题目：“负责任创新”四大范式梳理及其与中国专利制度关系问题研究
答辩人：王雷
指导老师：王伯鲁教授
答辩时间：2021年5月14日
目录
导言
0.1 选题的背景
0.2 选题意义
0.3 国内外研究综述
0.4 研究的逻辑结构
0.5 可能的创新点
第1章 负责任创新四大范式的梳理和批判性诠释
1.1 负责任创新主要理论范式和批评诠释步骤
1.2 欧盟委员会范式
1.2.1 欧盟委员会范式的六大关键举措
1.2.1 欧盟委员会范式的本体内涵分析
1.2.2 欧盟委员会范式的价值内涵分析
1.3 尚伯格范式
1.3.1 应对新技术潜在风险作为理论起点
1.3.2 针对新技术风险治理六大突出问题形成理论框架
1.3.3 尚伯格范式的本体内涵分析
1.3.4 尚伯格范式的价值内涵分析
1.4 斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式
1.4.1 如何管理科技创新作为理论起点
1.4.2 负责任创新的AIRR四个维度
1.4.3 关怀和响应性的责任范围
1.4.4 “负责任创新”理论走向实践的进路
1.4.5 斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式的本体内涵分析
1.4.6 斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式的价值内涵分析
1.5 霍文范式
1.5.1 以伦理道德对科技创新的影响作为理论起点
1.5.2 “价值敏感设计”理论框架
1.5.3 霍文范式本体内涵分析
1.5.4 霍文范式价值内涵分析
1.6 负责任创新四大主干范式的批评性诠释
1.6.1 负责任创新四大主干范式的本体内涵横向比较分析
1.6.2负责任创新四大主干范式的价值内涵横向比较分析
1.7 负责任创新的实践现状
1.7.1 欧盟负责任创新实践的总体状况
1.7.2 负责任的研究和创新在“地平线2020”中的表现
第2章 国内“负责任创新”的研究现状与存在问题
2.1 研究方法
2.1.1 提出研究问题
2.1.2 获取目标文献
2.1.3 清理和评估文本
2.1.4 文献标引分析
2.1.5 文献分析结果
2.2 国内对“负责任创新”理论的研究和解读
2.3 “负责任创新”中文文献对“公众参与”的讨论
2.3.1科研人员承担更多主体责任
2.3.2 中国“负责任创新”主体的多样化
2.3.3 希望通过政策治理实现“负责任创新”
2.4 国内对负责任创新的伦理研究
2.5 国内“负责任创新”的案例研究
2.5.1 人工智能的“负责任创新”讨论
2.5.2 港口建设的“负责任创新”
2.5.3 其他方面的负责任创新案例
2.6 中国负责任创新研究的特色
2.6.1 创新激励和负责任创新的平衡关系
2.6.2 对“负责任创新”的戒备心态
2.6.3 中国式的“负责任创新”解读
2.7 中国式的创新道路设计
第3章 中国专利制度概述
3.1 中国专利制度的演讲与特点
3.2 中国专利制度的宗旨和存在的突出问题
3.2.1中国专利制度的五大宗旨目标
3.2.2当前中国专利制度运行中的突出问题
第4章 AIRR视野下的中国专利制度审视
4.1 从预期维度对专利制度的审视
4.1.1 专利新颖性要求决定专利对技术创新开展预期治理的必然性
4.1.2 专利通过创造性标准对技术创新预期治理的具体实施
4.1.3 专利对技术创新“预期”判断的主体性要求
4.1.4 专利预期性评判创新进步的标准
4.1.5 专利通过实用性标准对技术创新预期治理的具体实施
4.2 从反思维度对于专利制度的审视
4.3 从包容维度对于专利制度的审视
4.4 从响应维度对于专利制度的审视
4.4.1 修改响应的时效性要求
4.4.2 通过修改实现响应的内容要求
4.4.3 不允许的响应修改
4.5 韩春雨事件体现的专利对技术创新的“负责任”治理
4.5.1 专利在韩春雨事件中体现的“负责任创新”预期维度治理
4.5.2 专利在韩春雨事件中体现的“负责任创新”响应维度
4.6 “毒胶囊”专利反映出的专利对技术创新治理的漏洞
第5章 6个关键举措视野下的中国专利制度审视
5.1 公众参与
5.1.1 维护社会公德和公共利益是专利的基本准则
5.1.2 从公众视角的考量确定专利判断的标准
5.1.3 公众对专利文献具有充分的可获得性
5.1.4 接纳公众对于专利审查的意见
5.1.5 面向社会公众征求法律和政策意见
5.1.6 “煽除雾霾”专利申请案例体现出的“公众参与”
5.2 性别平等
5.2.1 女性发明的现状
5.2.2 女性发明比例低的原因和改善措施
5.3 科学教育
5.3.1 国内科学教育中的专利问题
5.3.2 高等教育中专利突出问题发生的原因
5.3.3科学教育中专利问题的解决路径
5.4 伦理道德
5.4.1 中药专利体现出的专利对技术创新的伦理要求
5.4.2 基因编辑婴儿事件体现出的专利对技术创新道德的治理
5.5 开放科学
5.5.1 专利对技术方案充分公布的必要性要求和原则
5.5.2 实现充分公开的具体方式
5.5.3 对特殊技术领域（如化学）发明的充分公开
5.6 专利治理
第6章 建构契合负责任创新理念的中国专利制度
6.1 负责任创新同专利制度不存在本质上的抵触
6.2 发挥专利对“公众参与”和“开放科学”的促进作用
6.3 完善和细化专利制度对于科研伦理的治理作用
6.4 负责任创新理念融入知识产权保护中
结语
参考文献
致谢
在读期间的研究成果
摘要
“负责任创新Responsible Research Innovation，简称RRI）”是源自欧盟和美国的科技创新理念，技术哲学家尚伯格（Rene Von Schomberg）对其给出的定义是：“实现透明且互动的科技创新过程。在科技创新的过程中，科技创新者与公众进行沟通和反馈，并充分考虑创新过程以及创新产生的技术和产品的伦理可接受性、可持续发展性、社会公众的接受度，使技术发展能够正确地融入社会并且满足社会公众的需求”。“负责任创新”自2011年就引起我国学界关注，开始从哲学、管理、政策等多维度对其展开研究，并且在2016年写入了“十三五科技创新规划”，提出要倡导负责任的研究与创新。
