For effective solutions to pressing problems, understanding of the dynamics of knowledge and technology is essential, writes Saad Nagi* The aims of this statement are to clarify what is meant by science and technology; explain the relationships between the two; and distinguish between the ways knowledge is organised in codifying the theoretical principles of disciplines and for applied purposes. Useful distinctions have been made by William McEwen among three "ways of knowing": theology, in which beliefs are grounded in faith; philosophy, where consistency is the primary criterion for acceptance of systems and arguments; and science, which requires empirical verification of information. Three sets of criteria are proposed by Abraham Kaplan for identifying and evaluating scientific material. First are "norms of correspondence" which refer to "how a theory fits the facts" Empirical tests for these norms are anchored in sense observation directly, or by inference. Second are "norms of coherence" which pertain to the "integration" of the work being evaluated into related literature. Internal integration is concerned with how the various parts of the work itself fit together, while the external level refers to integration within the broader body of related literature. Integration at either level should not be interpreted necessarily to mean conformity to existing literature. At times, new discoveries introduce fundamental change in theories and paradigms. Thus, integration also entails explaining and reconciling the differences in findings. Third are "pragmatic norms" which relate to the theory's contribution to the advancement of science itself, and to its utility in practical application, as in technological developments. Turning to the meaning of technology, in the words of Robert Merrill, it generally refers to "bodies of skills, knowledge, and procedures for making, using, and doing useful things". However, many technologies can -- and do -- have negative side effects that vary considerably in significance. The use of the concept of technology has been largely limited to processes that are basically physical and biological in nature; that is, "hard technology" The scientific knowledge involved here comes primarily from such disciplines as astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. However it is important also to give serious attention to "soft technology" which relates to social and behavioural processes. Important examples of such processes include the formation of organisations for different purposes; systems of management and of marketing; systems of governance and public administration; the formulation of policies, laws, and regulations; planning and managing social movements; and innovations in values and norms that guide the behaviour of individuals and collectives in their daily lives. Pertinent scientific knowledge comes from such disciplines as anthropology, sociology, political science, economics and history. It should be noted that technological developments are also influenced, sometimes greatly -- and especially in the soft technologies -- when other forms of knowledge such as morals, ethics and ideologies, derived from theological and philosophical ways of knowing, impinge on decisions. Historically, developments in science and technology followed widely independent pathways. Inventions were perfected through "trial and error", while many theoretical discoveries remained on the shelves in academic libraries distant from application. Thomas Edison's work on inventing the electric lamp illustrates the point. In response to reminders that already many trials had failed, he is reputed to have responded to the effect that now, at least, we know that all the earlier elements do not work. Over time, the pathways of scientific knowledge and technological innovations have become increasingly close, reaching much higher levels of synergy during the 20th century, especially the latter half. The results have been massive and spectacular transformations in all walks of life: communications, transportation, healthcare, systems of production and distribution, among others. As already mentioned, it is important to keep in mind that many technologies have negative side effects, sometimes serious. This is especially evident when change is rapid and technologies are not assimilated at an even pace. The resulting "cultural lags" in adjustment and accommodation often create disruptions in peoples' lives. This frequently occurs in the processes of modernisation. Important also is that the benefits and negatives of these transformations have not been equally distributed among or within nations. In an informative discussion of the recurrent issue of relationships between theory and practice, Hans Jonas distinguishes between knowledge that enters into the determination of ends and that used in the selection of means ("The Practical Use of Theory," in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, edited by Maurice Natanson). For example, knowledge that underlies the establishment of priorities among such goals as advancing environmental protection, expanding access to quality healthcare, improving capacities of educational institutions, developing transportation and communication systems, differs fundamentally from knowledge applied to implement whichever goal has been selected. The former requires judgments based on values, while the latter requires an understanding of processes. Within the latter category, he identifies three types of knowledge. First is "knowledge which pronounces on possibility in principle" and which rests on scientific universal laws. Second is knowledge "which maps, still in the abstract, possible ways of realisation." This type is composed of "more complex and more specific causal patterns," embodying universal principles and "providing models for rules of action." The third type is knowledge involved in "the discernment of the course of action most practicable in the given circumstances." Such knowledge "of what to do now is entirely particular, placing the task within the context of the whole concrete situation." My objective here is to explain the differences between the first and second types of knowledge identified above. As already pointed out, both are forms of scientific information and are commonly referred to as "basic" and "applied" Fundamental distinctions between basic and applied science can be made when criteria are based on the types and organisation of knowledge produced, rather than on the researcher's values and attitudes or the sponsor's mission. How can the two types of theoretical knowledge be differentiated? Two criteria: the ways used in codifying knowledge, that is, the models or forms of theory construction; and the nature of the phenomenon being explained and whether it is strictly of theoretical interest or constitutes a social or a technical problem. In regard to the first criterion, two models for theory were first recognized by Einstein and further developed by Kaplan: (a) hierarchical theories in which "component laws are presented as deductions from a small set of basic principles"; suitable for codifying basic knowledge of the fields; and (b) pattern theories in which the laws converge on a central phenomenon which they are to explain; suitable for the organisation of applicable knowledge, since they can be cast at sufficiently concrete levels and can accommodate the integration of multi-disciplinary knowledge. "Systems analysis" has become the usual term for the process of breaking down a complex problem into detailed components, applying the knowledge related to each of these components, and recombining the components into a new whole. By such a process, knowledge from the various disciplines relevant to the product or problem can be identified and applied. It is no accident that emphasis upon knowledge applicable to the solution of social and technological problems has given impetus to systems analysis and led to the criticism that university research and teaching is organised within, in the words of John Steinhart and Stacie Cherniack, "departments representing the narrow academic discipline." However, while the type of coordination characteristic of the systems approach has demonstrated remarkable success in hardware technology, its effectiveness remains to be shown in helping to apply existing knowledge to the solution of social problems. Obviously, the environment is a very broad and complex topic that includes all external objects and conditions that surround an organism. Much knowledge has been accumulated about related issues and problems. The attempt in this statement is to provide a map/guide for organising and integrating such a massive body of information. In addition to charting current knowledge, is the task of identifying where gaps exist in theories and explanations; where new data needs to be generated, what innovations need to be diffused, and the priorities in which these activities should be pursued. Clearly, these are not tasks that can be limited to academics, corporations, or to governments. All are important to the identification of problems, the discovery of related knowledge, and innovation in remedial approaches. And, the diffusion and adoption of these innovations call for the participation of all individuals and collectives. Useful in this respect is the concept "community of solution" -- the boundaries within which a problem can be defined, dealt with, and solved (see my "Toward a Global Community of Solution," in Building a World Community, edited by Jacques Baudot). The communities of solution for environmental problems may be global, regional, national, sub-national, or local. * The writer is professor emeritus in sociology at Ohio State University and former director of the Social Research Centre at the American University in Cairo.
