댓글 쓰기 권한이 없습니다. 로그인 하시겠습니까?
[Perspective] Beyond Scientism: Coming of the Ethics of Science
Song Sang-yong, "Beyond Scientism: Coming of the Ethics of Science," The Korean Journal for the History of Science 35-2 (2013), 389-398.
Beyond Scientism: Coming of the Ethics of Science*
Korean Academy of Science andTechnology
Scientism, scientisme, Szientismus or Wissenschaftsgläubigkeitis a peculiar word with varying strength. It can denote either weaker versionor stronger version. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, scientism is“methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.”Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative to describe someone ofholding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations oflife such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanisticexplanations. (Wikipedia)
History of science can be written as the story ofexpanding scientism. Richard Gregory, the editor of Nature in the 1930s,said: ‘My grandfather preached the gospel of Christ, my father preached thegospel of socialism, I preach the gospel of science’. Such a belief in scienceis not without reason. Science proved to be the most successful pursuit ofknowledge. The spectacular civilisation today is the product of modern science,which was so successful. Scientism grew out of the development of science.
Scientism launched with the Scientific Revolution ofthe 16th and 17th centuries. As a result, science rose as the centre ofEuropean civilisation replacing the Christian Church. The establishment ofNewtonian physics was the peak of the Scientific Revolution. It was anoverwhelming victory. Newton was never challenged for more than a century inthe fields where he excelled. In the Age of Reason, Newton was the hero of philosophesin France. They admired science, believed progress and rejected religion. Itled to the attempts to explain all the social phenomena with science. Theybelieved that mankind marched towards better stage as science developed. Thesimple equation that science equals progress was universally accepted. Abstractreason, mathematisation, mechanical view of nature, anti-teleology were thecharacteristics of the Scientific Revolution. As science emphasised theindependence of objective reality, the subjectivity of man became downgraded.Man was no longer the subject with purpose, emotion and value, but the objectwhich was observed, measured and manipulated.
The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19thcentury was another turning point. In the beginning, the alliance betweenscience and technology was uneven and insufficient. But the close cooperationof science and technology in the later period resulted the explosivedevelopment of industry. The shift from scientia contemplativa to scientiaactiva et operativa, quoting from Alexandre Koyré , was finally realised.The Baconian dream for industrial civilisation was in full bloom. At the timeof the Scientific Revolution, the influence of science was confined tointellectual circle. Now science could exert impact to the general public andchange the structure of society through technology. The splendid achievement ofscience and technology during the Industrial Revolution encouraged scientism tothe great extent. There was wide - spread conviction that science would leadhistory to the direction of enhancing freedom for everybody. Such tendency wasstrengthened continuously till the 20th century.
In philosophy positivism, represented by Ernst Mach,emerged as a repulsion to the extreme speculative philosophy of 19th centuryGermany. There is no doubt that it also fostered scientism. The analytic styleof 20th century philosophy of science was the outcome of the age when thebelief in science reached its climax. The only mode of knowledge recognised inthe logical positivism of the 1930s was the scientific one and its extension.The classic problems of epistemology gave its seat to observation, andmetaphysics was eliminated for its unverifiability. History and ethicsdisappeared and we had to wait for another generation to see them reinstated.
There certainly were some resistances againstscientism. In the early 17th century, John Donne, a metaphysical poet, wrote:
And new Philosophycalls all in doubt,
The Element of Fire isquite put out;
The Sun is lost, andth’ earth and no man’s wit
Can well direct himwhere to look for it.
‘Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone.
It was the resentment about the disturbances broughtby new science. As time went on humanists denounced the science devoid ofhumanistic elements in higher tone. It was the Romantic Revolt to coldMechanical Philosophy. Herder, Goethe and Coleridge were the main figures.However, they were minorities and their voices were too weak to curb thetyranny of scientism.
The first half of the 20th century witnessed severalserious abuses of science. Eugenics, despite of its good meaning (good inbirth), turned out to be a dirty word. National Origins Quota Law of the UnitedStates was obvious discrimination against non-Anglo-Saxons. Sterilisation lawswere passed in the United States and Europe in the 1930s. It was terribleinfringement of human rights. Especially in Nazi Germany 400,000 sociallyunsuitable and intellectually handicapped people were forcedly sterilisedbetween 1934-1939. The mosthorrible abuse of science was the human experimentations by the Nazis andJapanese army during World War II. Ruthless human experimentations were carriedout in Auschwitz and in the ‘Factory of Death’, Pingfang, China in the name ofscience. In the Unit 731, Japanese doctors experimented, tortured and killedmore than 3,000 Chinese, Russians, Mongols, Manchus, Koreans and even Americansfor the systematic studies on bacteriological warfare.
