiedica
dezvoltarea eventualelor descoperiri. Numai ici, colo se ridicau
glasuri care s pledeze pentru importana tiinei (Albertus Magnus i
Roger Bacon)''
48
.

Iar n privina Romniei arat:

.''Dar mai nti trebuie s 'organizm' i s 'plnuim'
producia noastr tiinific. Starea pur didactic i, mai mult, haotic
de azi nu mai poate dura. Cercetarea tiinific nu trebuie s rmn,
ca pn acuma, o activitate secundar care se realizeaz ntmpltor
i printre interstiiiie ocupaiei didactice. Ea trebuie s devin o
profesiune special i chiar acolo unde va rmne legat de obligaii
colare ea trebuie s aib sprijin necondiionat. Pentru cercetarea
tiinific trebuie s se fac o adevrat risip de ajutoare, cci noi
avem nevoie n primul rnd de crearea unei atmosfere favorabile
investigaiei n care apoi s se poat dezvolta marile personalitii
creatoare. Pentru un singur mare creator sunt adeseori trebuitori sute
i chiar mii de ostenitori modeti ale cror nume nu se pot desprinde
din anonimat, dar care, dac muncesc cinstit i se menin pe o linie de
tendin general favorabil tiinei, formeaz tocmai acea ambian
necesar dezvoltrii omului inovator i inventator de idei. De aceea,
la nceput trebuie s crem mai ales mediul fr s firn prea exigeni
n ce privete rezultatele imediate. Importana tiinei trebuie
accentuat mereu n societatea noastr i investigaia tiinific tre-
buie pus pe primul plan de preocupare. Disproporia de pn
acum dintre efortul pentru literatur i istorie i efortul pentru tiin

47
John D. Bernal Grigore T, Popa, Reforma spiritului, The social function of sciene, London, 1940.
48
p.132.


22





trebuie s se rstoarne. Societile tiinifice trebuie ntrite i
nsufleite din ce n ce mai mult i ele trebuie coordonate printr-o
directiv dat de Academie. Academia ar trebui s fie instana
suprem a spiritului tiinfific din Romnia i tot ea ar trebui s aib
puterea de crmuire a tuturor activitilor tiinifice, prin elaborarea
unui plan de investigaie i prin veghertea execuiei lui. Pentru
aceasta Seciunea tiinfic a Academiei ar trebui s fie cu mult mai
cuprinztoare dect este azi, pentru a putea avea n ea pe toi oamenii
de tiin de real valoare. []
Cu orice pre, cu orice mijloace, noi trebuie s ne punem la
nivelul celorlalte ri de nalt civilizaie pe terenul stiinei.
Numai plecnd de la acest nivel vom putea pretinde i noi un loc
onorabil ntre celelalte naiuni.
Ce rezolv viitorul pentru omenire nu tim, dar se poate
ntrevedea c att ntre indivizi ct i ntre popoare selecia se va
face pe baza stpnirii mijioacelor de transformare a omului i a
societii. Iar aceste mijloace sunt azi procurate mai ales de ctre
stiin''
49


CONSIDERAII FINALE

Ce ar nsemna comasarea seciilor tiinifice ale Academiei Romne?
Principalele structuri ale tiinei romneti pot fi privite din trei puncte de
vedere:
structuri de recunoatere a valorilor tiinifice;
structuri de cercetare;
structuri de conducere.
Nivelurile de recunoatere, prin alegerea ca membri a unor personaliti de
valoare din diferite domenii, sunt urmtoarele:
I. Academia Romn, cu cele 14 secii de specialitate.
II. Academia de tiine Medicale, Academia de tiine
Agricole i Silvice, Academia de tiine tehnice, Academia
Oamenilor de tiin din Romnia.
III. Societi tiinifice i profesionale.
Toate aceste structuri formeaz un ansamblu, un sistem al recunoaterii
valorilor (pe lng celelalte atribuii pe care le au), care trebuie s funcioneze

49
p. 164.


