The Right for Development:
Innovations as the Global Common
degree seeker, Department of Integration Processes, MGIMO University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor, Professor of the RAS, Academic Director of the European Studies Institute, MGIMO University; Program Director, Valdai Discussion Club, email@example.com
Buy a digital version in Polismag
Inequality persists in the modern world, manifesting itself both in the socio-economic and informational spheres, and the scientific, technological, and innovative ones. The authors of the article are trying to answer the question of whether inequality can be overcome. The authors proceed from the theory of the global commons, which considers scientific, technological, and innovative development as the global commons. Moreover, according to this logic, the right to scientific, technological, and innovative development – understood as an individual and collective right, which logically fits into the process of the evolution of human rights – and the concept of the right to scientific, technological and innovative development are based on ideas of the innovative sovereignty of all states – the fundamental equality of all states in the right to innovate and develop technologies necessary to solve global problems. This right has been historically associated with decolonization, and the necessity for guaranteeing rights for the realization of human potential as a condition for realizing all other political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights. The authors of the article compare modern approaches to overcoming the problems of scientific, technological, and innovative inequality in the world, and analyze issues relating to the openness of science, the democratization of the process of creating innovations, and the transition to “open innovation”.
Buy a digital version in Polismag
Allen D., Potts J. 2015. The Innovation Commons – Why It Exists, What It Does, Who It Benefits, and How. Commons biannual global conference, Edmonton, Canada, 25-29 May.
Allen D.W.E., Potts J. 2016. How Innovation Commons Contribute to Discovering and Developing New Technologies. – International Journal of the Commons. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 1035-1054. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.644
Bornmann L. 2017. Is Collaboration Among Scientists Related to the Citation Impact of Papers Because Their Quality Increases With Collaboration? an Analysis Based on Data From f1000prime and Normalized Citation Scores. – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. No. 68. P. 1036-1047.
Boyle J. 2007. Mertonianism Unbound? Imagining Free Decentralized Access to Most Cultural and Scientific Material. – Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Ed. by Ch. Hess, E. Ostrom. London, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. P. 123-144.
Calestous J. 2018. Exponential Innovation and Human Rights. Implications for Science and Technology Diplomacy. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Paper.
Cornescu A.V. 2009. The Generations Of Human’s Rights. Dny prava – 2009 – Days of Law: the Conference Proceedings, 1 edition. Brno: Masaryk University. P. 1-11.
Cribb J., Sari T. 2010. Open Science: Sharing. Knowledge in the Global Century. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO.
Dubickis M., Gaile-Sarkane E. 2015. Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. No. 213. P. 965-970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.512
Fecher B., Friesike S. 2014. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. – Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Ed. by Bartling S., Friesike S. Springer, Cham, P. 17-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Franzoni Ch., Sauermann H. 2014. Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects. – Research Policy. Vol. 43. No. 1. P. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005
Greene H. 2010. Patent Pooling Behind the Veil Of Uncertainty: Antitrust, Competition Policy, And The Vaccine Industry. – Boston University Law Review. Vol. 90. P. 1397-1456.
Hardin G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. – Science, New Series. Vol. 162. No. 3859. P. 1243-1248.
Henderson H. 2015. The Politics of the Solar Age: 1975-2015. – Cadmus. Vol. 2. No. 5. P. 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756715602223
Henriksen D. 2016. The Rise in Co-Authorship in the Social Sciences (1980–2013). – Scientometrics. Vol. 107. P. 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
Hunter L., Leahey E. 2008. Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors. – The American Sociologist. No. 39(4). P. 290-306.
Kaul I. 2013. Global Public Goods. A concept for framing the Post-2015 Agenda? – Deutsches Institut fur Entwicklungspolitik (German Development Institute) Discussion Paper. No. 2. 49 p.
Lakhani K.R., Panetta J.A. 2007. The Principles of Distributed Innovation. – Innovations. No. 3. P. 97-112.
