9th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI), Junio 18 al 21. Grecia, Santorini (Thera).
ABSTRACT: The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential –not just the pursuit of quantitative growth– and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and social dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face the challenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up of theoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.
9th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI), Junio 18 al 21. Grecia, Santorini (Thera).
ABSTRACT: The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential –not just the pursuit of quantitative growth– and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and social dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face the challenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up of theoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.
9th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI), Junio 18 al 21. Grecia, Santorini (Thera).
ABSTRACT: The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential –not just the pursuit of quantitative growth– and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and social dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face the challenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up of theoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.
Miguel Briceo Central University of Venezuela mibricen@reacciun.ve
Abstract
The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential not just the pursuit of quantitative growth and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and social dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face the challenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up of theoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.
Limits posed by disciplinary sciences to sustainability
In what way, if any, does sustainable development pose S&T challenges that differ from other major challenges of our times, such as globalization, economic competitiveness, and so on? Two years ago, a group of specialists of the Latin American and Caribbean region met in Santiago, Chile, in order to find an answer to this question. In the final report of this Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development held by ECLAC 1 , participants came to the conclusion that in many instances, it is becoming clear that the predominant approach in S&T is exhibiting major shortcomings, and that in a significant number of important cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. However, they still acknowledged the fact that major advances due to specialization within a number of disciplines have contributed to improving the quality of life of millions of human beings. According to specialists, a number of processes have played a part in this. One of these is the fundamental uncertainty introduced both by our limited understanding of human and ecological processes and the intrinsic indeterminism of complex dynamic systems (including human components, man-made infrastructure and artificial objects, and
1 ECLAC. (2002). Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile, 5-7 March 2002. 2 natural components) that comprise the subject of sustainable development, and by the myriad of human purposes and choices. The current historical context exhibits major differences to the relatively recent past. On the one hand, the world is moving through a period of extraordinary turbulence and volatility reflecting the economic, cultural, social and political processes associated with globalization. In addition the speed and magnitude of global change, the increasing connectedness of the social and natural systems at the planetary level, and the growing complexity of societies and of their impacts upon the biosphere, result in a high level of uncertainty and unpredictability. On the other hand, current trends are proving to be ecologically and socially unsustainable. In recent years millions of the regions inhabitants have slid into poverty and live in deteriorated environmental conditions. In this respect, problems and situations have become increasingly complex in recent decades. According to the workshops participants, the main reasons for this include: Ontological changes: many human-induced changes in the nature of the real world are proceeding at unprecedented rates and are resulting in growing connectivity among processes and phenomena at different levels. Epistemological changes: changes in our understanding of the world related to the modern scientific awareness of the behavior of complex systems, including indeterminism, self-organization and emergent properties. Changes in the nature of decision-making: in many parts of the world, a more participatory style of decision-making and government, together with the widening acceptance of additional criteria such as the environment, human rights, gender, and others, as well as the emergence of new social and economic actors such as non- governmental organizations and transnational corporations, has increased the number of dimensions used to define issues, goals and solutions and hence augmented the complexity of decisions. In short, increasing complexity and connectedness mean that the components of problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. The above described situation represents an exceptional challenge to science and technology, particularly to the analytical compartmentalization of disciplines, which represents the bulk of activities and priorities of current S&T systems in both north and south. In the face of the need for a holistic or systemic approach to sustainable development problems, together with the associated epistemological, methodological, strategic and institutional implications, the workshops participants proposed to develop a regional vision taking into account the specific features, problems and opportunities of the region. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential not just the pursuit of quantitative growth and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and social dimensions. For the workshops participants, it is becoming increasingly clear that sustainable development requires the coordination of measures at the local or micro level (at which many of the problems are manifested and solutions are put into practice) and the macro national and international level (policies, agreements, economic instruments which 3 help to create an environment that is conducive to and supportive of micro actions). It is also clear to them that not all sustainable development problems have a technological solution; in fact, the deep-rooted ecological and social unsustainability of world development patterns reflect more the asymmetries of economic, political and military power that characterize our time, rather than technical or demographic factors.
