本研究旨於探討政策研究社群(STI policy research communities)在政策實務中所扮演的角色、與政策實務間的關係及互動，以及該社群隨著不同政策情境其所累積的知識結構。本文以英國科技政策研究社群SPRU及MIoIR為例，首先以Top-down的方式從整體制度及機構面進行探討，第二部份則進一步描述及探討SPRU及MIoIR這兩個研究社群在英國政策實務中所扮演的角色及定位。第三部份旨於探討在英國的政策研究及決策支援制度情境下，政策研究社群與政策實務間的互動關係，以及影響兩者關係的關鍵因素。第四部份則進一步探討如何橋接政策與研究之間的缺口，以及研究社群如何透過不同的研究成果擴散模式，進而政策產生影響與效益。第五部份，本文綜合英國科技政策社群所處之制度及機構情境、政策研究社群之知識產出、政策與研究之間的缺口、以及兩者間的互動關係，從Bottom-Up的角度提出一全面性的理論架構，填補過去文獻在探討政策與研究兩者間關係時，僅探討部份、或分析特定議題之理論缺口。 / The importance of scientific research which positively motivates economic growth has been widely recognised by governments of most countries in the world. A government needs to formulate policies for sustaining national developments, but a sound policy usually has to be evident by academic findings provided by academic researcher. On the opposite, an academic researcher can conduct research needed by the government only if they can be funded by the government. The mutual reliance on each other for academic researchers and the government as well as the relationship between them have been investigated previously in literature. The complex relationship between the government and researcher is modelled as “principal-agent relationship” (Pratt & Zeckhauser, 1985). The interdisciplinary STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) policy research, which seeks to solve socioeconomic problem at national level, creates knowledge much closer to what the government needs and can be used directly to inform policy formulation. The relationship between the government and STI policy research community is therefore much stronger and more sensitive than that between the government and other research communities. In the process of delivering research to policymakers, the agenda and concern underlying different interacting scenarios between actors are varied from academia, funding agency, governmental organisation and policy makers. Therefore, changing the way of communication is becoming important for academic researchers to make the whole process more smoothly or effectively. However, in this interacting process research actors not only need to turn around the language, but also change the perspective they view from different scenarios especially when there is conflicting interest or view exited between academia and politics. The purpose of this study aims to investigate in what way can STI policy research community influence policy as well as interaction between STI policy research community and the government by bottom-up approach, i.e. from STI policy researcher to the government and three different perspectives proposed by Allison (1971), i.e. 1) Bounded Rational Perspective, 2) Organisational Behaviour Perspective, and 3) Governmental Politics Perspective. This study selects the two prestigious research organisations in the UK- SPRU and MIoIR (formerly PREST) as the case study and a total of sixteen renown interviewees are interviewed, since the UK is the leading country in STI policy research and the most outstanding research organisations in the UK STI policy research community are SPRU and MIoIR which have contributed to STI policymaking since 1970s, interaction between the UK government and this research community are analysed. Further, the UK Technology Foresight programme undertaken jointly by SPRU and MIoIR is used as a representative event to demonstrate the responding strategy of STI policy research community to the UK government. It is found in this study that a successful contribution from STI policy research community to the government critically relies on appropriate responding strategies which are dependent on whom (on the government side) exactly the researcher is interacting with. A successfully interaction between researcher and the government takes a sound strategy which eventually lead to contribution of research to policy practice. Finally, this study develops several propositions for suggesting how to sustain effective policy contribution from STI policy researcher and sound interaction between STI policy research community and the government.

