«Неприсутні ніколи не мають рації»: міжнародна наукова діяльність українських істориків міжвоєнної Польщі

The purpose of the article is to comprehensively investigate the forms and directions of international activity of Ukrainian historians of interwar Poland based on the analysis of various historiographical literature. The research methodology relies on the use of an interdisciplinary approach. Based on the principles of objectivity and historicism, the research has d the structural-functional systematic analysis of historiographical facts and the comparative-historical method. The article has used the heuristic possibilities of periodisation, classification and typology methods. The scientific novelty of the article consists in an attempt to comprehensively reconstruct the participation of Ukrainian historians of interwar Poland in international scientific cooperation. Conclusions. Despite the generally repressive cultural policies of the Polish government, Ukrainian historians in the Second Polish Republic generally adapted well to the difficult political and financial circumstances. Giving a proper response to numerous socio-political and cultural challenges, they managed to preserve the traditions formed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Mainly traditions of international scientific cooperation and, despite constant financial problems, Ukrainian free socio-humanitarianism in foreign forums. In terms of institutions, international scientific cooperation was most actively established by the members of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Warsaw. This cultural activity gained special national importance in the 1930s of the 20th century, when Ukrainian socio-humanitarianism was subjected to devastating repression under the Soviet occupation. In general, in the conditions of stateless existence at the time, the international scientific cooperation developed by Ukrainian historians in the Second Polish Republic was a kind of cultural diplomacy, realizing the important task of establishing the political subjectivity of Ukrainians.

This seventh Synthesis with the Science Diplomacy Action serial emerged from the panel session on Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, which was convened during the Arctic Circle Japan Forum in Tokyo on 5 March 2023. This session built on transdisciplinary dialogues with the February-March 2022 webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, which was funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan with coordination and logistics provided by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), as represented in Synthesis 6. Dialogues in both venues were strongly influence by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war with consequences for international Arctic scientific cooperation, as reflected by the 3 March 2022 “pausing” of the Arctic Council. With this background, the Arctic Circle Japan Forum session addressed three questions: 1. How can nations maintain as well as enhance international Arctic scientific cooperation, especially in the context of Open Science? 2. How can individual scientists work with ministries to build Open Science inclusively during times of geopolitical strain? 3. How can ministries facilitate continuity with the Arctic Council inclusively beyond the Arctic Council chairship rotation from Russia to Norway in May 2023? The panel involved leaders from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), National Institute for Polar Research (NIPR), Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Science Diplomacy Center™ and the University of the Arctic (UArctic). Panelists’ international perspectives from Finland, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States are represented in the transcript of their panel dialogue, which is reproduced herein to provide insights about continuity with international scientific cooperation and Open Science inclusively to achieve progress with Pan-Arctic sustainable development.

The article analyzes the role of China in the most important areas of international scientific cooperation in the Arctic, in which non-Arctic players are involved along with the Arctic countries. The legal basis for scientific cooperation in the Arctic is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the other is the Arctic Council. In 2013, China became the official observer state of the Arctic Council, thus taking an important step towards participating in Arctic international cooperation. Despite the fact that China is a non-Arctic country, factors such as climate change in the Arctic, the prospects for the development of the region’s resources and the Arctic Channel contribute to China’s interest in the Arctic and its policy towards the region. Taking into account the interests of China in the Arctic, as well as the legal framework and responsibility in the Arctic, under the existing mechanisms of international cooperation in the Arctic, China is involved in a number of Arctic international scientific research, mainly in the field of natural sciences. At the same time, China introduced its new platform for international cooperation in the Arctic – the Polar Silk Road, which is making some progress in international scientific cooperation.

The aspects of Russia's international scientific cooperation are analyzed in the article from viewpoint of quality and quantity. The upscale of disciplinary and geographical frameworks of international cooperation, development of new interaction instruments and forms are documented. However, at ministerial level, there is still no sufficiently distinct stance on national priorities in the scientific and innovative development, and thus on priorities in the international cooperation sphere. The latter cannot develop beyond a broader economic and political context, and its success depends on what domestic conditions are created to perform the exploratory activity.