Methodological challenges that shall be overcome
Sustainable development, its requirements on inter-disciplinarity and the need for an integrated approach to attain it, pose the need to examine a number of epistemological issues, which in this case are highly related to management and decision-making processes aimed at the practical achievement of sustainability. To be able to examine interdisciplinarity and then transdisciplinarity, we shall first dwell on a number of key issues such as the unit or units of analysis to be used, the issue of integration, and the criteria of truth. In this sense, the recognition that human (social, economic, etc.) activities and the environment are coupled and therefore mutually determined systems (as well as strongly non-linear, complex and self-organizing) leads to the conclusion that the main unit of analysis must encompass the total coupled system or socioecological system (defined at the scale appropriate for the problem considered) and the associated processes. An integrated approach to research and to the management of these systems for sustainable development is therefore required. This integration may have several facets (among disciplines, between science and policies, between understanding and action, among spatial-temporal scales, among quantitative and qualitative factors, and among science and other forms of knowledge). In the research sphere, integration implies the adoption of a systemic approach of complex systems (the scientific study of wholes) and an inter-disciplinary or even trans-disciplinary research style. For this reason, and within the framework of the analysis presented here, the specialists that took part in the workshop considered the following issues to be key challenges:
1. Methodologies relating to supradisciplinary approaches. Sustainable development can be approached from many different disciplines, but none of these alone can provide an answer to the main problems of sustainable development. Moreover, a multidisciplinary team can contribute little if the experts from each discipline limit themselves to producing a technically correct vision of their own specialty, and lack the ability or willingness to combine their knowledge with that of other disciplines. The step from the multidisciplinary to the interdisciplinary (and then to the trans-disciplinary) level requires the development of team work and methodologies articulating different sciences (and even different areas of expertise within the same science), which, in terms of their application to sustainable development-related disciplines, are still in their infancy and need to be developed.
2. Methodologies relating to prediction of events and situations. The interdisciplinary approach, especially in relation to sustainable development, tends to involve long-term time horizons. There is also a conflict between the time scales of sustainability and political decision-making, which means that methodologies for anticipating problems need to be strengthened. In this respect, scenario-building, 4 mathematical modeling and trend studies are examples of methodological proceedings that should be put to good use.
3. Methodologies relating to monitoring and impact indicators. Given that human activity has a cumulative effect on natural resources, studies should be based on the evolution of a range of sustainability indicators. It is therefore necessary to identify the most crucial sustainable development indicators and monitor them over the long term.
4. Methodologies for the rigorous processing of qualitative variables. Many of the variables and processes that are important for sustainable development are by nature qualitative (e.g. cultural and political factors). In many cases, although the variables and relations are quantifiable in principle, in practice it is very difficult to arrive at an estimate of the corresponding values. It is therefore essential to develop scientific methodologies of qualitative analysis which are logically rigorous, verifiable and reproducible.
5. Methodologies relating to kinds of knowledge. The Latin American and Caribbean region is home to a wealth of traditional/local knowledge. Scientific knowledge and other kinds of knowledge are potentially complementary. Indigenous and rural knowledge is the result of many centuries and sometimes millennia of accumulated wisdom on how to use and live alongside natural resources. For this region it is important to develop methodologies to integrate this knowledge into conventional scientific/technological systems.
6. Methodologies for establishing priorities, monitoring and evaluation of innovation. S&T institutions usually have a weak capacity to communicate with political decision-makers, which must be reinforced. The same problem can be found in the implementation of innovations at the local level. In order to improve those relationships it is necessary to identify new methods to communicate the opportunities and threats scientists identify and technologists develop. Comprehensible models and simple and realistic indicators are needed for political decision-makers, community members and for non-experts who can participate and help in monitoring. The development of methodologies for Science-Policy and Science-Community dialogues is an important strategy.
7. Research strategies.
a. The design of strategies should be based on prospective studies, assessments of regional capacity, research agendas driven by the needs of users and strategies to promote changes in attitudes. In this respect, research strategies must be comprehensive and must provide the opportunity to implement models for the analysis of complex systems and the use of modern tools. b. It is essential to mobilize scientific and technological know-how in order to identify and achieve alternative forms of integration into the world economy, using technological innovation as a contribution to sustainable 5 development. Any strategy must take into account the effect of the reduction of the role of the State on research. There is a need to design options to secure financing for knowledge generation in order to preserve biological and cultural wealth and monitor and control the appropriate use of resources. c. Civil society and its organizations should be engaged in all the phases of scientific research that affect them or is pertinent, from the conception of the project and the definition of objectives, rationale and expected outputs, to the enjoyment of the benefits resulting from the research. This will require a combination of research and societal learning, including elements of collective action, innovative public policies and broad social experimentation. d. It is essential to work with all social groups to understand how they develop their know-how and conduct social practices. In this context, mechanisms should be created to report on the social relevance of scientific and technological research and to secure the transfer and return of knowledge to all the actors involved. The generation of knowledge for sustainable development requires efforts that transcend national borders and institutional and financial mechanisms that can operate at a supranational level. Sources of funding that are stable and reliable over time are also crucial for scientific and technological research activities.
Sustainability principles that shall be shared
The attainment of such interdisciplinarity would require the consideration of a range of basic shared criteria that shall serve as guidelines in the process that started with destabilization. The Hannover Principles for Sustainability 2 prepared for the Worlds Fair EXPO 2000 could serve this purpose. These principles are:
1. Insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition. 2. Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale. Expand design considerations to recognizing even distant effects. 3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human settlement including community, dwelling, industry and trade in terms of existing and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness. 4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well- being, the viability of natural systems and their right to co-exist. 5. Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due to the careless creation of products, processes or standards. 6. Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full life-cycle of products and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.
2 The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover, Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.
6 7. Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently and safely for responsible use. 8. Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever and design does not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience to be evaded or controlled. 9. Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers and users to link long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and re-establish the integral relationship between natural processes and human activity.