值得注意的是“负责任创新”理论中，有明确反对知识产权特别是专利制度的倾向。“负责任创新”四大理论范式之一的尚伯格理论范式（Von Schomberg acount），明确提出“当代的知识产权制度是抑制负责任创新的核心”。“负责任创新”四大理论范式中的斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式（Stilgoe，Owen and Macnaghten account），也认为需要讨论“知识产权”和“负责任创新”的相互关系。
近年来，知识产权在国家科技创新中的作用日益受到重视，中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会报告中提出，要通过强化知识产权创造、保护、运用，来加快建设创新型国家和国家创新体系。2019年11月24日，中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅印发了《关于强化知识产权保护的意见》，其中提出完善产权保护制度的最重要内容就是加强知识产权的保护。加强知识产权保护是提高我国经济竞争力的最大激励，要对知识产权实行“严保护、大保护、快保护、同保护”。习近平在中共中央政治局第二十五次集体学习讲话中指出：“创新是引领发展的第一动力，保护知识产权就是保护创新”。
在国家科技创新政策和制度中，如果“知识产权”和“负责任创新”两大理念在理论源头上就存在抵触，那么将导致实施过程中的一系列问题。但“负责任创新”理论源自科技哲学界，而知识产权特别是专利制度属于法学界的研究对象，当前对“负责任创新”涉及知识产权特别是专利制度的研究尚处于空白状况。
本论文的研究目标是揭示“负责任创新”同“中国专利制度”之间的实然关系，并提出应然关系。笔者所做的主要工作：一是对“负责任创新”四大主干理论范式进行了系统梳理和研究。当前国内学界已经对“负责任创新”内涵和框架、发展现状和趋势、本质、理论脉络、产生背景开展了分析和讨论。但对于全面理解和把握来自于社会背景差异巨大的欧洲和美国的“负责任创新”伞状庞大理论体系，仍存在一定的理论挑战，特别是对什么是“负责任创新”主干理论范式及其内涵特点等问题，仍有管中窥豹和雾里看花之嫌。本论文首先对“负责任创新”的四大理论范式进行了综合性梳理，从理论起点、解决的突出问题、理论的主要架构、主要理论贡献等维度开展分析。根据批判性诠释的方法，剖析了各理论范式的本体内涵和价值内涵本质，并对四大范式进行了整体性比较分析。
二是在对“负责任创新”四大主干理论范式梳理的基础上，从五个方面剖析了国内学界“负责任创新”的研究现状：（1）国内学界对于“负责任创新”的主要讨论内容，（2）国内学界对于“负责任创新”研究的侧重点，（3）国内学界不认同源自欧美的“负责任创新”中的内容，（4）国内学界对“负责任的创新”形成的独特理解，（5）具有中国特色的“负责任创新”的解释和建构。对于“负责任创新”理论的系统研究，为探讨“负责任创新”和“中国专利制度”的实然关系奠定了理论基础。
三是揭示了“负责任创新”同“知识产权”特别是专利制度的实然关系。从“负责任创新”AIRR维度和六大关键举措视角，对专利制度进行了审视。对于尚伯格所提出的“专利制度”同“负责任创新”相抵触的命题，进行了证伪研究。明晰了“负责任创新”和“专利制度”的实然关系，并讨论了如何按照“负责任创新”理念进一步完善中国专利制度，揭示了“知识产权”同“负责任创新”的应然关系。
第一章对“负责任创新”理论框架下衍生出的四个主干范式：尚伯格范式（Von Schomberg account），斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式（Stilgoe， Owen and Macnaghten account），霍文范式（Van den Hoven account）以及欧盟委员会范式（European Commission account），进行了系统梳理，关注“负责任创新”同专利制度相冲突的深层次原因。从理论起点、解决的突出问题、理论的主要架构、主要理论贡献等视角，对“负责任创新”的四大理论范式进行了综合性梳理。并根据批判性诠释的方法，分析了各范式的本体内涵和价值内涵本质，进而对四大范式进行了整体性比较分析。当前欧盟对于负责任创新实践的现状可以总结为，在原则上促进了负责任的研究和创新，但在实施方面还有很多需要改进的地方。
第二章对国内开展的“负责任创新”的研究现状、特点进行了分析。中国学者对于理解源自欧盟和美国的“负责任创新”存在文化差异；同时，经过十多年的发展，“负责任创新”理念形成了庞大而复杂的理论体系，整体把握起来困难较大。许多围绕“负责任创新”的理论研究，着力归纳和概述“负责任创新”的范式、框架、脉络、背景、现状、趋势。试图从中国实际情况出发解读“负责任创新”。最终选择以共识性的“伦理道德”作为“负责任创新”在中国落地的“契合点”和“连接点”。这也导致中文学术论文中普遍认为，负责任创新是“激发创新活力”的平衡观念，负责任创新和“激发创新活力”是互相制约的创新理念。忽视了“负责任创新”理论中“开放学术”的目的在于激发创新活力，提高创新效率的目的。这同“负责任创新”原初理论存在差异。国内在解读“负责任创新”时还存在警惕“欧洲中心化”和警惕“学术殖民化”思想，力图实现中国式的“负责任创新”解读。
第三章概述了专利制度和中国专利制度的建立和运行。指出专利制度同中国传统的轻利而重义的理念相冲突，导致中国专利制度晚于其他主要国家几百年，到晚清才出现，直到1985年才正式运行。讨论了中国专利制度的五个宗旨目标：（1）保护发明和创造的专利权，（2）鼓励发明和创造，（3）促进和应用发明和创造的成果，（4）促进科学技术的创新与发展，（5）专利制度有助于促进中国社会的发展。还指出了当前中国的知识产权制度特别是专利制度运行中的五大突出问题：（1）高品质的专利产出率低，大多为低质量的骗取专利申请补助的申请，技术创新政策需要优化和调整；（2）中国的专利保护制度不完善，对专利侵权处罚率低；（3）中国创新实体缺乏管理和应用专利创新成果的能力；（4）为创新服务的专利制度社会环境存在缺陷；（5）在专利国际事务中合作、对话和处理纠纷的能力有待提高。