本論文之重點在於分析中共科技政策，特別是從毛澤東死後至今之科技政策。起自科 技現代化是四個現代化實現基本條件，論文提出由中共新領導階層在四人幫跨台後所 擬定的現代化之計劃。然後並分析自中共成立後基本科技政策之原則，連帶介紹最重 要的科技研究及教育機構。同時論文分析科技政策自中國大陸經濟，財政情況和生產 需要的觀點，包括來自國外科技轉移及引進的國際政治之關係。最後論文提出有關中 共科技政策可能發展及趨向之一些觀點。

科技政策是國家競爭力的發動機，一國之決策領導者對科技「競爭情報」之掌握及重視程度與國家核心競爭力直接相關，攸關競爭賽局的勝負。因此掌握競爭優勢的國家「決策輔助諮詢系統」實是公共政策領域應注目之焦點。 「國際科技政策觀測系統」為政府首次針對科技政策決策需求所推行的環境偵測與諮詢系統，是政府推動環境預測、科技前瞻等工作的基礎。期望藉由本研究一窺科技政策形成體系中「決策輔助諮詢系統」及「國際科技政策觀測系統」運作之現況，對國家政策推動、決策運行、決策變革、科技經濟發展有助益與貢獻。 為能確實的紀錄整個專案產生與運作過程，增進信度與效度，本研究決定採取參與觀察法、深度訪談法、次級資料分析法等三種研究方法以深入故事現場。本研究所探討的問題聚焦在科技決策幕僚的輔助諮詢工作的科學化與加值效益，能開啟研究新世紀政府決策輔助科學化的序幕，豐富我國政府決策研究文獻，促進我國科技政策情報研究之成長與發展。 本研究發現「國際科技政策觀測系統」確實具備環境偵測與智囊諮詢的功能，一方面對於去除決策者的「工作環境不確定」產生極大效能，提升我國科技決策的科學化，另一方面對於提高智庫與決策系統間的鏈結產生重大效益，在提供智囊諮詢上使得觀測能量轉為對策能量。為因應多變的世界賽局，我國政府應立即進行以提升國家競爭力為思考的「決策輔助系統」改革，建立全方位的「政府競爭情報系統」，進行長遠的「決策輔助」人才培育計劃，強化決策效能提昇政策效果，以天下為師求勝於天下。

為了面對日益激烈的科技競爭，台灣多年來致力於高科技產業培育和技術能力的提升，期望提升我國全面競爭力，以面對21世紀的挑戰。在面對來自國際科技產業的競爭與國際市場日趨自由化的壓力，台灣希望在世界的科技舞台扮演舉足輕重的地位，則需要提升科技競爭力，而提升科技競爭力則有賴於完整結合了產業發展、國家資源、以及國家發展目標的高科技政策。 本研究首先以國家競爭力的觀點切入，研讀並分析主要的國際競爭力指標，並藉由競爭力指標歸納出科技先進國家的發展趨勢，以及台灣應加強的部分。並搜集科技先進國家的科技政策、目前政經情形，以及社會人文狀況，經過研讀後整理出構成高科技標竿政策之因素。並且，以新竹科學園區的六大類高科技產業為對象，進行問卷調查工作，以驗證本研究所提出之因素是否為產業界所接受，以及是否有其他意見。 研究結果顯示，在本研究所提出的31項因素中，多半皆獲得新竹科學園區經理人的認同，僅有少部分因素在不同產業或不同規模公司間，產生些微的差異。因此，本研究所提出之構成高科技標竿政策的因素，可以做為政策制定時之參考。在最後一章中，列出本研究之建議，希望對國內高科技標竿政策的制定以及科技發展有所助益。 / Taiwan had devoted to fostering the high-tech industry and promoting the technology ability to face the increasingly competition of science and technology in the coming of 21 century. To confront the competition from the international high-tech industry and the pressure of the liberalization of market, Taiwan needs to improve the competitiveness of science and technology if she wants to play an important role on the worldwide science and technology stage. Besides, Taiwan needs to integrate the development of industry, national resource, and the national goals of science and technology policy. This research uses the concept of national competitiveness first, and studies the main international competitiveness indicators. We want to derive the development trends of those advanced countries, and realize what parts we need to improve. Second, we collect the science and technology policy, the political and economical status of those countries we selected. And we sum up the benchmark factors of the high-tech industry policy. Third, we conduct a survey to verify the acceptability of the high-tech industry benchmark policy. The research results reveal that almost the benchmark principles and factors we sum up are accepted by the industry leaders.

