自由是实现科学创新的基本条件，是科学家从事科学活动的一项基本权利，追求自由是科学家最重要的品质，也是科学的基本精神。因此，科学活动的自由问题是科学事业成败的关键，也是政府在科学政策制定中必然要面对的现实问题。关于科学家自由的问题，长期以来，政策制定者就这个问题徘徊于政治需要和科学价值之间，难以取得平衡，就是在科学家群体内部，对这个问题也没有形成共识。二战以后，特别是20世纪90年代以来，随着科学和技术对社会进步作用的凸显，原始自主创新对一个国家发展的重要意义日益受到强调，基础研究中逐渐引入国家目标。基础研究中引入国家目标，意味着基础研究方向的选择必须首先考虑国家的需要，研究的成果能够首先为国家目标提供服务。在这样的背景下，对科学家个人自由问题的研究就变得非常重要而又迫切。因此，从学理上厘清科学家个人自由的本质，解决与自由相联的有关问题，无论是对科学研究本身，还是对相关政策的制订，都具有重要意义。

 

科学家个人自由是内在自由和外在自由的辩证统一，内在自由是科学家个人自由的根本，外在自由是内在自由实现的条件。其中，内在自由是就科学家而言的，它是科学创造的源泉，也是科学家的一种独立意识和独立人格，是科学创造活动不可缺少的精神品质；外在自由是科学家所享有的能够自由地探索真理以及传播科学思想的经济和政治权利，是科学活动的社会环境。内在自由和外在自由之间相互依赖、相互制约。如果内在自由缺乏，那么就意味着科学活动失去灵魂；反之，如果外在自由缺乏，那么内在自由只能是一种抽象的存在。科学家个人自由是一个历史范畴，随着科学研究方式的变化，科学家个人自由的形态也在发生着不断演替。

 

从古代科学萌芽到19世纪中期以前，几乎所有的科学家都是业余爱好者，科学研究是一种业余活动。业余科学家仅凭个人兴趣出发从事科学探索活动，不以科学为谋生的手段，科学也不作为手段被社会利用。所以，这一时期科学家个人自由以求真为基本特征，是一种主要表现为内在自由的自由形态，是一种“无待自由”。所谓无待自由，是指不受任何外在事物和外部条件的控制、只凭内心意向去求取的自由。科学家在无待自由状态下通过对纯知识的追求，捍卫了科学的自主性，维护了科学家的独立人格，这是科学创造的前提。但在这种状态下，由于科学家只是遵从了科学自身的目标，科学没有被视为一种社会活动，因而缺乏相应的物质基础，研究自由仅仅成为有经济来源的少数人物的个性化追求。从19世纪中叶开始，科学研究成为一项专门的职业，科学家实现了职业化。职业化为科学家从事研究活动提供了经济和政治保证，使得科学研究在运作方式上发生了变革。科学家开始把从事科学作为谋生的手段，原来以兴趣驱动的个体自由研究，被定向的集团协作劳动所取代。职业科学家个人所享受到的自由是一种“职任自由”。所谓职任自由，是指科学家在完成外界赋予的定向任务前提下享受到的权利，因而是一种“有待”的自由。职任自由与无待自由是两极分立的，它实现了权利层面的外在自由，但由于职任自由是科学家把自己作为掌握某项专业技能的工具来换取的自由，它使科学家屈从于某些实际利益而失去了捍卫真理的尊严，于是在很大程度上便失去了个人的发展空间和相当的社会责任感。职任自由又分为弱职任自由和强职任自由两个阶段。

 