23





n continuare, cu att mai mult cu ct i societatea romneasc se ndreapt
ctre societatea cunoaterii.
La Academia Romn, propunerea de a reduce cele 14 secii la numai 4
sectoare, din care numai dou din domeniul tiinelor exacte, va crea un haos n
procesul de selectare a valorilor. Nimeni din Academia Romn nu poate
aprecia mai bine alegerea unui matematician dect Secia de matematic,
alegerea unui geonom dect secia de geonomie, alegerea unui specialist n
tiina i tehnologia informaiei dect secia de tiina i tehnologia informaiei
etc. Fiecare om de tiin romn care aspir s devin membru al Academiei
Romne privete spre aceste secii de unde ateapt propunerea pentru
recunoaterea sa ca membru al Academiei. Evaluarea n conglomerate cu multe
specialiti laolalt este riscant, ba chiar rmnnd numai la discreia
conducerii Academiei, restrns inevitabil i ea. Mai mult, se va tinde ctre o
uniformizare a numrului de membri pentru fiecare din cele patru sectoare,
ceea ce va reduce drastic numrul oamenilor de tiin din tiinele exacte,
tocmai n perioada societii cunoaterii. n Academia Romn s-a dus n
ultimii ani o lupt surd mpotriva seciilor Academiei, la care acestea au
rezistat cum au putut pentru a pstra rolul lor, printre altele, important n
sistemul de recunoatere al valorilor romneti. De asemenea, ar trebui s se
iniieze colaborarea dintre cele trei nivele ale structurilor de recunoatere n
tiina romneasc, n moduri care ar trebui definite, pentru a impulsiona mai
puternic societatea cunoaterii n Romnia.

Statul romn nu se poate retrage din cercetarea tiinific.
Din anul 2001 s-a manifestat voina politic pentru impulsionarea
societii informaionale n Romnia, iar statul romn, a acionat alturi de
sectorul privat, universiti i institute de cercetare n aceast direcie. S-a
dovedit ns c rolul statului este fundamental pentru antrenarea unui masiv
proces de inovare prin dezvoltarea societii informaionale n societatea


24





romneasc, iar datorit acestei aciuni se poate spune astzi c Romnia a
pit cu adevrat n era informaiei i n societatea informaional.
Dar va trebui s facem pai i n societatea cunoaterii. Din nou, va
trebui s procedm n acelai mod. Sistemul de nvmnt poate contribui la
cunoatere prin nvare, dar crearea de cunoatere nou, tiinific,
tehnologic, la nivelul celor mai noi cuceriri mondiale, nu se poate asigura
numai prin nvmnt sau numai prin cercetare privat sau cu fonduri private,
cu att mai mult n Romnia, fr un efort contient al societii prin
intermediul interveniei statului. Mai exist i calea colaborrilor internaionale,
prin Uniunea European sau la nivel euro-atlantic, care trebuie folosit, dar nu
vom obine fr eforturi locale, chiar cu participare internaional, rezultate
care s ne menin n concertul lumii cunoaterii. De aceea, propunerea lansat
de Prim-ministrul Adrian Nstase de a se crea un Institut tehnologic euro-
atlantic romn
50
, cu un profil tiinific, tehnologic i biotehnologic avansat, cu
activiti de cercetare, nvmnt, industriale de vrf este binevenit deoarece
el poate contribui la ndeplinirea unui asemenea rol. mpreun cu toate
structurile de cerceare ale rii i prin participarea la programe internaionale,
un asemenea obiectiv poate fi atins.

Societatea cunoaterii reprezint viitorul apropiat
Este evident tendina centrrii culturii n jurul cunoaterii, tiinei.
Noua cultur din secolul XXI devine o cultur umanist i tiinific, ntr-o
unitate, dar n jurul tiinei, tiina oferind cele mai mari ntrebri i rspunsuri
( atunci cnd reuete s fac un pas nou important), omului i societii. Arta,
literatura, filosofia vor prelua n felul lor tiina, frmntrile unor noi cutri,
proiectnd chiar spaii posibile de gndire pentru viitor care s fie stimulatoare
i pentru tiin.

50
convorbire personal, 5 decembrie 2003.


25





Lucrrile mele despre societatea cunoaterii au fost adunate ntr-un
volum
51
i nu voi insista aici asupra lor. Voi meniona numai importana, n
acest moment, a unei gndiri n termenii societii cunoaterii i a dezvoltrii
de aciuni n aceast direcie. Dar acest lucru depinde i de atmosfera cultural
favorabil unei asemenea direcii, reprezentat de o schimbare de la clivajul
ntre culturi, care exist i la noi, la noua cultur a secolului XXI.



51
Mihai Drgnescu, De la societatea informaional la societatea cunoaterii, Bucureti, Editura
Tehnic, sub tipar.