The importance of cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union is described in the article. The priority directions of research and innovation activity of the EU countries in the field of energy are considered. The key strategic directions of the state energy policy of Ukraine are described, taking into account the country’s European integration course. The state and main problems of the development of the energy sector are analyzed. The trends of energy generation from renewable sources and possibilities of development of this sphere in Ukraine are determined. The necessity of the country’s participation in international scientific and technical cooperation in the energy sector, primarily with the EU are substantiated. Ukraine's declared pro-European orientation requires an appropriate activity strategy, which involves taking into account European standards of production and economic development. Thus, the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU opens up significant prospects for international scientific and technical cooperation of Ukrainian industrial enterprises, in particular energy enterprises, which are determined by greater involvement in innovative and technological projects of the EU, expanding access to capacious European sales markets, using Ukraine's opportunities for attraction of foreign investments and technology transfer, as well as participation in various EU development programs. At the same time, this requires not only the establishment of new priorities for the development of the energy sector, but also their achievement in the medium and long term. The process of international scientific and technical cooperation in the European Union plays a key role in the development of the economy, since the further strengthening of the EU's position on the world stage depends on the effectiveness of the involvement in the process of solving the problems of scientific and technical development of the potentials not only of the Commonwealth of Nations, but also of the entire European region. For this purpose, the European Commission has developed a plan for the creation of the "European Scientific Space", a special place in which cooperation with developing countries and countries with transition economies is given.

The purpose of our research was to study the transformation of international Eurasian scientific and technical interaction within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (hereinafter—SCO). The methodological basis of the study is formed by comparative legal and formal-legal methods. The method of comparative legal analysis is aimed at comparing the legal regulation of scientific and technical cooperation in the SCO member states. The method of formal and legal analysis was used to interpret legal acts of the SCO member-states aimed at developing legal and institutional basis for mutually beneficial cooperation in science and technology. The relevance of the study is predetermined by the growing influence of the development of science and technology within the framework of interstate organizations. The novelty of the work is due to the small degree of study of the problem of international Eurasian scientific and technical cooperation. The study analyzed ways to intensify international scientific and technical cooperation within the SCO, including the establishment of commissions or councils on scientific and technical cooperation, development of model legal acts aimed at creating a legal framework for the development of international relations in the field of science, the formation of special funds to finance research, as well as the adoption of a new agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between the SCO member-states. As a result of the research, the authors conclude that in order to develop international Eurasian scientific and technical cooperation, a number of legal, institutional and organizational and financial measures are required.

International activities of public laboratories in Canada

This is a curious book—part oral history of scientists engaged in international scientific cooperation, part commentary on the differences between Soviet-style science and U.S. scientific research, part history and analysis of U.S./USSR scientific cooperation, and part observation of the impact of scientific cooperation on foreign affairs after the fall of the Soviet Union. Sher, who was engaged for many years in the management of exchange programs between the United States and the Soviet Union and later Russia, speaks with knowledge and experience of the many programs begun in the dying days of the Soviet Union and continued thereafter. In particular, he chronicles the efforts to save what was left of the Russian scientific establishment after 1991 and restore it to some semblance of its previous status.Sher is a good writer; many of his examples and vignettes are engaging and informative. But he is neither a historian nor a scientist, though he is knowledgeable about the methods of both history and science. Much of the book is devoted to a history, as he experienced it, of the science agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union shortly before 1991, and then a detailed history of the relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because of his focus on the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath, he has little to say about the years immediately after World War II, a period with its own revealing lessons of scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union. The centerpiece of the book, however, is an annotated history of experience in the programs of cooperation with the “new” Russia, presented in the words of the participants along with commentary interpolated by Sher. Problems, successes, scientific accomplishments, foreign-policy effects, human impacts, and bureaucratic difficulties are described, usually in the words of those engaged in the programs, occasionally by foreign-policy officials.The book does not fit into any specific realm of analysis—neither the history of science, international affairs, nor bureaucratic politics. Rather, it is a personal memoir analyzing Sher’s experiences in a little-studied area of international scientific cooperation. There have been other more typical disciplinary analyses of international scientific cooperation from the perspective of international affairs, as well as of the Russian state's influence on international policy after the Soviet Union's demise, the relevance of scientific cooperation to strategic issues, or even the relationship of research to scientific advance. Sher offers suggestions about how international cooperation affects these areas and makes several points about their relevance to foreign policy, though they tend to be anecdotal and sometimes based on personal reflections about prominent officials (Henry Kissinger takes his lumps) or about the Department of State in general. The occasional digressions of that kind, even when deserved, do not point to an underlying disciplinary analysis.Notwithstanding the personal nature of the history presented, the material does make contributions to specific disciplinary areas. Many of the comments about the differences between the structure and assumptions of the Russian/Soviet style of scientific research and that of the West, particularly the United States, are instructive and useful inputs to the history of science. The interesting and intriguing views that Sher is able to obtain from significant actors in cooperative programs often help to illustrate many of the problems and successes encountered in the cooperative research programs. They provide useful cautions about issues that can arise in cooperative efforts across nations and cultures. This book is largely a personal memoir, interesting but not a discipline-based or interdisciplinary analysis.