At the Nuremberg Military Tribunal 23 Germanphysicians were prosecuted for their involvement in the Nazi humanexperimentations. In the case of the Unit 731, however, nobody was punished.The United States pardoned them in return to the valuable informations it gotfrom them. No explanation has been given as to why the United States treatedthe Japanese and German criminals in different ways. The U.S. governmenthas the burden to give an answer. For the crimes of Japanese doctors, therewere no counterparts of the Nuremberg Trial and the Nuremberg Code. Due toJapanese denials, the relative silence of Chinese and Taiwanese governments andthe American cover-up, Japanese doctors’ atrocities have been much less knownand explored. The governments of both Koreas have never raised the issueeither. Only a handful of conscientious scholars in Japan, China and elsewhereare studying the case avidly.
Jacob Bronowski begins his book Science and HumanValues with his vivid feeling when he stood on the ruins of Nagasaki notlong after the explosion of atomic bomb. 40,000 were killed by a flash whichlasted for seconds. Ironically the bomb exploded over the main Christiancommunity in Japan. There have been controversies on the inevitability ofdropping the bomb twice. But can any arguments for it be defended? The heydayof pure science, which J. R. Ravetz calls ‘academic science’, ended with atomicbomb. It shattered the naïve view of science. Scientists began to think aboutsuch words as conscience, responsibility and ethics sincerely. Many prominentscientists including Einstein, Pauling and Sakharov joined the anti-nuclearmovement after the war.
Still science seemed to be a guarantee for progressin spite of the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the image ofscience became aggravated suddenly in the 1960s due to the environmentaldeterioration such as Minamata disease and Torey Canyon. Science was thetarget of the counter-culture movement’ which swept over industrialisedcountries in 1968. The attack on science came from within as well as fromoutside the scientific community. The criticism of science was not confined tointellectuals, but pervaded widely among the general public. Anti-science movementaimed at not only high technology, but also science itself. The challenge tothe goal and result of science policy came to doubting the inherent norm ofscience and its epistemological status.
The latter half of the 20th century witnessed therediscovery of ethics in science. The Digital Revolution changed the worlddramatically, but it also raised the unprecedented problems of privacy,alienation and inequality. The ethics of information technology was a naturaloutcome to deal with these issues. The accelerated dashing of biotechnologyreminded concerned people of the nightmare of dystopia predicted by AldousHuxley’s Brave New World. Bioethics, which had been redefined fromclassical medical ethics, emerged as one of the most important disciplines. Researchethics appeared in the recombinant DNA controversy at the Asilomar Conferencein 1975. The studies of ELSI (Ethical, Legal and Social Implications) startedwith the Human Genome Project.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)contained not only civil and political rights, but also economic, social andcultural rights. Among the new items in the declaration was the right to sharein scientific advancement and its benefits. Later human rights came to includethe rights for environment, safety, the access to informations, etc. There aregrowing pressures to extend human rights to animal rights. UNESCO has been onthe forefront in coping with the issues arising from science ever since itsbeginning. In 1993 it created the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) andla Commission Mondiale de l’Ethique des Connaissances Scientifiques et desTechnologies (COMEST) was founded in 1998. IBC played a key role in making theUniversal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), the InternationalDeclaration on Human Genetic Data (2003) and the Universal Declaration onBioethics and Human Rights (2005). COMEST has covered the ethics ofenvironment, information society, nanotechnology, fresh water and outer space.It is now working on a code of ethics for scientists. In 1999 the WorldConference on Science was held in Budapest with the initiative of UNESCO andICSU (International Council for Science). The adoption of the ‘Declaration onScience and the Use of Scientific Knowledge’ and ‘Science Agenda – Frameworkfor Action’ was a landmark in the history of science. It should be noted thatpoignant criticisms of science were made by scientists themselves. Thefollow-up of the WCS was left to UNESCO’s COMEST and ICSU’s SCRES (StandingCommittee on Responsibility and Ethics in Science, 1996-2002).
