Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
1. What should the international community and DFID do to support the contribution that science, engineering, technology and innovation (SETI) make to the achievement of the MDGs? Can you give any examples of good practice?
“In order to significantly reduce poverty and promote development it is essential to achieve sustained and broad-based economic growth. The millennium development goals highlight some of the priority areas that must be addressed to eliminate extreme poverty.” Thus, the goals per se are not the whole picture, SETI priorities should be set to achieve sustained, broadly-based economic growth. Only secondarily should priorities be modified to include such complementary efforts as are required to assure the specific MDG targets are achieved and MDGs are met. While most targets are specified for the year 2015, the MDGs are longer term, and SETI efforts should also be planned for the long term as well as the short term.
In the short term, it is critical to direct the SETI capacity of the UK and other rich nations more toward solving the problems of poverty, since the required professional cadre and institutional capacity of the world is located so preponderantly in developed nations. Thus, new technologies to deal with the diseases of poverty will come from rich countries, as will critically important new approaches to improving agricultural productivity. At the same time, it is necessary to improve the transfer of and adaptation of technology to poor nations.
In both the long and the short term, it is important to improve the climate for innovation in developing nations. An important aspect of such an effort is to change international market conditions, allowing poor nations greater access to the markets in developed nations.
Priority efforts will depend heavily on the nations targeted. Peace is a requirement for SETI-based economic development and poverty reduction. So too is economic freedom, and freedom from coercive or corrupt government.
Development is based on infrastructure: energy, transportation, communications, potable water systems, waste disposal systems, dams and canals; engineers are the masters of infrastructure. China and India now produce large numbers of engineers each year, but engineering manpower remains a problem in many poor countries. One result is that such countries have to outsource expensive engineering services. More problematic, such countries don’t have the cadre’s of engineers needed to lead in infrastructure policy and development. Strengthening engineering capacity in poor nations includes providing incentives to employ the engineers they train, and strengthening engineering capacity is a priority.
For large, industrializing nations such as Brazil, China and India, which have relatively strong SETI capacity, it is perhaps most important to maintain a climate that allows that capacity to grow, that allows persons and organizations to prosper via technological innovation. For such countries, industrial technology and innovation are important. Agricultural innovation remains important in these countries to improve the productivity of rural populations, and to allow continued immigration to urban, industrial and service jobs.
For the poorest nations, especially small, poor nations, it will be important to organize regional institutions that allow for the sharing of SETI, and to create incentives for the transfer of technology benefiting the poor (such as creation of markets via subsidies for important innovations in health and educational technology.) Poor nations have agricultural economies, and the emphasis must be on SETI in agriculture.
Increasingly, the service sector is being transformed by technology, and it is important to stimulate service technology innovation in developing nations. The outsourcing of service jobs from developed to developing nations via information and communications technology has been shown to help alleviate poverty, and the climate permitting such outsourcing must be maintained.
Social sciences are important, though often overlooked in SETI discussions. On the one hand, societal reorganization is the key to economic development, and the social sciences provide the knowledge and understanding to guide that social reorganization. On the other hand, rapid social and economic development changes culture radically, and is intended to help peoples to achieve their own aspirations; social sciences provide critical knowledge and understanding needed to make societal change responsive to the values of the members of the changing societies.
It is important to recognize that building SETI capacity to achieve broadly based, sustainable development involves the best science, engineering and technology that can be mustered, not just a second rate technology acceptable only to the neediest of the poor! Cutting edge technologies are often not only appropriate, but the best or only technological approach with which to tackle problems of the poor. While simple means such as condoms have an important place in AIDS campaigns, development of an HIV vaccine is requiring the best science the world can muster!
SETI capacity includes the capacity of institutions to supply the resources needed for SETI: political support, finance, human resources, facilities, specialized equipment, supplies, and social support. Institutionalizing these capacities in developing nations to support domestic SETI capacity should be a priority. So too should be institutionalizing these capacities in developed nations to support the increased application of developed nation SETI capacity towards poverty eradication and international development.
A best practice model for SETI capacity building might be Israel, which has utilized SETI as a tool for development over more than half a century. While there are certainly aspects of Israeli policy that one would not want to emulate, and aspects idiosyncratic to the country’s history and situation, Israel has successfully built a productive, export-oriented agricultural base using technological innovation and strong technology services as a tool, and made the transition to an industrial and then post industrial economic system, shifting SETI priorities in the process.
Capacity development
2. Where is further SETI capacity most needed to advance the MDGs? Are there any critical gaps? – This could be in specific areas of research or knowledge, in particular skills and professions, or in countries and regions.
As noted above, SETI capacity needs depend on the state of development of the economy of the nation involved: agricultural economies require technological innovation supporting agriculture and micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs); industrialization requires more focus on manufacturing technologies; movement into post-industrial areas requires more focus on service-industry technologies.
Special needs of developing nations include a vaccine against HIV; improved technology against TB, malaria, and tropical diseases; a range of affordable agricultural and food- processing technologies, especially technologies that can be used in tropical areas; engineering technologies for low-cost, labor-intensive infrastructure development; etc.