第四章为厘清“负责任创新”同专利特别是中国专利制度的关系，以“负责任创新”的斯蒂尔戈、欧文、麦克金纳三人理论范式所提出的AIRR四维度：预期（Anticipation）、反思（Reflection）、包容（Inclusion）和响应能力（Responsiveness）对专利制度展开了审视。从制度层面和案例范围分析了“负责任创新”和专利之间的联系。揭示了专利对技术创新“预期”治理的必然性，并且为“反思”“包容”“响应”等维度的治理提供了具体的实现路径。通过“韩春雨事件”“毒胶囊专利”的案例分析，指出了专利制度对“负责任创新”的具体呈现状况和存在的漏洞。
第五章通过“负责任创新”的6个关键举措：公众参与（public engagement）、性别平等（gender equality）、科学教育（science education）、道德（ethics）、开放获取/开放科学（open access/open science）、治理（governance），对中国专利制度进行了审视。揭示了“负责任创新”同专利制度的直接联系，探讨了专利助力“负责任创新”以及与“负责任创新”的可能契合点。专利制度可以在“公众参与”和“开放学术”维度为“负责任创新”提供实现路径，但在“科学教育”和“性别平等”方面则存在明显的“短板”，在“伦理道德”方面存在需要弥补的漏洞。
第六章讨论了同为西方舶来品的“负责任创新”和专利制度的理念，在中国发展和运行过程中都遇到了不同程度的“水土不服”状况。就“负责任创新”来说，虽然与我国科技体制、传统存在三大冲突，但从2011年得到中国学者的关注以来，五年时间就写入了“十三五科技创新规划”。“负责任创新”追求科技创新满足社会公众需要的价值观，同我国科技创新理念和需求具有契合性。但当前对于如何实现“负责任创新”愿景的任务、设想、期望、结果等也存在着广泛的争议，缺乏实现的具体手段、方案和路线。导致在理念和原则上拥护负责任的研究和创新，但在实施方面却遇到了困难。通过研究发现负责任创新同专利制度不存在根本上的抵触，而且专利的具体措施和制度设计有助于“负责任创新”理念的贯彻和功能的发挥。知识产权特别是专利制度不但不是实现“负责任创新”的障碍，而且为实现“负责任创新”提供了法律和政策路径。专利制度发挥作用的关键在于“善用”还是“滥用”。“负责任创新”和“专利制度”可以实现互相促进的协同关系，相互弥补缺陷并发挥促进科技创新和实现科技的向善目标。
关键词：负责任创新；中国专利制度改进；科技创新；知识产权
Abstract
"Responsible Research Innovation (RRI)" is a scientific and technological innovation concept originated from the European Union and the United States. Technology philosopher Rene Von Schomberg defined it as "(RRI) is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the ethical acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products. "RRI" has attracted the attention of Chinese academic circles since 2011. It has been researched from multiple dimensions such as philosophy, management, and policy. In 2016, RRI was written in "13th Five-Year Science and Technology Innovation Plan" as "advocate responsible Research and innovation".
It is worth noting that the "responsible innovation" theory has a clear tendency to oppose intellectual property, especially the patent system. The Von Schomberg acount, one of the four theoretical paradigms of "RRI", clearly states that " The international regime for Intellectual Property Rights is at the heart of inhibiting responsible innovation." Among the four theoretical paradigms of "responsible innovation", the RRI paradigms of Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten account discussed that "responsible innovation" involves "intellectual property". However, the research on "RRI" originated from the scientific and technological philosophy, and intellectual property, especially the patent system, has a specialized knowledge system. The current research on "responsible innovation" involving intellectual property, especially the patent system, is still in a blank state.