Let me tell you briefly about what COMEST hasbeen doing for it. The UN Inter-Agency consultative meeting in 2003 encouragedethical codes of conduct for scientists and recalled the task given by the WorldConference on Science to COMEST and ICSU. In the same year, the Executive Boardof UNESCO requested the Director-General to undertake studies on theadvisability of elaborating an international declaration on science ethics as abasis for an ethical code of conduct for scientists. COMEST had Expert Meetingon the code of ethics in 2005. Based on the conclusions of the meeting, 4thOrdinary Session of COMEST recommended that UNESCO should focus on a generalframework of ethical principles for sciences. Since then COMEST has beencarrying out feasibility study in two directions. They are analysis of existingcodes of conduct including the creation of a database in the Global EthicsObservatory (GEObs) and international consultations.
For the latter, six consultative meetings were heldlast year in Tokyo, New Delhi, Geneva, Bangkok, Seoul and Belo Horizonteconsecutively. The UNESCO “Recommendation on the Status of ScientificResearchers” of 1974 was taken as a basis of assessment at the meetings. JunFudano, a member of COMEST, presented papers at the meetings in Tokyo andNew Delhi. In New Delhi, he reviewed codes of ethics in science and engineeringin Japan with international comparison. When he asked the participants whetherthere was a need for a universal code, there was unanimous agreement. I wasbrought to Bangkok to review the Recommendation. I emphsised that a radicalrevision of the old concept of science in the Recommendation was inevitable.Unanimous preference for the code of conduct was confirmed at all meetings inAsia. But some member countries including the United States are negative to thefurther standard setting of UNESCO. This is the reason why COMEST is cautiousin pushing the mandate. More consultation meetings are planned in Africa andArab region this year. There certainly lies a long way ahead to the universalcode of conduct for scientists. But we must get it in the long run.
There has been much reflection on the adverseaspects of science and technology in the West. Thus it might be said thatscientism is being overcome to considerable extent. However, the situation inAsia is quite different from that of the West. Asia has a deep-rooted traditionof scientism, which lasted for more than a century. In the 19th century Asiawas under the challenge of Western imperialism. Asian countries had to makedesperate attempts to survive. It was believed in Japan that the only way tosurvival was catching up the Western science and technology. 85 percent ofTokyo University graduates in the 1890s were science and engineering majors.Japan became the first country, which succeeded in modernisation. Similaraspirations for science and technology were both in China and Korea, thoughthere was more resistance by traditionalists. According to Yabuuti Kiyoshi, itwas hard for China to attain modernisation even after the revolution in 1911.Korea lost the last chance and became a victim of Japanese imperialism in 1910.In Korea under the Japanese colonial rule, there was belief that independencecould be achieved through science and technology. Nationwide science movementin the 1930s is a good example. After the liberation in 1945, “nation buildingwith science and technology” has been the national motto of Korea.
Korea emerged as an economic giant from apoverty-stricken country in the 1960s. During the period national income percapita rose from $60 to nearly $20,000 this year. The amazing success inindustrialisation was possible at the expense of environment, tradition andethics. Science and technology was the handmaiden of economy. It was only sincethe end of last century that the Korean government began to consider scienceand technology as culture also. Nevertheless, scientism continues to beparamount in Korea. Both the government and oppositions are growth-oriented andthey are supported by major mass media.
The government has been extraordinarily interestedin developing biotechnology. In 1983, it made the Genetic Engineering PromotionAct (changed to Biotechnology Promotion Act in 1995) for the first time in theworld. Though not a great success in terms of immediate impact, the Actprovided an institutional framework for Korea’s future biotechnology R&Dactivities. But more importantly, the Act was crucial in framing biotechnologyas a vehicle for the nation’s economic development. By the time Kim Young-Samcame into office in 1992 as the first civilian president since 1961, nationalR&D expenditure in biotechnology had already shown a nearly twelve-foldincrease from 1983. In 1994, the government launched an ambitious 14-yearnational strategic R&D programme called “Biotech 2000” and proclaimed thatyear the “Year of the Take-Off of Biotechnology.” Under the programme, thegovernment and industry would invest $18 billion by 2007, aiming to catch upthe biotechnological capabilities of the G-7 nations.