The Hanover Principles should be seen as a living document committed to the transformation and growth in the understanding of our interdependence with nature, so that they may adapt as our knowledge of the world evolves.
Theory resources that shall be applied
Intersubjectivity and hybridity
Bringing together different disciplines is not enough for the practice of interdisciplinarity. The mere encounter of different knowledges does not automatically result in an interdisciplinary research study. In general terms, interdisciplinary research could be defined as the confrontation of different organized or disciplinary knowledges, which in the field of environment, sustainability and within a certain (empirical) spatial- temporal framework allow for the design of research strategies that are different to those that would be applied separately if such interaction had not taken place. The theoretical and methodological control is attained through the permanent change of the research subjects (authors and actors), which constitutes the intersubjective control of research. Although an interdisciplinary research study shall not apply within other contexts or groupings of different types of knowledge, its methodologies and results are far from just repeating the dynamics of disciplinary research, both in terms of theoretical-methodological dimensions, or results and learning processes in the subject-object-subject relations. When carrying out interdisciplinary work the researcher is not isolated anymore, taking refuge behind their desk in the solitude of their office dealing with their particular disciplinary object. The idea is not to eliminate individual production and creation, but to prevent this process from resulting in a few intersubjective biases. Within an interdisciplinary framework of research, what is subjective becomes intersubjective and objective at the same time. There is a constant exchange of subjectivities and multiple deliberate actions towards the construction of objectivities. The understanding of interdisciplinary work is a theoretical exercise that demands reflection on the very process taking place and on its conclusion. It is an important intellectual resource, whose use has significant implications. It is not easy to identify the boundaries among the different knowledges. The confrontation of personal experiences at different levels is, in fact, a reunion of successive actions of approaching, amalgamating, 7 excluding and incorporating information, concepts and opinions that are permanently being created and recreated throughout the intellectual evolution of an individual. Therefore, hybridity of knowledges can be found in the intellectual evolution of both an individual and a social group. In this sense, interdisciplinary construction is considered a result of hybridity (or dialog of knowledges), but hybridity is not always necessarily interdisciplinary, since it requires a deliberate, explicit, controllable and selective intention. We are talking about a construction resulting from a research action carried out by different researchers working on the basis of their own logics and disciplinary procedures. There is a difference between a weak and a strong hybridity of knowledges. The former would not be explicitly aimed at producing a kind of knowledge that is different from the disciplinary one. The latter to be found in a context of interdisciplinarity does not give priority to one type of knowledge over the others, since all knowledges taking part are oriented towards the research on socio-environmental problems without trying to individually impose objects or logics during the process of common knowledge construction.
Complex systems and self-organization
The theoretical discussion on interdisciplinarity demands a profound reflection on the notions of complex systems and self-organized whole 3 . Interdisciplinarity does not emerge spontaneously from the different knowledges. When reality is reevaluated, there is a need to recreate it in a different way, and when classified in a different manner, it is given another meaning through other analysis categories. These categories imply another perception and understanding of the world, while they suggest other ways to appropriate/affect it. Thus, new epistemological referents are essential in interdisciplinary practices within the society-nature framework.
Complexity
Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define 4 . The dozens of definitions that have been offered all fall short in one respect or another, classifying something as complex which we intuitively would see as simple, or denying an obviously complex phenomenon the label of complexity. Moreover, these definitions are either only applicable to a very restricted domain, such as computer algorithms or genomes, or so vague as to be almost meaningless. Bruce Edmonds 5 , from the Centre for Policy Modelling of the Manchester Metropolitan University, gives a good review of the different definitions and their shortcomings, concluding that complexity necessarily depends on the language that is used to model the system. Still, it seems to be a common, objective core in the different
3 Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental. Barcelona: Gedisa. 4 Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html 5 Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
8 concepts of complexity. The original Latin word complexus signifies entwined, twisted together. This may be interpreted in the following way: in order to have a complex you need two or more components, which are joined in such a way that it is difficult to separate them. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines something as complex if it is made of (usually several) closely connected parts. Here we find the basic duality between parts which are at the same time distinct and connected. Intuitively then, a system would be more complex if more parts could be distinguished, and if more connections between them existed. More parts to be represented means more extensive models, which require more time to be searched or computed. Since the components of a complex cannot be separated without destroying it, the method of analysis or decomposition into independent modules cannot be used to develop or simplify such models. This implies that complex entities will be difficult to model, that eventual models will be difficult to use for prediction or control, and that problems will be difficult to solve. This accounts for the connotation of difficult, which the word complex has received in later periods. The aspects of distinction and connection determine two dimensions characterizing complexity. Distinction corresponds to variety, to heterogeneity, to the fact that different parts of the complex behave differently. Connection corresponds to constraint, to