ABSTRACT
The letter “S,” signifying science, was a November 1945 addition to the UNESCO acronym and constitution. The Cambridge scientist Joseph Needham is widely credited for pushing the cause of science during the CAME negotiations, especially in the three memoranda he sent to the scientific communities worldwide in 1944-45. The 1945 insertion of S in the organization’s name is publicized in the organization’s histories mostly in positive ways; scientific methods and outlook can be taken to presage progress and, therefore, the explicit inclusion of science in the organization’s agenda links science to the cultures of peace and prosperity. On the other hand, its late insertion is also sometimes understood as a lack of prominence given to science. Science continues to be a poor cousin to other goals at UNESCO and the staffers in these sectors bemoan that science often gets left out at important General Conference and Executive Board meetings unless prominent delegates or officials push its cause. The UNESCO Preamble and Constitution make it clear that edu-
cation, science, and culture are to be fostered for the sake of peace. Article 1 of the Constitution is instructive: “The purpose of the Organization is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture.…” However, it is unclear if links to peace and security through the program are to be direct or indirect. In a direct sense, scientists might be asked to participate in projects that lead to peaceful uses of basic science research or in projects that seek to enlighten people on the causes of racial prejudice. Indirectly, a focus on the environment might speak to the long-term sustainability of the planet. Nevertheless, this ambiguity in meaning can be problematic: in the indirect connections, the links to peace and prosperity may be unclear. In the direct approach, there may be some overreach in trying to foster peace through limited budgets and resources. Nevertheless, both directly and indirectly UNESCO
envisions a positive role for science. Enlightenment and humanism inform the approach to science, especially in reaction to the Nazi era context where science had been enlisted for the purposes of fascism, militarism and ideas of racial purity. In actuality science encompasses two sectors at UNESCO: one is nat-
ural sciences and the other is social and human sciences. As shown in Table 1.1, the natural, and social and human sciences respectively account for 19 percent and 8 percent of the regular sectoral outlays for the 2010/11 biennial. Interestingly, however, the two sub-sectors also account for nearly half of the extra-budgetary outlays for the sectors. Historically, the outlays for the two sectors have hovered around the 25 percent mark. The following sections analyze the workof the two sub-sectors-natural
sciences, and social and human sciences (SHS)—collectively. Unlike the other sectors in UNESCO, it is hard to find a single narrative or a major debate that has dominated these sectors. The “story” about these sectors is thus generally a patchwork of initiatives-this may be their major critique as well. The chapter first details the normative ideals fostered by the sectors, followed by a discussion of the multi-actor networks involved in the sciences. Norms here refer to general prescriptions for action designed at UNESCO and not just legal instruments such as conventions or declarations: unlike other sectors in UNESCO there are very few legal instruments for these two sectors at UNESCO (see Box 3.1). The last section presents a few of the specific programs and projects that the sectors have undertaken.