In 2004, Hwang Woo-Suk et al. surprised the world bypublishing a paper in Science, in which they claimed to have established a stemcell line from a cloned blastocyst. Many Koreans were excited by theexpectation that the universal cure of disease was coming soon. However, someserious ethical flaws of Hwang’s research were raised by the Centre forDemocracy in Science and Technology, an NGO, Lee Pil Ryul, a historian ofscience at Korea Open University and David Cyranoski, Nature’s Tokyocorrespondent. The Korean Bioethics Association later adopted a statementchallenging Hwang to have an open discussion on the ethical problems of hisresearch: institutional review board (IRB), authorship and acquisition of eggs.Hwang repudiated the allegations as groundless and maintained that ethicistswere trying to hamper the development of technology. Unfortunately, such adistorted view was advocated by the government including President RohMoo-Hyun.
Gerald Schatten’s sudden break with Hwang Woo-Suk inNovember 2005 was a turning point for the decline of Hwang. It brought out thecharges of oocyte donation irregularities by Nature anew. It was notuntil the “PD Notebook” of MBC (Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation) televisionraised questions about the research that Hwang confessed his wrong-doing inobtaining the eggs. All the ethical suspicions regarding his paper turned outto be true. The verification efforts of young scientists through BRIC(Biological Research Information Centre) and the prompt investigation by SeoulNational University further concluded that Hwang’s two papers were nothing butfakes. It was shocking news even to the critics of Hwang. Both papers of Hwangpublished in Science were retracted. Hwang was fired from Seoul NationalUniversity after a long deliberation. The Korean Society for Molecular and CellBiology expelled him and the Ministry of Health and Welfare removed his licenseto conduct embryonic stem cell research. The Ministry of Science and Technologystripped him of the title “Supreme Scientist.” Intensive investigations byprosecutors followed and the trial is still going on. Investigations by theNational Assembly agreed by major parties have not yet been carried out. There is no doubt that the Korean society is too magnanimous to him. Thecase is yet to be concluded in the midst of continuing resistance of thefanatic supporters of Hwang. In short, the Hwang scandal hasn’t ended yet.
The Korean government should bear the main responsibilityfor the Hwang scandal. Its growth - first policy of developing biotechnologyblocked any kind of regulations or criticisms. All Asian countries are keenlyinterested in developing biotechnology. Only Korea, however, dashed aheadrecklessly and the result was a debacle. President Roh Moo-Hyun with hisentourage was out in front to give huge support to Hwang, and all the leadersof political circle except Democratic Labour Party praised Hwang as a hope forthe nation. Distortion and exaggeration in the reports of the irresponsiblemedia aggravated the situation. Even the National Human Rights Commission ofKorea, which had opposed the dispatch of Korean troops to Iraq, remained silentconcerning the misconduct of Hwang. The situation in Korea until November2005 was something like the United States right after the September 11.
It is held that the Hwang scandal was aconfrontation between the ‘Alliance of Science and Technology’ and the‘Solidarity of Ethics.’ The former consisted of scientists, government,business and media which were united with vested interests and ideologies. Thelatter was composed of NGOs, religious groups and bioethicists. A formalalliance never existed, but the de facto alliance was extremelypowerful. An alliance with such a scale is unprecedented in Korean history.There were formal solidarities for several campaigns in different forms, butthey were heterogeneous, loose and hence weak. Only the Catholic Church andsome conservative Protestants among religious groups were critical of Hwang.Feminist and environmental NGOs did not cooperate actively with the Centre forDemocracy in Science and Technology, which alone fought against the ‘Alliance’consistently. The defeat of the ‘Solidarity’ by the ‘Alliance’ was too natural,since these two were incomparable.
The Korean government did very well in the follow upof the Budapest Conference. In an effort to respond to the recommendationsraised by the “Science Agenda – Frame for Action,” the Korean Academy ofScience and Technology (KAST) was given a project: “A Study on the Charter forScientists and Engineers” by the Ministry of Science and Technology in 2002.Having been asked to take the project, I organised an interdisciplinary team of17 researchers. The report containing a draft of the Charter for Scientists andEngineers was submitted after six months. In the midst of the debate on stemcell research in 2004, an ad hoc task force team was formed in the KoreanFederation of Science and Technology Societies (KOFST) to make the Charter forScientists and Engineers at the request of the Presidential Office.