In recent years, the role of intellectual property in China national scientific and technological innovation has received increasing attention. In the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, it proposed that it is necessary to accelerate the construction of an innovative country and a national innovation system by strengthening the creation, protection and use of intellectual property. On November 24, 2019, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issued the "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights", which proposed that the most important content of improving the property rights protection system is to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. The greatest incentive for economic competitiveness is to implement "strict protection, large protection, rapid protection, and same protection" for intellectual property rights. The 25th collective study speech of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee pointed out that "innovation is the first driving force for development, and protection of intellectual property rights is to protect innovation."
In the national science and technology innovation policy and system, if the two concepts of "intellectual property" and "RRI" conflict at the theoretical source, it will cause a series of problems in implementation. Solving this problem requires a systematic analysis of the "RRI" theoretical system paradigm, and sorting out its relationship with "intellectual property", especially the patent system, and discovering outstanding problems, as well as the emergence and discovery of problems and the root causes. And give a solution path.
Chapter 1 discusses the four main stream paradigms derived from the theoretical framework of "responsible innovation": the Von Schomberg account, the Stilgoe, Owen and and Macnaghten account, Van den Hoven account, and European Commission account, carry out systematic literature review. Pay attention to the root reason of the conflict between "RRI" and the patent system. Summarizes the current status of practice in the European Union, where the theory of "responsible innovation". The status quo of "RRI" in the EU can be summarized as promoting responsible research and innovation in principle, but there are still many areas for improvement in terms of implementation.