19世纪中叶到二战以前，科学研究主要在军事科研和工业研究领域实现了建制化发展。为了获得从事科学研究的权利，科学家必须迎合政府或企业的功利性需要，成为政府或企业研发组织的雇员，他们被要求从事任务定向的研究。于是，科学中的个人主义和自由研究被定向约束和实用主义取而代之。基础小科学研究遭到轻视，主要依靠私人基金会和社会慈善机构的少量资金来维持。尽管如此，少数学者仍然尚可以凭个人兴趣从事自由探索研究，科学家对社会问题保持着一定的批判声音。因此总的来说，内在自由保留有一定的成长空间。这一时期科学家个人自由是一种弱职任自由。二战结束后，随着基础研究重要社会功能的显现，各国政府都开始把科学研究当作一项基本国家资源予以资助，科学研究进入规划大科学时代，科学的任何一个分支都处在政府计划的控制之下。随着冷战的结束和国际局势的变化，基础研究中进一步引入国家目标，政府通过科学规划和各类计划进一步控制着基础研究活动的方向、方式和应用，科学家被政府的效用原则驱动，这是科学家个人自由的强职任自由形态阶段，其特点集中表现为科学研究的意识形态化、产业化、局域化以及科学评价的政治化，科学家的个人兴趣被严重约束，批判精神被严重削弱，科学研究固有的自主性在很大程度上丧失。

 

随着国际竞争日益在综合国力方面、尤其是创新能力方面的体现，科学研究的物质文化价值和精神文化价值必然日益同时受到强调，因而国家目标和研究自由的统一已经成为一个必然趋势，科学家的自由和首创精神的保护已经成为国家目标实现的前提。在这种态势之下，科学家个人自由本质上应该是一种“责任自由”。责任自由强调科学家承担社会责任，让社会责任内在地置于研究自由之中，使追求真理并为真理而献身的精神内化为对社会的公共关怀，因而使社会责任成为科学家的一种自觉。作为国家目标下的科学家个人自由形态，责任自由一方面将会抛弃无待自由脱离社会的消极方面，批判地继承它的“为求知而研究”的基本内核，将科学求真与国家的未来需要相结合；另一方面，又克服职任自由舍弃对真理的追求而屈从于权力意志的缺陷，变原来由外部设定的、被动的社会责任为科学家的一种自觉能动意识，从而将社会责任与科学求真内在地统一起来，达到内在自由和外在自由的辩证统一。这样，科学家个人自由从无待自由、经过职任自由，再到责任自由，中间经过两次否定，将构成一个完整的否定之否定的过程，从而把科学家的自由提升到一个新的境界。责任自由的实现包括双向的责任，具有两方面的含义：一方面是国家保护科学家应有权利的责任和促进科学发展的责任；另一方面是科学家对于科学求真的责任和对于社会的责任。

 

科学家责任的实现在中国有特殊而紧迫的意义。一方面，要用精神激励机制提升科学家的思想境界，使其自觉地将个人兴趣同国家的利益需求有机地结合起来，努力为社会做出独创性的贡献；另一方面，政府应当为科学家提供经济和政治保障，保护科学家的无私利性探索，培育创新精神，以法律保障学术民主，宽待科研中的失败；遵循科学创造的规律，规范学术评价体系，有效防止学术败德行为的发生。在中国，要实现科学家自由的进一步发展，必须改变目前这种行政约束过强、权威力量过大的状态。为此必须：第一，加大政府对基础研究的资金投入，并积极引导社会资金对基础研究的支持，建立和发展多元化的资助模式；第二，创造宽松的创新文化环境，关键是改变对科研人员行政羁绊过多的局面，建立一种科学家之间自由交流和科学家自由流动的机制；第三，变政治权力主导下的科学权威评价为科学共同体的评价，减少行政力量对科学活动的直接干预；变政府的干预为大目标和大方向的引导，让政府回到为科学发展提供服务的位置上，实现从科研管理中的“大政府，小社会”体制，向“小政府，大社会”体制的转换。

 

论文的主要创新点如下：

 

第一，揭示了科学家个人自由的本质。

 

第二，提出了科学家个人自由的三形态说，即：无待自由—职任自由—责任自由，并认为三种形态的演变构成了一个否定之否定的辩证过程。

 