At the outset, we all agreed that the Charter shouldbe for neither scientism nor anti-scientism. It meant that well-balanced viewswere essential. In reality, however, there were fierce fights betweenscientists and non-scientists. While scientists defended pure science, ethicalneutrality of science and freedom of research, humanists and social scientistsemphasised adverse aspects of science and technology, social responsibility andethics. The result of discussions for three months was destined to be acompromise. The Charter turned out a mediocre and dull one.
After Hwang was dishonoured, the main issue nowbecame research ethics. The Ministry of Science and Technology, with the helpof the Science and Technology Policy Institute, hurriedly made a guideline forresearch ethics. The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development hadthe Korea Research Foundation publish a source book in research ethics. Its Committeefor Establishing Research Ethics advised universities and academic societies tomake their guidelines for research ethics. KOFST and KAST were making their owncodes of research ethics respectively. At the last stage, KOFST invited KAST,KAE (The Korean Academe of Engineering) and Korean NatCom for UNESCO to make asingle draft. It was issued as the ‘Code of Ethics for Scientists andEngineers’ in the name of four institutions on the Science Day last week. Ofcourse research integrity is important, but due to the over-emphasis on it,other ethical problems tend to be blurred. Korea badly needs a full-fledged‘Code of Conduct for Scientists and Engineers.’ Last year I proposed a jointproject to make it by three institutions: Korean NatCom for UNESCO, KOFST andKAST to the Ministry of Science and Technology. However, it is to be regrettedthat the government has not shown interest in it.
Korea might be an extreme case. However, I am afraidthat the neglect of human rights and ethics prevails all over Asia except a fewcountries. Confucianism has exerted formidable influence on East Asiancountries and it is a profoundly ethical philosophy. Buddhism, anotherinfluential religion in this area, is well known for its reverence for life. Itis baffling to explain the current situation. I believe that scientism is to beblamed . It is an irony that the scientism, which the West is discarding,became a malignance for Asians. It is a great task for us to weaken scientismto achieve the science with human dignity.
Aronowitz, Stanley, Science as Power (Houndmills:Macmillan, 1988)
Annas, George J. & Michael A. Grodin, TheNazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code (New York: Oxford University Press,1992)
Arditti, Rita, Pat Brennan, Steve Cavrak, eds., Scienceand Liberation (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1980)
Bronowski, J., Science and Human Values (NewYork: Harper, 1956)
Dixon, Bernard, What Is Science for (NewYork: Harper, 1973)
Drenth, Pieter J.D., Jens E. Fenstad, Jan D.Schiereck, eds., European Science and
Scientists between Freedom andResponsibility(Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, 1997)
Ernst, R.R., “The Responsibility of Scientists, aEuropean View,” Angewandte Chemie. International Edition, 42: 37 (2003),4434-4439.
“Ethics and theResponsibility of Science,” Background Paper for the World Conference onScience, Science and Engineering Ethics, 6 (2000), 131-142.
Evers, Kathinka, Standards for Ethics andResponsibility in Science: An analysis and evaluation of their content,background and function (ICSU, 2001)
Fenstad, Jens Erik, “Science between freedom andresponsibility,” European Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2003), 407-416.
Hamano, Kenzo, “Human Rights and Japanese Bioethics,”Bioethics, Vol. 11, No. 3/4 (July 1997), 328-335.
Harris, Sheldon H., Factories of Death. JapaneseBiological Warfare, 1932-45 and
the American Cover-up , RevisedEdition(London: Routledge, 2002)
Holton, Gerald, Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993)
ICSU, ICSU Strategic Review of Science andSociety: Rights and Responsibilities (ICSU, 2005)
Jonsen, Albert R., The Birth of Bioethics (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1998)
Johnson, M. Glen & Janusz Symonides, TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights: A History of Its Creation andImplementation 1948-1998 (Paris: UNESCO, 1998)
Korean National Commission for UNESCO and Science& Technology Policy Institute, A Review of Science and Technology inKorea: Towards a New Contract between Science and Society (A Follow-up tothe 1999 World Conference on Science), 2002.
Koyré, A., From the Closed World to the InfiniteUniverse (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968)
Lipscornbe, Joan & Bill Williams, Are Scienceand Technology Neutral? (London: Butterworths, 1979)
Nakayama, Shigeru, Science Technology and Societyin Postwar Japan (London: Kegan Paul International, 1991)
Nie, Jing-Bao, et al., “A Call for Further Studieson the Ethical Lessons of Japanese Doctors’ Experimentation in Wartime Chinafor Asian and International Bioethics Today,” Eubios Journal of Asian andInternational Bioethics, Vol. 13 (3) (May 2003), 106-107.