Chapter 2 analyzes the current status and characteristics of domestic research on "RRI". Chinese scholars have cultural differences in understanding " RRI " originating from the European Union and the United States. At the same time, the theoretical system of "RRI" has formed a huge and complex theoretical system after decades of long-term development, which is difficult to grasp as a whole. A large number of studies centered on the theoretical research of " RRI ", focusing on summarizing the paradigm, framework, context, background, current situation and trend of " RRI ". Trying to interpret "responsible innovation" from the European Union in China, and use "ethics and morality" as the "fitting point" and "connection point" for "RRI" in China. This has also led to the general belief in Chinese academic papers that responsible innovation is a balanced concept of "stimulating innovation vitality", and that responsible innovation and "stimulating innovation vitality" are innovation concepts that restrict each other. The purpose of ignoring the "open academic" in the theory of "responsible innovation" is to stimulate innovation vitality and increase innovation productivity. This is different from the original theory of "responsible innovation". In the interpretation of "RRI", China still has the idea of being vigilant against "European centralization" and "academic colonization", hoping to achieve a Chinese-style interpretation of "responsible innovation".
Chapter 3 outlines the establishment and operation of the patent system and China's patent system. Analyzed that the patent system conflicts with the traditional Chinese concept of light advantage but heavy righteousness, resulting in the Chinese patent system appearing in the late Qing Dynasty hundreds of years later than other major countries, and it did not formally operate until 1985. Discussed the five goals and objectives of the Chinese patent system: (1) protection of patent rights for inventions and creations, (2) encouragement of inventions and creations, (3) promotion and application of the results of inventions and creations, (4) promotion of scientific and technological innovation and development, (5) The patent system helps promote the development of Chinese society. And the current five major problems in China's intellectual property system, especially the operation of the patent system, including: (1) The output rate of high-quality patents is low, a large number of low-quality patent application subsidies are fraudulently obtained, and technological innovation policies need to be optimized; (2) China’s patent protection system is imperfect, and penalties for patent infringement are low; (3) Chinese innovation entities lack the ability to manage and apply patent innovations; (4) The basic environment of the patent system for innovation is flawed; (5) The ability of cooperation, dialogue and dispute resolution in patent international affairs needs to be improved.
Chapter 4 clarifed the relationship between "responsible innovation" and patents, especially China's patent system, using the four dimensions of AIRR (Anticipation, Reflection, Inclusion and Responsiveness) examine the patent system. Analyze the relationship between "RRI" and patents from the system level and the scope of cases. Discover the inevitability of patents for the “expected” governance of technological innovation, and provide a concrete path for the “reflection”, “inclusive” and “response” dimension governance.
Chapter 5 uses six keys of RRI (public engagement, gender equality, science education, ethics, and open access/science，governance) to review China's patent system. Reveal the direct connection between "RRI" and the patent system, and explore the possible convergence of patents to help RRI . It was discovered that the patent system can provide a path to "RRI" in "public participation" and "open academic", but there are obvious shortcomings in "science education" and "gender equality", and in terms of "ethics" There are loopholes that need to be closed.
Chapter 6 discusses the concepts of "RRI" and the patent system both imported from the West. In the process of China's development and operation, it has encountered various degrees of " acclimatized " conditions. As far as "responsible innovation" is concerned, although there are three major conflicts with the tradition of my country's science and technology system, since it received the attention of Chinese scholars in 2011, and was written in the "13th Five-Year Science and Technology Innovation Plan" in 2016 in just five years. "RRI" pursues the compatibility of the values of scientific and technological innovation to meet the needs of the public and our country's scientific and technological innovation concepts and needs. However, there are also widespread controversies regarding the tasks, assumptions, expectations, and results of the realization of the " RRI " vision, and there is a lack of specific means, plans and routes for realization. This leads to support for responsible research and innovation in terms of ideas and principles, but encounters difficulties in implementation. RRI does not fundamentally conflict with the patent system, and the specific measures and system design of patents contribute to the implementation of the concept of "RRI" and the exertion of its functions. Intellectual property, especially the patent system, is not only not an obstacle to the realization of "RRI", but also provides legal and policy starting points and paths for the realization of "responsible innovation". The key to the role of the patent system is whether it is "good use" or "abuse". "RRI" and the "patent system" can achieve a mutually helpful relationship, make up for each other's deficiencies, and play the goal of promoting technological innovation and technology for good.
Key Words: Responsible Research Innovation; Patent; scientific and Technological Innovation; Intellectual Property
站内搜索