Mayer K. 2015. From Science 2.0 to Open Science – Turning Rhetoric into Action? – STCSN E-Letter. Vol. 3. No. 1.
Mormina M. 2019. Science, Technology and Innovation as Social Goods for Development: Rethinking Research Capacity Building from Sen’s Capabilities Approach. – Science and Engineering Ethics. No. 25(3). P. 671-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0037-1
Ossenblok T., Verleysen F., Engels T. 2014. Coauthorship of Journal Articles and Book Chapters in the Social Sciences and Humanities (2000-2010). – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 65. No. 5. P. 882-897. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23015
Pohulak-Żołędowska E. 2014. “The Common-Pool Resources” in the Open Innovation Process. – The Wroclaw School of Banking Research Journal. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 75-86.
Raddick J., Bracey G., Gay P., Lintott J.C., Cardamone C., Murray P., Schawinski K., Szalay A., Vandenberg J. 2013. Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of Citizen Scientists. – Astronomy Education Review. Vol. 12. No. 1. https://www.doi.org/10.3847/AER2011021
Schweik Ch.M., English R.C. 2012. Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Sen A. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor.
Sen A. 2003. Development as Capability Expansion. – Readings in Human Development. Ed. by Fukuda-Parr S. New Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. P. 3-16.
Smith K. 2017. Innovating for the Global Commons: Multilateral Collaboration in a Polycentric World. – Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw039
Stern P.C. 2011. Design Principles for Global Commons: Natural Resources and Emerging Technologies. – International Journal of the Commons. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 213-232.
The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain. Proceedings of a Symposium Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain, Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs. 2003. National Research Council.
The United Nations: Policy and Financing Alternatives: Innovative Proposals by Visionary Leaders. 1995. Ed. by H. Cleveland, H. Henderson, I. Kaul. Washington, D.C.: Global Commission to Fund the United Nations.
Torrance A.W., Hippel E. von. 2015. The Right to Innovate. – Michigan State Law Review. No. 793. P. 793-829.
Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. 2007. Ed. by Ch. Hess, E. Ostrom. London, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Vogt T. 2016. How Fast Should We Innovate? – Journal of Responsible Innovation. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1258941
Afontsev S.A. 2010. Politicheskiye rynki i ekonomicheskaya politika [Political Markets and Economic Policy]. Moscow: KomKniga. (In Russ.)
Barabanov O.N., Savorskaya E.V. 2018. Global’nyye ekologicheskiye ideologii: mozhno li razreshit’ konflikt cheloveka i prirody? Doklad mezhdunarodnogo diskussionnogo kluba “Valday” [Global Ecological Ideologies: Is It Possible to Resolve the Conflict Between Man and Nature? Report of the Valdai International Discussion Club]. Moscow. MDK “Valdai”. (In Russ.)
Barabanov O.N., Maslova E.A. 2019. The Concept of “Global Commons” as a Factor of Global Instability. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 63. No. 8. P. 55-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-8-55-63
Ibragimova К.А. 2017. EU Science Diplomacy and Framework Programs as Instruments of STI Cooperation. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 5. P. 151-168. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2017-5-56-151-168
Ibragimova K.A., Barabanov O.N. 2018. On the Prospects of Russian Scientific Diplomacy. – Vestnik Rossiyskogo fonda fundamental’nykh issledovaniy. No. 1 (97). P. 54-59. (In Russ.)
Svoboda. Ravenstvo. Prava cheloveka [Freedom. Equality. Human rights]. 1997. Moscow: Memorial. (In Russ.)
The Gifted Youth, and Development of New Educational Technologies as a Political Problem. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No2
Why the Intellectual Class of Russia Needs a Party of Its Own. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No3
The demon of law. Russian law as escaping reality. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No2
Individual, group, collective and general rights under the conditions of multiculturalism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6
Subdiscipline: Information technologies in politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No5