•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

science and technology diplomacy; science and technology for good; diplomacy for interests

Document Type

Policy & Management Research

Abstract

Science and technology diplomacy is the intersection of two meta-terms: “science and technology” and “diplomacy”. Whether it leans towards the dimension of “science and technology” or “diplomacy”, the basic theoretical logics and national policy practices of science and technology diplomacy will be different. Research has found that the value foundation of science and technology diplomacy includes: sustainable development, national power, and common interests. In the dimension of “technology”, the corresponding theoretical logic of science and technology diplomacy is “science and technology for good”, and the representative conceptual framework is the meta activity framework, which reflects the ideals and cooperation perspectives. In the dimension of “diplomacy”, the corresponding theoretical logic is “diplomacy for interests”, and the representative conceptual framework is the meta goal framework, which reflects the reality and competitive perspectives. Due to the national strategic needs, the United States has changed the philosophy of science and technology diplomacy from “science and technology for good” to “diplomacy for interests”, and mainly adopts the meta goal framework. Due to factors such as ethnic culture and development wills, the European Union and China tend to adopt the meta activity framework. With the development of science and technology and geopolitics, science and technology diplomacy will present new trends, including boundary generalization, value influence, the Global South coming to the force, etc. It is suggested that China should develop the strategy of science and technology diplomacy in the new era, strengthen the communication mechanism between the diplomatic department and the science and technology department, enhance investment for science and technology activities and the cultivation of science and technology diplomats, and fully leverage the role of multiple stakeholders in science and technology diplomacy.

First page

1840

Last Page

1852

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

1. The Royal Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science. New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. Revista Conjuntura Austral, 2020, 11(54): 9-34.

2. Gluckman P, Turekian V, Grimes R, et al. Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. (2018-01-16)[2025-02-19]. https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/science-diplomacy-pragmatic-perspective-inside.

3. 赵刚. 科技外交的理论与实践. 北京: 时事出版社, 2007: 32. Zhao G. Theory and Practice of Science Diplomacy. Beijing: Current Affairs Press, 2007: 32. (in Chinese)

4. Ruffini P B. Collaboration and competition: The twofold logic of science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2020, 15(3): 371-382.

5. 隋新宇. 百年变局下中国科技外交的探索研究. 北京: 中国科学技术信息研究所, 2022. Sui X Y. Exploring China’s Science Diplomacy in the Context of Centennial Changes. Beijing: Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, 2022. (in Chinese)

6. Young M, Rungius C, Aukes E, et al. The ‘Matters’ of Science Diplomacy: Transversal Analysis of the S4D4C Case Studies. (2020-09-22)[2025-03-31]. https://www.s4d4c.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/S4D4C_REPORTS_The-Matters-of-Science-Diplomacy_Sept2020.pdf.

7. 罗晖, 高洁, 顾雁峰, 等. 科研价值观在科技外交活动中的作用及应对策略. 今日科苑, 2021, (7): 33-40. Luo H, Gao J, Gu Y F, et al. The effect of scientific values in science and technology diplomacy and coping strategies. Modern Science, 2021, (7): 33-40. (in Chinese)

8. 臧红岩. 建构主义视角下科技外交范式研究. 广西社会科学, 2020, (7): 69-73. Zang H Y. Research on the paradigm of technology diplomacy from the perspective of constructivism. Guangxi Social Sciences, 2020, (7): 69-73. (in Chinese)

9. Legrand T, Stone D. Science diplomacy and transnational governance impact. British Politics, 2018, 13(3): 392-408.

10. 张翼燕, 刘润生. 日本科技外交的发展历程与特点. 全球科技经济瞭望, 2016, 31(4): 63-68. Zhang Y Y, Liu R S. The development and characteristics of science and technology diplomacy in Japan. Global Science, Technology and Economy Outlook, 2016, 31(4): 63-68. (in Chinese)

11. Gehrt D. Does science diplomacy work in highly competitive technology areas. (2019-12-23)[2025-03-30]. https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2019/does-science-diplomacy-work-in-highly-competitive-technology-areas-analysis-eus-st.

12. 曲星. 人类命运共同体的价值观基础. 求是, 2013, (4): 53-55. Qu X. The value foundation of a community with a shared future of mankind. Qiushi, 2013, (4): 53-55. (in Chinese)

13. 张蛟龙. 科技外交: 发达国家的话语与实践. 亚太安全与海洋研究, 2023, (2): 91-109. Zhang J L. Science and technology diplomacy: Theory and practice in developed countries—Conceptual framework, discourse evolution and practical characteristics. Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs, 2023, (2): 91-109. (in Chinese)

14. 张翼燕, 章宁. 基于活动分析法的科技外交三元模型. 中国科技论坛, 2017, (2): 171-177. Zhang Y Y, Zhang N. Three-elements models of S&T diplomacy based on activity analysis. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 2017, (2): 171-177. (in Chinese)

15. Kupferschmidt K, Cohen J. Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. Science, 2020, 367(6485): 1412-1413.

16. Ruffini P B. Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: A critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2020, 7: 124.

17. Gluckman P, Quirion R, Sachs J, et al. Scientific diplomacy keeps reason alight in dark times. Nature, 2022, 604(7906): 425.

Download
Request a Copy

Share

COinS