第三，提出国家目标下的科学家个人自由应该是一种责任自由，认为它是当代科学家真正应有的自由形态。

 

第四，提出了实现责任自由的双向含义：一方面是国家保护科学家应有权利的责任和促进科学发展的责任；另一方面是科学家对于科学求真的责任和对于社会的责任。责任自由实现的实质是以科学家的责任为核心的科学家责任和政府责任的协调统一。

 

 

 

主题词：科学家；国家目标；无待自由；职任自由；责任自由

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

Freedom, as a principal condition of realizing scientific innovation, is a basic right of scientists engaged in the scientific activity. Striving for freedom is the most important scientific quality of the scientists and constitutes the basic spirit of science. Therefore, freedom in scientific activity is a major and decisive factor that governments have to face when formulating scientific policies. There have long been disputes with regard to the freedom of scientists among policy framers who find it difficult to choose between the political needs and the scientific value. No consensus has been achieved even among scientists themselves. After World War II, especially since the 1990s, with the influence of science and technology on social progress increasingly apparent, more and more emphasis has been placed on the significance of original and independent innovation on national development, and national objectives have gradually been introduced into basic research. It follows that national needs must be taken into consideration first in the selection of direction for basic research. Against this background, the study of the scientists’ individual freedom becomes important and urgent. To define the nature of the scientists’ freedom and explore related issues is therefore of both great academic significance and strong practical relevance.

 

Scientists’ individual freedom is dialectic unification of intrinsic freedom and external freedom with the former as the basis and the latter as the condition for its realization. Furthermore, intrinsic freedom is the source and an indispensable part of scientific creation and the scientists’ independent consciousness and independent personality; external freedom is the scientists’ political and economic right to seek truth and disseminate knowledge and constitutes the social environment for scientific activity. Intrinsic freedom and the external freedom are mutually dependent and restrictive. Without the former, scientific activity becomes soulless; without the latter, freedom becomes an abstract existence. And it is also a historical category and changes forever with dynamic changes in modes of scientific activity.

 

From its ancient germination to the middle of the 19th century, scientific research was pursued as an extracurricular activity and all scientists were amateurs engaged in scientific activities mainly out of personal hobbies. Their freedom, characterized by the pursuit of truth, was at this stage a kind of “unconditioned freedom”, freedom unfettered by any external conditions and driven mainly by internal intentions. Their free pursuit of pure knowledge served as a protection of the autonomy of science and a guarantee for their independent personality and also as a prerequisite for scientific creation. But when engaged in merely as a personal hobby and without substantial yet necessary support, the scientists’ freedom became something that only a few scientists could afford.

 

Since the middle of the 19th century, professionalism occurred in scientific research and scientists became professionals, which provided the scientific activity with economic and political guarantees and brought about changes in operational modes in scientific activity. Scientists began to make a living of scientific research and their earlier personal interests were replaced by collective and consorted labor. Their freedom at this stage could be called “professional freedom”, or in other words, their rights after accomplishing the given tasks, and hence, “conditioned freedom.” Standing in opposition to “unconditioned freedom,” “conditioned freedom” secured external freedom in terms of power and rights, but only at the expense of losing room for individual development of the scientists and their sense of social responsibility. “Conditioned freedom” can be further divided into weak conditioned freedom and strong conditioned freedom. From the middle of the 19th century till the beginning of World War II, professionalism occurred mainly in military and industry research. In order to obtain the right to engage in scientific research, scientists had to cater to the governments’ or enterprises’ utility needs, become their employees, and are requested to conduct appointed research. Small-scale research was seriously neglected and depended largely on personal foundations and social charitable organizations for the minimum funds. Still, out of their personal interests in free research, a few scientists could manage to maintain a critical voice towards social issues. The freedom that they enjoyed at this period is weak conditioned freedom. After World War II, with the social functions of basic research becoming increasingly understood, most national governments began to emphasize basic research as an important national resource and national programming occurred in scientific research. Accordingly, all the branches of scientific research came under the control of national programming. With the end of the cold war and the transformation of international situations, national objectives have been introduced into basic research and governments have come to control the direction, modes and applications of scientific research through various regulations and programs. In short, the principle of utility on the part of national governments has dominated the scene. Scientists’ freedom at this stage is called strong conditioned freedom in which their personal interests were strictly conditioned, and their critical spirit was seriously undermined in the course of the ideological, industrial and localizing transformation of scientific research. The innate autonomy of scientific research has been lost to a large extent.