本研究之目的在探討台灣生技產業科技政策推動過程中所引發之爭議：臨床試驗(clinical trials)產業化，並以台灣地區自1960年代末期至2010年臨床試驗發展的制度變遷為研究標的，尤其是其中之生技產業政策推動及臨床試驗制度變遷，以說明該爭議如何發生及為何發生。 為發展台灣生物技術產業，行政院於2005年起推動生醫科技島(biomedical technology island)計畫，將原先為生物技術產業發展基礎設施的臨床試驗作為政策推動的主體，引發臨床試驗產業化的爭議。一般認為，此爭議是來自於促進產業發展與維護國民健康之間的利益衝突。 本研究經由制度變遷(institutional change)的觀點，探索台灣地區臨床試驗發展的歷程，認為上述臨床試驗產業化的爭議不只是產業推動與國民健康間的衝突，而是與台灣地區自1960年代末期至2010年生技產業政策推動與臨床試驗制度變遷有關。 台灣地區推動生物技術的科技政策始於1982年行政院修訂「科學技術發展方案(science technology development program」，明訂生物技術為八大重點科技之一，而後有1995年的行政院「加強生物技術產業推動方案(biotechnology industry promotion program」，2005年的行政院「生醫科技島計畫」等科技政策，本研究發現不同時期的科技政策賦予臨床試驗不同的意義，而不同時期臨床試驗的發展，其不同時期的行動者【產、官、學、研、醫】-- 包含政策決策者與政策參與者 -- 在臨床試驗制度變遷的過程中產生行動的差異；而在不同時期臨床試驗的發展階段，不同的官方行動者 -- 治理機構（governance agency）【衛生署、國科會、經濟部、科技顧問組等】，對於臨床試驗議題有不同程度的涉入。 台灣地區臨床試驗的發展在生技產業政策的型塑下，由原先之學術研究，階段性轉向協助產業發展。2005年行政院生醫科技島計畫，將臨床試驗作為政策推動的主體，擴大醫界參與生物技術產業發展，而醫界主要以醫療服務為主的制度邏輯（institutional logics）與科技政策形塑下產業發展的制度邏輯不一致（contradictions），因而引發臨床試驗產業化的爭議。 本研究發現對於科技政策的意涵為：在制訂與推動科技政策的過程中，唯有同時瞭解產業發展的歷史脈絡，才能避免產生非預期的結果（例如爭議）。本研究除探討生技產業政策推動過程中臨床試驗的制度變遷與變遷過程中所衍生的爭議，並將探討未來可能的研究方向。 / The study is intended to explore a controversy derived from the Taiwan biotechnology industry promotion by government policies, industrialization of clinical trials. The study targets the institutional change of the clinical trials and the policies for biotechnology industry promotion in Taiwan from the late 1960’s through 2010 to explain why and how the controversy was incurred. In order to develop the Taiwan biotechnology industry, the Executive Yuan implemented a Biomedical Technology Island program beginning 2005 to focus on clinical trials -- supposedly the infrastructure of biotechnology technology development -- but resulted in the controversy about the initiative of industrialization of clinical trials. It is reputedly because there is a conflict of interest between industry development promotion and how to maintain national healthcare. From the perspective of institutional change, the study explores the evolution of clinical trials in Taiwan, holding that the aforementioned controversy is not only a conflict of interest between industry development promotion and how to maintain national healthcare but also a consequence of the institutional change of the clinical trials and biotechnology promotion by government policies from the late 1960’s through 2010. The biotechnology industry promotion in Taiwan began with the Executive Yuan’s revision of its Science Technology Development program in 1982, designating the biotechnology as one of the eight strategic industries. The Executive Yuan followed through with a Biotechnology Industry Promotion program in 1995 and the Biomedical Technology Island program in 2005. The study finds that science and technology policies in different periods of time endowed clinical trials with different meanings while discrepant actions on clinical trials were taken by both policy makers and policy executors including the industry, government organizations, academia, research institutes and the medical community in different periods of time. The study also finds that different governance agencies, such as the Department of Health, Ministry of Economic Affairs, National Science Council as well as Science and Technology Advisory Group of the Executive Yuan, had different levels of involvement with the development of clinical trials in different periods of time. Molded by the government’s biotechnology policies, clinical trials in Taiwan have evolved from the nature of academic research to assistance to industry development. The Biomedical Technology Island program beginning 2005 focuses on clinical trials and strengthens the medical community’s participation in biotechnology development, but the institutional logics of the medical community is primarily about medical service and its contradictions with the institutional logics of biotechnology industry development have resulted in the controversy about industrialization of clinical trials. A science and technology policy implication identified by the study is that unexpected outcomes, such as the controversy dealt with herein, can only be avoided by understanding the historical context of an industry when the government develops and promotes the relevant policies for the industry. Moreover, the study will explore possible research directions in the future.