redundancy, to the fact that different parts are not independent, but that the knowledge of one part allows the determination of features of the other parts. Distinction leads in the limit to disorder, chaos or entropy, like in a gas, where the position of any gas molecule is completely independent of the position of the other molecules. Connection leads to order or negentropy, like in a perfect crystal, where the position of a molecule is completely determined by the positions of the neighboring molecules to which it is bound. Complexity can only exist if both aspects are present: neither perfect disorder (which can be described statistically through the law of large numbers), nor perfect order (which can be described by traditional deterministic methods) are complex. It thus can be said to be situated in between order and disorder, or, using a recently fashionable expression, on the edge of chaos. The simplest way to model order is through the concept of symmetry, i.e. invariance of a pattern under a group of transformations. In symmetric patterns one part of the pattern is sufficient to reconstruct the whole. For example, in order to reconstruct a mirror- symmetric pattern, like the human face, you need to know one half and then simply add its mirror image. The larger the group of symmetry transformations, the smaller the part needed to reconstruct the whole, and the more redundant or ordered the pattern. For example, a crystal structure is typically invariant under a discrete group of translations and rotations. A small assembly of connected molecules will be a sufficient seed, out of which the positions of all other molecules can be generated by applying the different transformations. Empty space is maximally symmetric or ordered: it is invariant under any possible transformation, and any part, however small, can be used to generate any other part. It is interesting to note that maximal disorder too is characterized by symmetry, not of the actual positions of the components, but of the probabilities that a component will be found at a particular position. For example, a gas is statistically homogeneous: any position is as likely to contain a gas molecule as any other position. In actuality, the individual molecules will not be evenly spread. But if we look at averages, e.g. the centers of gravity of large assemblies of molecules, because of the law of large numbers the actual spread will 9 again be symmetric or homogeneous. Similarly, a random process, like Brownian motion, can be defined by the fact that all possible transitions or movements are equally probable. Complexity can then be characterized by lack of symmetry or symmetry breaking, by the fact that no part or aspect of a complex entity can provide sufficient information to actually or statistically predict the properties of the others parts. This again connects to the difficulty of modeling associated with complex systems. Edmonds notes that the definition of complexity as midpoint between order and disorder depends on the level of representation: what seems complex in one representation, may seem ordered or disordered in a representation at a different scale. He gives the following example: A pattern of cracks in dried mud may seem very complex. When we zoom out, and look at the mud plain as a whole, though, we may see just a flat, homogeneous surface. When we zoom in and look at the different clay particles forming the mud, we see a completely disordered array. The paradox can be elucidated by noting that scale is just another dimension characterizing space or time, and that invariance under geometrical transformations, like rotations or translations, can be similarly extended to scale transformations. Havel 6 calls a system scale-thin if its distinguishable structure extends only over one or a few scales. For example, a perfect geometrical form, like a triangle or circle, is scale-thin: if we zoom out, the circle becomes a dot and disappears from view in the surrounding empty space; if we zoom in, the circle similarly disappears from view and only homogeneous space remains. A typical building seen from the outside has distinguishable structure on 2 or 3 scales: the building as a whole, its components such as windows and doors, and perhaps the individual bricks or the material used to build it. A fractal or self-similar shape, on the other hand, has infinite scale extension: however deeply we zoom in, we will always find the same recurrent structure. A fractal is invariant under a discrete group of scale transformations, and is as such orderly or symmetric on the scale dimension. The fractal is somewhat more complex than the triangle, in the same sense that a crystal is more complex than a single molecule: both consist of a multiplicity of parts or levels, but these parts are completely similar. To find real complexity on the scale dimension, we may look at the human body: if we zoom in we encounter complex structures at least at the levels of complete organism, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, polymers, monomers, atoms, nucleons, and elementary particles. Though there may be superficial similarities between the levels, the relations and dependencies between the different levels are quite heterogeneous, characterized by both distinction and connection, and by symmetry breaking. We may conclude that complexity increases when the variety (distinction), and dependency (connection) of parts or aspects increase, and this in several dimensions. These include at least the ordinary 3 dimensions of spatial, geometrical structure, the dimension of spatial scale, and the dimension of temporal or dynamical scale. In order to show that complexity has increased overall, it suffices to show, that all other things being equal variety and/or connection have increased in at least one dimension. Variety and constraint will depend upon what is distinguished by the observer. What the observer does is picking up those distinctions which are somehow the most
6 Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332. Retrieved from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html
10 important, creating high-level classes of similar phenomena, and neglecting the differences which exist between the members of those classes 7 . Depending on which distinctions the observer makes, he or she may see their variety and dependency (and thus the complexity of the model) to be larger or smaller, and this will also determine whether the complexity is seen to increase or decrease. Though we are in principle unable to build a complete model of a complex system, the introduction of the different dimensions discussed above helps us at least to get a better grasp of its intrinsic complexity, by reminding us to include at least distinctions on different scales and in different temporal and spatial domains.