 

As the manifestation of international competition has been become more and more apparent in the comprehensive national strengths, especially in innovative capability, and the value of physical culture and spiritual culture will be simultaneously stressed inevitably, the integration of national objectives and freedom of research has become a necessary and certain trend internationally. The protection of scientists’ freedom and entrepreneurship has become the prerequisite of the realization of national objectives. In such a situation, scientists’ individual freedom should essentially be a kind of “responsibility freedom”which stipulates that scientists should have a good sense of their social responsibility that is to integrate their social responsibility into their free research and combine the search for truth with a due sense of social concern. Responsibility freedom, as individual freedom in the light of national objectives, would on one hand discard the negative and isolative elements of “unconditioned freedom” and critically retain its core of “research for the purpose of seeking truth” and thereby combine the pursuit of truth with the satisfaction of national future needs. On the other hand, it overcomes the deficiency of subordination to the will of power and transforms the externally designed and passive social responsibility into an initiative pursuit on the part of scientists. Therefore, sense of social responsibility and the pursuit of truth have been intrinsically integrated and the dialogic unification of external freedom and internal freedom has been achieved. Accordingly, scientists’ individual freedom, after the process of a complete double negation, has evolved from unconditioned freedom, to professional freedom, and to responsibility freedom and has ultimately been improved to a new realm. The realization of responsibility freedom includes ambilateral responsibilities, and has two points of meanings: one is the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of scientists and to promote the development of science; another is the responsibility of scientists to pursue the scientific truth and to the society.

 

Realization of responsibility freedom is of special and urgent significance in China. On one hand, spiritual incentive mechanisms should be employed to encourage scientists to actively and organically combine personal interests with the satisfaction of national needs so as to make original contributions to the society. On the other hand, the governments should provide economical safeguards for the scientists, encourage free exploration, guarantee academic democracy and tolerate failures in research and establish reasonable measures of evaluation so as to effectively prevent academic corruption. The overpowering of bureaucratic institutions must be properly dealt with in the following three ways: Firstly, the input from the governments should be strengthened, and social funds should be encouraged to enter basic research so as to establish a multiple funding pattern of research. Secondly, a congenial atmosphere should be established so as to encourage the flexible movement of human and financial resources. Thirdly, the transformation of authoritarian evaluation dominated largely by political powers into an autonomous evaluation of the scientific community should be quickened so as to lessen bureaucratic interventions and contribute to the scientific development, and to change the bureaucratic interventions into the lead of big aim and big direction, to put the government right on the position of offering service to the development of science, to realize the change from the system of “big government, small society” to “small government, big society” in the administration of scientific research.

 

The innovation of this dissertation lies in the following aspects:

 

First, it elucidates the nature of the scientists’ individual freedom.

 

Second, it proposes the three stages of the scientists’ individual freedom, namely unconditioned freedom--Professional freedom--Responsibility freedom, and its transformation through the process of a complete double negation.

Third, it points out that the scientists’ individual freedom in the light of the national objective should be responsibility freedom, a conception of freedom that should be endorsed by present-day scientists.

 

Fourth, the realization of responsibility freedom includes ambilateral responsibilities, and has two points of meanings: one is the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of scientists and to promote the development of science; another is the responsibility of scientists to pursue the scientific truth and to the society.  

 

 

 

Keywords: Scientist; National objectives; Unconditioned freedom; Professional freedom; Responsibility freedom