This article is devoted to the study of theoretical and legal ideas about scientific sanctions and their political and legal nature, as well as an analysis of their impact on the publication activity of Russian scientists in foreign publications. In modern conditions of geopolitical and geo-economic turbulence, sanctions policy has a restraining effect on the development of scientific and technological potential. In this connection, the purpose of the study is to conceptually generalize the legal nature of scientific sanctions, identify existing barriers to international scientific and technical cooperation and find ways to overcome them. Sanctions policy is represented by various forms of generating difficulties in the sphere of participation of certain states in international network collaborations and established forms of cooperation. The legal basis of sanctions policy is the unilateral termination of contractual relations, which causes damage not only to the state against which sanctions are imposed, but also to the state that imposes sanctions. As a way to respond to sanctions challenges in the field of scientific and technological development, the dynamic development and implementation of innovative measures to support the national scientific and scientific-technical sector is proposed. As measures to increase the publication activity of Russian scientists in foreign publications, it is seen, first of all, the need to form and implement a special state policy as an integral part of the state scientific and technical policy in the field of international cooperation, since its development in these conditions cannot be limited only to the initiatives of scientific subjects and scientific and technical activities. In particular, it seems possible to change the geographical directions of international scientific and technical cooperation. This also involves encouraging friendly countries to harmonize foreign and domestic policies in the field of science, technology and innovation, as well as to harmonize national legislation and improve the functioning of organizational and legal mechanisms of cooperation.

This study focuses on Brazil’s international co-operation in science and technology (S&T), notably technical transfers to the semiarid branch of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) from the early 1990s onwards. It is based on interviews with Embrapa personnel, as well as literature and documentary reviews. It starts by outlining a conceptual framework. Next, it examines Brazil’s Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy, and compares this policy and actual S&T co-operation initiatives in order to establish whether they converge or diverge. The co-operation in question involved a diversified agenda aimed at meeting global demands, encompassing issues such as the green economy, clean and renewable energy, climate change and desertification, species extinction threats, social technologies, and biodiversity. The study shows that international collaboration in the period under review largely conformed with Brazil’s STI policy. However, it identifies some gaps and areas of concern, notably a degree of fragmentation between the macro and micro levels of co-operation, which should be effectively managed if S&T collaboration is to consolidate Brazil’s international role and its geo-political interests.

Bioinformatics, robust realm based upon multidisciplinary knowledge of biological data and computational techniques

This article assesses and explains the emergence, forms and extent of the EU-US science and research relations. It does so through the lens of ‘soft power’ since international cooperation in science and research is increasingly seen as an instrument of ‘soft power’ and a mechanism for improving international relations more generally. Drawing on the concept of ‘actorness’ I argue that the forms of engagement with the US are limited to a ‘laissez faire’ approach combined with elements of ‘science diplomacy’. However, there is no evidence that the EU uses science and research actively as a ‘soft power’ tool by trying to shape the behaviour of actors in order to push for policy outcomes the EU wants to see in other policy areas. As long as science and research policy in the EU is characterized by both a highly fragmented governance structure, and competitiveness and sovereignty concerns amongst Member States, the use of science and research as a ‘soft power’ tool in transatlantic relations remains uncharted territory.

International co-operation in science between the West and the third world often follows neo-colonial patterns. In this article these patterns are quantified, using the science of bibliometrics. The authors suggest methods to create a ‘Neo-Colonial Relations Index’, in which the neo-colonial dependency in science of the various countries is put on a scale. This allows such dependency to be placed in a comparative framework. These data are then linked to qualitative analysis that puts scientific relations into perspective. Thus, it is demonstrated that Africa south of the Sahara is the scientific backyard of West Europe, and that the intellectual domination of the West is growing rather than diminishing. Finally there is a recommendation for a change in European science policy.

International cooperation in science, technology, and health, challenges and perspectives

Creating international linkages in science and technology (S&T) can benefit many of the parties involved. Political and scientific benefits are often intertwined. This report has three goals in studying the efficiency and effectiveness of government-sponsored collaboration: (1) to improve understanding of the dynamics of international collaboration in S&T, (2) to provide tools for policymakers seeking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of collaboration, and (3) to coordinate with analysts conducting similar studies in different countries. This report draws lessons from four case studies and further presents key questions that emerged to be used as a guide for those seeking to formulate similar collaborative programs. The authors find that distributed research is an effective form of collaboration and that national benefits include goodwill and access to key resources.