Self-organization
Complex systems normally consist of many joined elements. The simple behavioral rules governing the relation among the different elements cause a global behavior of the whole system. These simple rules are responsible for the emergence of something more complex that reacts contrary to the behavior of the individual elements. Therefore, the local action and reaction relationships originate an arising global structure that also has an effect on the local interactions. The local rules to which many elements of the system are submitted give rise to a more global structure that cannot be exclusively explained through those rules. The field of research called synergetics, founded by Hermann Haken 8 , deals with the processes of self-organization in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics and medicine, stating that the self-organization processes or structural formations develop on the basis of unitary basic rules. The fundamental prerequisites for self-organization are the following: 1. The system must be open, which ensures a continuous exchange of matter, energy and information with the environment. 2. The system must operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium, so that matter, energy and information flows experiment a dynamics. 3. The system must consist of many subsystems, whose dynamics is enriched by matter, energy and information flows. 4. The subsystems taking part must show non-linear concerted interaction, only enabling the emergence of non-linearity bifurcations and, thus, of models. If the exchange of matter, energy and information of the system with the environment reaches a critical value, spontaneous spatial and temporal structures can emerge by means of the self-organization of the subsystems at the microscopic and macroscopic level.
The physical condition needed for self-organization is that an open system operates far from equilibrium with hypercritical entropy export (Kolmogorov). This way, self- organization shall be understood as an irreversible process of spontaneous generation of
7 Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrieved from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html 8 Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge und Selbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer. 11 ordered structures that are driven far from an equilibrium induced from outside (from the environment), but not certainly generated by and based on inner laws. By means of cooperative actions of the subsystems, this irreversible process gives rise to more complex structures of the whole system. Self-organized systems are characterized by the following physical processes and principles: a. Master-slave principle. This principle was first formulated by Hermann Haken and is also known as slaving principle. In systems close to their instability points (bifurcation points), where the system can change its behavior qualitatively, there are just a few collective variables (order parameters) prescribing the self-organized macroscopic pattern of an open system, which is governed by the remaining degrees of freedom. Finally, a few variables considerably determine the dynamics of the system and enslave the influence of the remaining variables. This reduction of the degrees of freedom to the critical point (bifurcation point) is the core principle of Hakens synergetics. b. The systems show a tendency to preserve themselves and to maintain stability. The systems self-reference manifests in its behavior of self-preservation (resilience). Little inner or outer disturbances generally affect the order maintenance of a system, but in normal conditions, this does not occur in self-organized systems, since they constantly stabilize themselves. c. The systems tend to regenerate (feedback), giving rise to feedback loops that allow for the preservation of the systems stability. The negative feedback loops provide for an inner systemic maintenance and the regulation of the systems parameters pushing it towards stability achievement. d. There is a tendency to criticality: self-organized systems composed of many interacting elements, naturally evolve to a critical state 9 that is maintained (a state in which quality changes, symmetry breakings and phase transitions of the systems are possible). This dynamics becomes evident by observing a slowly accumulating pile of sand that periodically collapses in an avalanche a behavior that has been referred to as on the edge of chaos. The critical state of a system is, therefore, an attractor of the system that can have a fractal structure. Besides, a geometrical description of the fractal is possible. Fractal structures are spatial and temporal manifestations of self-organized criticality, as well as instantaneous representation of self-organized critical processes.
Towards the production of interdisciplinary knowledge
According to Dimas Floriani 10 we shall start from the principle that there is no ideal situation for interdisciplinarity, i.e. that the different experiences carried out so far are limited and non definitive. Another main question to be discussed is whether there is a need
9 Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53. 10 Floriani, D. (1999). Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental. Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research. 12 to collectively construct interdisciplinary work. The practice of interdisciplinarity poses two main questions: 1. How can the participation of researchers from different disciplines be coordinated to a research practice of interdisciplinary nature? 2. How can those different disciplinary knowledges be organized as a coordinated agreed action that allows for a contribution of each of them? Obviously, we are talking about a collective work made up of personal and institutional knowledges and efforts. Thus, tensions shall occur at different levels: personal, related to the individual idiosyncrasies, interests and capabilities, power strategies (leadership), awareness of the nature of interdisciplinary work, democratic and cooperative spirit, etc.; institutional: a) at the macro level resistant/enabling attitude towards the incorporation of new academic practices, approaches and ideas regarding groups and corporations, new interactions, financing and legislation system related to sectors, departments, courses, faculties, budget allocation for research, etc.; b) at the micro level (of the interdisciplinary unit) number of disciplines coming together for research; balance or imbalance among live, nature and society sciences; leadership strategies in research (awareness of process leadership and legitimization of its direction); individualized or shared leadership system (coordination); charismatic or acknowledged leadership; relation between academic education and research (postgraduate education). All these aspects are crucial for the determination of the direction, in which the experience is moving, as well as its problems and the significance of the tensions occurring throughout the research process. There is an initial stage of destabilization, in which each type of knowledge feels powerless in the face of the complexity of the problems dealt with; the most important thing is to keep a rational attitude and to understand that this is a moment of deliberate destruction of the disciplines secure environment. Balance restoration (a new stability) will follow this first stage when each discipline feels compelled to make a contribution with its own means and methods in terms of the basic information they can provide (geography, economics, sociology, demography, anthropology, geology, biology, agronomy, statistics, etc.). However, from a qualitative perspective, the most important feature of such a moment (destabilization) is that a new effect will be generated, which is absent within the framework of disciplinary work. This effect is that of enriching the point of view of one discipline with the points of view of the other disciplines. The latter will be already endowed with new strategies and will thus be able to bring about new perceptions for their own logics and for those of