Nowotny, Helga & Hilary Rose, eds., Counter-movementsin the Sciences (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979)
Passmore, John, Science and Its Critics (London:Duckworth, 1978)
Ravetz, Jerome R., Scientific Knowledge and its SocialProblems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979)
Regan, Tom, The Case For Animal Rights (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1983)
Resnik, David B., The Ethics of Science. AnIntroduction (London: Routledge, 1998)
Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb(New York: Simon Schuster, 1986)
Rose, Hilary & Steven Rose, Science andSociety (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970)
Shamoo, Adil E. and David B. Resnik, ResponsibleConduct of Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation (London:Pimlico, 1975)
Song Sang-yong, “Origins and development ofAntiscience,” Tao and Human Science (Seoul: Samildang, 1981), pp.385-394.
Song Sang-yong et al., A Study on the Charter forScientists and Engineers, Ministry of Science and Technology, (Korea ,2002), in Korean.
Song Sang-yong, “Human Rights, Science and Ethics,”COMEST Ordinary Session, COMEST, (2006), in Korean.
Song Sang-yong, “Reflections on the UNESCORecommendation of 1974,” Background Paper for the UNESCO Consultation Meetings,2006.
Song, Sang-yong, “The Rise and Fall of EmbryonicStem Cell Research in Korea,” Asian Biotechnology and Development Review,Vol. 9 No. 1 (2006), 65-73.
Ten Have, Henk, “Die Allgemeine Erklärung über Bioethik und Menschenrechte der UNESCO- Entstehungsprozess und Bedeutung,” Allgemeine Erklärung über Bioethik und Menschenrechte - Wegweiser für dieInternationalisierung der Bioethik, Deutsche UNESCO Kommission, (2006),27-36.
Weeramantry, C.G., ed., Human Rights andScientific and Technological Development (New York: United NationsUniversity Press, 1990)
Weeramantry, C.G., ed., The Impact of Technologyon Human Rights – Global Case-Studies (New York: United Nations UniversityPress, 1993)
[*] Editor's note: Invited lecture at the European Patent Office,Munich, Germany on 27 April 2007. Somewhat different versions were presented atthe 3rd East Asian STS Student Workshop, Seoul on 20 November 2008 and at the InternationalConference on Science Education, Daegu on 13 February 2014.
« Prev [Research] “A Magnificent Chain of Biological Stations”: Amer...[Research] “A Magnificent Chain of Biological Stations”: Amer... by HAN Ki Won 〈
[Review Essay] The Purpose of Policy: Political Interests and... Next »[Review Essay] The Purpose of Policy: Political Interests and... by KIM Kyuri 〉
- 제40권 (2018)
- 제39권 (2017)
- 제38권 (2016)
- 제37권 (2015)
- 제36권 (2014)
- 제35권 (2013)
- 제34권 (2012)
- 제33권 (2011)
- 제32권 (2010)
- 제31권 (2009)
- 제30권 (2008)
- 제29권 (2007)
- 제28권 (2006)
- 제27권 (2005)
- 제26권 (2004)
- 제25권 (2003)
- 제24권 (2002)
- 제23권 (2001)
- 제22권 (2000)
- 제21권 (1999)
- 제20권 (1998)
- 제19권 (1997)
- 제18권 (1996)
- 제17권 (1995)
- 제16권 (1994)
- 제15권 (1993)
- 제14권 (1992)
- 제13권 (1991)
- 제12권 (1990)
- 제11권 (1989)
- 제10권 (1988)
- 제9권 (1987)
- 제8권 (1986)
- 제7권 (1985)
- 제6권 (1984)
- 제5권 (1983)
- 제4권 (1982)
- 제3권 (1981)
- 제2권 (1980)
- 제1권 (1979)
[Research] Setting Patterns: The Atypical Choices That Shaped the Career of Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet in Twentieth-Century Australia
[Research] “A Magnificent Chain of Biological Stations”: American Marine Biological Stations and the Beginnings of Marine Science in the United States
HAN Ki Won
[Perspective] Beyond Scientism: Coming of the Ethics of Science
[Review Essay] The Purpose of Policy: Political Interests and Depoliticized Solutions in International Development
Designed by sketchbooks.co.kr / sketchbook5 board skin