創新是指將發明本身商品化，亦指將創意或發明轉換為產品或服務的過程。創新的結果是產生新產品、產生新製程、打開新市場、獲得新補給來源、更是任何產業新組織體系的實行。創造創新經濟是創新的最終目標。隨著1980年美國拜杜法案 (Bayh-Dole Act) 制定通過，我國參考其政策亦於1999年跟進制定與實施「科技基本法」。十年以來，我國學研單位之研發成果透過技術移轉與境外實施推及商業化落實之預期效益仍相當有限，顯見由於文化及產業環境不盡相同的關係，美國之經驗對我國並不全然適用。行政院國家科學委員會自87年起推動7項國家型科技計畫，投入總經費八百四十一億餘元，總計產出二千七百一十四項專利中，以技術移轉者一千五百零四項，取得權利金二十一點七六億餘元，技術移轉獲取的權利金收入與投資金額比率只達4.03%，效能不彰，因此監察院教育及文化委員會於99年5月13日通過監委黃煌雄提案，糾正國科會。由於在產業環境及文化型態上，歐洲與臺灣有許多相似之處；例如：中小企業在產業中的比重，產業升級與轉型的壓力，文化傳統中對穩定及安全的依賴，研發體系與產業界相對的疏離等等。事實上，歐盟為了加強科技研發與創新之間的聯繫，採取一連串有益中小企業的措施，在這些機制與措施的影響下，歐盟各學術研究機構不論在專利申請、佈局與技術移轉、授權的發展方面已經有後來居上的態勢。因此，本研究擬藉研究、分析歐盟相關的創新策略和產學合作運作模式，包括里斯本政策（Lisbon Strategy）、歐洲2020政策（The Europe 2020 Strategy）、最近一期的第七期科研架構計畫（Seventh Framework Programme; FP7）、歐洲投資基金（European Investment Fund; EIF）、歐洲各地技術平台（European Technology Platforms; ETPs）、以及瑪麗亞凱利人力網絡系統（Marie Curie Networks）的組織架構、資金來源等，期能提供我國相關單位實際執行創新科學技術之規劃產生、產出技術之經營與技轉等，可茲借鏡之制度與作法。 / Innovation is the commercialization of the invention itself. Innovation is the process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will pay. Innovation brings the introduction of new goods, new methods of production, the opening of new markets, the conquest of new sources of supply, and the carrying out of a new organization of any industry. The final object of innovation is to create economic benefits. “Science and Technology Act” of Taiwan referring to the Bayh-Dole Act of U.S.A. was enacted in 1999. During the past ten years, the universities and research institutions in Taiwan worked with limited results in the field of research and development. The effectiveness through technology transfer and off-shore technology transfer was quite limited in Taiwan. Obviously, the U.S.A. experiences are not totally fit to Taiwan, because of different cultural and environmental factors. National Science Council of Taiwan was corrected by Control Yuan of Taiwan because of their low effectiveness to carry out the National Science and Technology Projects. National Science Council of Taiwan spent 84.1 billions NT dollars on seven National Science and Technology Projects, but there are only 2.176 billions NT dollars feedback through technology transfer, only 4.03% of the investment. Europe and Taiwan are quite similar in industrial and cultural environments, such as the proportion of small and medium enterprises in the industry, the heavy pressure of Industrial upgrading and transformation, the dependence of the stability and security of the cultural traditions, and the relative alienation between R & D system and industry. In fact, in order to strengthen the links between the scientific and technological R & D and innovation, European Union took a serious of useful measures. Under those measures, the universities and research institutes in European Union have come from behind the trend, whether in the patent application, the technology transfer, and the patent licensing. The aim of this study is to provide Taiwanese government the actual implementation of the innovation of science and technology planning by analyzing the innovative strategies, the industry-university cooperation mode of operation, the organizational structure of innovative R & D system, and the funding sources of innovation development in EU, including the Lisbon Strategy, the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Seventh Framework Programme, the European Investment Fund, the European Technology Platforms, and the Marie Curie Networks.