the other disciplines. Each professional is the bearer of their specific knowledge. In the following stage, it is expected that each disciplinary perception and contribution can be enriched by other approaches, perceptions and ideas that derive from such collective construction on a common research problem. Within a disciplinary framework, the possibilities of gaining new perceptions are very scarce, since these are usually determined by the disciplines own logical approach. Besides, interdisciplinary practice within the field of environment and social development takes place in the space where the dynamics of the society-system and those of the nature-system interact. It is not only an empirical physical space, but also an intellectually constructed space. Data collection and their progressive construction within the common research space enable the emergence of the research study problems. Without data problematizing there is no good research problem. The confrontation of the different socio-environmental data, 13 their behavior in space and time and the functions and dysfunctions (conflicts) of the observed dynamics (bio-demographic and social dynamics, material practices, bio-energetic dynamics of ecosystems, public policies, etc.) permit to arrange them in a cross-products matrix. Although this is still a stage for the recognition/reconstruction of reality by the various disciplines, elaborate data are in fact the inputs for the following stage that of the construction of a common problematic situation that will be subject of research. The basic stages of interdisciplinary work construction shall be summarized as follows: 1) data and information collection; 2) preliminary discussions; 3) identification of the main socio-environmental conflicts; 4) selection of research priorities; 5) explicit announcement of cross-discipline themes; 6) common agreement on the methodologies; 7) hypothesizing; 8) application of research tools; 9) data validation; 10) presentation of final results. Interdisciplinarity shall not be taken for granted. Neither is it something we can simply decree. It is a constituent of the interdisciplinary process resulting from the association of disciplines. Interdisciplinary action takes place in parts of the boundaries where reality representation occurs, and it expands by means of the combined action of the different disciplines concerned. The boundary is not an impassable limit, but it is a limit that allows for differentiation and reunion of the distinct domains as each discipline perceives the specificities of reality in their own way to create a comprehensive synthesis of the multiplicity of the real.
Transdisciplinarity: a strategy for sustainability attainment
The need for transdisciplinarity arises from developments in knowledge and culture that are characterized by the above-described complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, and heterogeneity. Based in its new role, social epistemology attempts to reconcile normative philosophy with an empirical sociology of knowledge. Transdisciplinarity has been defined as a common system of axioms for a set of disciplines. Many theorists are credited with coining the term, including Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz 11 . More recently, a new definition has appeared. Gibbons, et al. 12 identify a fundamental change in the ways that scientific, social, and cultural knowledge are being produced. The elemental traits are complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, reflexivity, heterogeneity, and transdisciplinarity. The new mode of production is transdisciplinary in that it contributes with theoretical structures, research methods, and modes of practice that are not located on current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps. One of its effects is to replace or reform established institutions, practices, and policies. Problem contexts are transient and problem solvers mobile. Emerging out of wider societal and cognitive pressures, knowledge is dynamic. It is stimulated by continuous linking and relinking of influences across a dense communication network with feedback loops. As a result, new configurations are continuously generated.
11 Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de Recherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club- internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm. 12 Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. 14 According to Edgar Morin, cognitive strategies tend to simplify knowledge and to make it more complex in a complementary and contradictory manner 13 . On the one hand, simplification: a) chooses what appears to be interesting for knowledge and eliminates everything that is not considered its objective, b) takes into account what is stable and certain, avoiding what is uncertain and ambiguous, c) produces knowledge that can be easily used by and for action. On the other hand, complexification also aimed at achieving effective action: a) tries to take into consideration the largest amount of data and concrete information, and b) tries to identify and take into account what is varied, variable, ambiguous, fortuitous, and uncertain. The vital mission of knowledge involves therefore two complementary and at the same time contradictory exigencies: simplifying and complexifying. Cognitive strategies shall combine, vary and choose either simplification or complexification. In this sense, Morin says that we shall assume our responsibility for the promotion and development of diversity, and that we shall pursue to construct an epistemology that is rooted in the idea that preserving variety is crucial for the survival of all living systems biological, but also social ones. This type of epistemology shall also acknowledge the fact that homogeneity in the biological world means rigidity and death, and that variation is a gift, that it means richness and development, while monotony is equal to impoverishment. Human intervention in the dynamics of complex systems can bring about unexpected reactions of the affected system. Besides, human attempts to manage natural systems have occasionally failed, because some practices that are positive for one part of the system sometimes are not appropriate for the whole system 14 . Taking into consideration that sustainability and sustainable development are concepts that are strongly related to the ability of systems to absorb perturbations, evolve and coevolve with other systems with which they interact, sustainability related policies as they pursue profound transformation of social organization and economic activity should go beyond multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches and get to work on the basis of a transdisciplinary vision, through which problems and questions can be tackled and addressed as a whole and within changing environments. Apart from including general principles of protection, investment and cooperation, sustainability and sustainable development should also involve permanent scientific research on the new technical and institutional alternatives to protect resources from the action of destructive forces, as well as investment in the possibilities of future resources and try to serve different interests. This way, innovation becomes a crucial mechanism to better adjust the practices related to the use of resources to the heterogeneous ecological and socioeconomic conditions, and to adapt to changes 15 . Within this framework, if sustainability is understood as an integrating and unifying principle based on the systems resilience 16 , political responses shall be
13 Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A. Elizalde, Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn, Retrieved from http://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc. 14 Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio. Revista Desarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 15 Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and Innovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing. 16 Maintenance of productivity and equity levels in the face of inner and outer perturbations.
15 framed within the context of the uncertainty inherent to the self-regulating dynamics of the systems. The implementation of sustainability schemes not only requires the maintenance of the ecosystems capabilities, but it is also necessary to promote the ability of human systems to create social, economic and institutional maintenance mechanisms that are able to strengthen their self-organizing resilience and their adaptation capacity. There is an ever-growing need for a new vision oriented by preventive and adaptation-based approaches, which allows for a better management of changing complex systems. Professor Lovelock 17 even points out the inability of the human race to intervene in environmental systems, which results from the lack of understanding and knowledge regarding the reactions that can derive from such intervention. He stresses the inability of the human race to manage organized complexity, while suggesting that the human race shall be ascribed a modest role in the history of evolution. If we are to make more sustainable the systems that are considered to be complex and adaptable (among which we could include natural and human systems that interact systemically), we need to understand the problems and restrictions of their evolutionary dynamics. In such dynamics, however, it is important to consider that under certain conditions, when systems are undergoing exaggerated tension, transformation processes are not gradual, but bifurcation 18 points and abrupt changes emerge. As Ehrlich 19 points out, the acceleration of cultural evolution is a factor that is typical of the human race that is different from natural change, because people are able to plan and alter human development. It is a key factor shaping our destiny in a more considerable way than biological evolution itself.
Conclusions
Beyond the Leonardo World
Wherever we go in our world, we discover a deep-rooted, long-standing reason founded on scientific and technical faculty, a reason that manages, builds, administrates and destroys. Mittelstrass 20 calls this world the Leonardo World, after the great Renaissance engineer, artist, philosopher and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci. It is a world in which man is constantly confronted with his own works, a world which is increasingly becoming an artifact, as fragile as nature but ever less nature itself. The Leonardo World is growing and its motor is science and technology. Behind the widespread formula of technological change stands an indisputable reality, the reality of a Leonardo World. Jrgen Mittelstrass means transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real interdisciplinary research, since it affects the disciplines and subject-areas as well as their historical boundaries. Interdisciplinary exchange in its correct sense neither moves in and out between disciplines, nor floats above them. Instead, it abolishes the boundaries between subject-areas and disciplines where these have lost their historical memory; thus, in truth, it represents transdisciplinary exchange, but transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real
17 Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta. Barcelona: Integral, Oasis. 18 Laszlo, E. (1990). La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa. 19 Ehrlich, P. (2000). Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press. 20 Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved from http://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm 16 interdisciplinary research, which detaches itself from its disciplinary boundaries, defining and solving its problems without recourse to specific disciplines. This, by the way, is what important research has always done. For Mittelstrass, it is clear that the path from discipline-based study to transdisciplinary exchange leads neither to a unified theory of science nor to an inter- discipline encompassing separate disciplines. The discipline-based system remains the organizational form of the sciences, even if nature itself sets no frontiers between physics, chemistry or biology; transdisciplinary exchange is a research imperative, not least because of the problems developing for the world in which we live. However, the very fact that we are confronted with the development of problems, in other words with their changing constellations, signifies that, from an institutional point of view, transdisciplinary exchange should not become anchored as a new inter-discipline. Not only should research be organized on transdisciplinary lines and address the specific problems posed by a specific case, but the real world should also enlist the sciences on a transdisciplinary basis to approach the specific constellation of the problem at hand. But speaking now in terms of both the theory and organization of science, that transdisciplinary exchange is first and foremost a principle of research, and only in second place a theoretical principle. As a principle of research, transdisciplinary exchange connects the discipline-based sciences with their scientific future and with a real world whose inner, rational form itself is a scientific one, a Leonardo World determined by scientific progress. In this sense, the transdisciplinary future of science is also the future of the world in which we live.
The Shift from unity to complexity
Complexity is a thematic of transdisciplinarity for several reasons. Modern societies are increasingly ruled by unwanted side effects of their differentiated subsystems, such as the economy, politics, law, media, and science 21 . These systems have developed their own running modes or codes, to use Niklas Luhmanns term, that enable them to be highly productive. Yet, differentiation produces imminent side effects in other fields that cannot be handled within the codes of the system. Indicative of this development, the problems of society are increasingly complex and interdependent. They are not isolated to particular sectors or disciplines, and they are not predictable. They are emergent phenomena with non-linear dynamics. Effects have positive and negative feedback to causes, uncertainties will continue to arise, and unexpected results will occur. Reality, therefore, is a nexus of interrelated phenomena that are not reducible to a single dimension. Complexity is also a thematic of epistemological conceptualization of transdisciplinarity as a form of post-normal science. Transdisciplinarity is also implicated in a larger development the changing character of knowledge. Even in a single field, there is a complex matrix of disciplines and fields. Work on sustainability, for instance, was previously restricted to specialized, environmentally-oriented subdisciplines at the margins of existing disciplines. The inclusion of stakeholders (those concerned and interested in
21 Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the New Discourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State University. Retrieved from http://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm
17 projects) not traditionally involved in research has been a further catalyst for change. The strong problem-orientation also links transdisciplinarity and sustainability with action research as a means for the study of complexity.
A broader and future view of transdisciplinarity
At the International Transdisciplinary Conference held in Zurich, February 27 - March 1, 2000, a group 22 decided to call the attention of the participants at the Conference, and other audiences, to their firm belief in the need to place the human being, in his different levels, at the centre of concerns of Transdisciplinarity in science and society. As explained by the authors, their Statement on a broader view of transdisciplinarity was made by them as an essential enhancement of the conclusions of the Conference. To conclude, we shall point out the key points that coincide with our analysis, which would allow for a prospective approach of the topic handled:
1. We believe that the transdisciplinary vision offers an active, open concept of nature and the human being, which, while not exhaustive, can be used more effectively to help achieve the goal of human survival and justice than can any definition or reduction to a formal structure. This vision transcends the individual fields of the exact sciences, the humanities and social sciences and encourages them to become reconciled with one another and with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience and to validate their respective insights. 2. Transdisciplinary epistemology, attitude and practice imply the recognition of the methodological utility of the concepts of the three pillars of transdisciplinarity complexity, the logic of the included middle, and levels of Reality (fractality) all of which emerge from the data of modern (quantum physics) science, from the dialogue with other cultures and from the cognitive corpus of all the great knowledge traditions of the present and of the past. Therefore, transdisciplinary epistemology, attitude and practice require a spirit of rigor, openness and tolerance of other points of view, and a commitment to transdisciplinary resolution of differences. To solve problems efficiently, it is necessary to adopt transdisciplinary understanding of complexity and its descriptions as in systems theory and 2nd order cybernetics. Such a methodology is essential to help ensure real changes in society including new social, economic and organizational forms and make possible critical advances in problem solving. 3. A transdisciplinary approach is required to resolve the contradictory truths of the triad Democracy - Science - Market Economy, at the level of social reality. However, at a higher intellectual level of reality, the triad Metaphysics - Epistemology - Poetry are co-participants in the dynamic development of new knowledge of space, time, causality, truth and contradiction, and provide needed insights into the relation between the real and the imaginary. A complete
22 Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D., Les Diablerets, Switzerland; Paulius Kulikauskas, Byfornyelse Danmark, Denmark and Lithuania; Maria F. de Mello, Researcher at CETRANS Transdisciplinariedad Educational Center) - Escola do Futuro, University of So Paulo, Brazil; K.V. Raju, from Anand, India; Amrico Sommerman, publisher, coordinator of CETRANS - Escola do Futuro - University of So Paulo, Brazil; Dr. Nils-Gran Sundin, docent, Collegium Europaeum, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from the Internet, Byfornyelse Denmark, Copenhagen (2000) http://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htm 18 transdisciplinary approach to problem solving therefore requires integration of the insights of both levels. 4. Sustainability of each human being and of development of their society is a central concern. The principles, logic and methodology of transdisciplinarity shall provide a framework for understanding the ontological and ethical basis of sustainability, in: a. an understanding of it as part of the dynamics of nature; b. a vision of the complex interdependence of individuals, institutions and communities implying their increased commitment to sustainable mutual benefit to the individual and society; c. a model for a humane form of globalization, going beyond a society of knowledge for profit to one which reveals and uses knowledge in a context of mutual respect, trust and responsibility for action.
References
Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53.
ECLAC. (5-7 March 2002). Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile.
Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ehrlich, P. (2000). Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.
Floriani, D. (1999). Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental. Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research.
Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge und Selbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer.
Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332. Retrieved from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html
Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrieved from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html
Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html
Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio. Revista Desarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 19
Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de Recherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club- internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm.
Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the New Discourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State University. Retrieved from http://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm
Laszlo, E. (1990). La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta. Barcelona: Integral, Oasis.
Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved from http://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm
Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A. Elizalde, Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn, Retrieved from http://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc.
Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and Innovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover, Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.