Special emphasis should be given to delegation of professional technological functions. In the health sector, for example, poor nations have fewer professional health workers per capita than do rich nations, they have less capital in health facilities, and they face different patterns of disease than do rich nations. The health services appropriate to poor nations will be different than those in rich nations (where most modern health technology originates). Poor nations need health services that are largely preventative, that focus on the most prevalent diseases, and that can be delivered by health workers with limited training. The packages of technologies embodied in health workers, their equipment, facilities, and pharmaceuticals and supplies must be matched, and appropriate to the epidemiological and economic circumstances in which they are to be used. Similar arguments can be made for engineering, agriculture, etc.
More generally, there are gaps wherever there are economic failures. Poverty keeps the market incentives for SETI low in developing countries, and thus many areas (such as child welfare and public health in which British and other rich country peoples agree merit more support) are under-funded by the private sector. Public goods requiring subsidies from government or civil society are under-funded because of the weakness of governments in developing countries, and the weakness of charitable foundations and civil society organizations.
3. What are the key capacities that developing countries need to be ‘intelligent customers’ of SETI, able to make informed decisions about how SETI could best contribute to their development, and to respond to opportunities and threats such as climate change and natural disasters?
Unfortunately, the framing of the question implies that developing countries are “customers” of SETI in ways that developed countries are not. It is important to see SETI as a part of any nation’s development toolkit. Like any nation, poor countries need:
· strong S&T communities as SETI gatekeepers,
· markets that reward appropriate technological innovation,
· open media and political processes that allow the articulation of technological needs, and
· effective governance that recognizes the needs for public investment in public goods, such as research and development.
The framing of the question also suggests that developing nations are conceptualized as “intelligent individual consumers”. In fact complexity theory offers more insight to technological behavior of countries than decision theory. The work of economists such as Nelson and Winters is a more productive framework for the conceptualization of SETI, but even that must be expanded.
4. What are the most effective approaches to developing SETI capacity in developing countries? Can you give any examples of good practice?
SETI capacity building begins with bricks and mortar, training, and technical assistance. “Sandwich programs,” in which graduate education abroad is sandwiched with guided practice at home, can be useful. Linkage programs, in which institutions in developed countries establish long term development partnerships with institutions in developing countries, can also be useful. Exchanges are important; Israel, for example, has a policy in which university faculty are expected to work abroad during summers and sabbaticals since its SETI system must be fully integrated with the larger international SETI systems.
Many if not most countries have already reached stages of SETI development where these approaches recede in relative importance. SETI capacity is further developed through practice in conducive policy and institutional environments. It is important, therefore, that SETI tasks be delegated to developing nations themselves, and that the economic and political systems needed to support SETI capacity in developing nations be strengthened correspondingly.
5. What are the characteristics of ‘successful’ centres of excellence, which promote effective and sustainable SETI capacity development in developing countries? Can you give any examples of good practice?
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, with support from USAID, operated a project in the 1980’s supporting an international network of centers to do research on the etiology of acute respiratory infections in children. The results of the research done in this network clarified the nature of pneumonias in children in poor countries, and provided half of the scientific evidence cited in the revision of WHO guidelines for acute respiratory infections. The program depended on:
· strong, professional epidemiological management,
· peer review of proposals for selection of laboratories seeking to participate in the network,
· new and emerging diagnostic technologies,
· strong support for the quality of the research (including technical assistance in diagnostic laboratory procedures, use of U.S. and European reference laboratories, and technical assistance in survey techniques and data processing).
Researchers were gathered periodically to provide peer review of each other’s work. Results were published in high quality international journals, with assistance provided to the authors to enable them to redact good papers.
Centers of Excellence form around leaders who combine professional excellence with drive and organizational skills. But they only exist where political support, social support, financing, human resources, facilities, and supplies are adequate.
A “worst practice” might be the attempt by one or more foreign scientists to create a center of excellence, defined by them as “participating in world-class research on cutting-edge topics of interest to the scientific community,” where the local institutions are incapable of supporting such a center, and the research is not relevant to the needs of the country where it is done. Too many worst case examples exist!
6. What capabilities does DFID need to enhance its role as an intelligent customer that uses and supports SETI for the achievement of the MDGs?
DFID should focus on creating conditions (markets, IPR domains, etc.) that encourage private sector SETI activities benefiting developing nations. To do so well requires that DFID develop the relevant staff and institutional capabilities, which include capabilities in the economics of technology, the sociology of SETI institutions, and understanding of technological change and innovation.
DFID should seek opportunities in which it can influence British and other SETI activities to make them more beneficial for developing nations. These opportunities might be financial, such as DFID subsidies for development assistance components leveraging larger resources from domestic programs. They might be through advocacy, negotiation, or provision of non-financial incentives (e.g. prizes). To do so well, DFID has to have the capacity to recognize such opportunities in the British-domestic and international SETI systems. Successful advocacy seems outside the capabilities of many SETI proponents.
For those areas in which DFID proposes direct subsidies for SETI, it should depend on peer review from members of the relevant SETI professional communities, including SETI professionals from and working in developing countries. Of course, DFID also needs professionals expert in the specific SETI fields, and perhaps more to the point, the capacity to locate and draw upon such expertise from Britain and the development community.
Innovation
7. Where does innovation have the greatest potential to advance the MDGs? – This could be in specific sectors, countries or regions.
Clearly the most rapid innovation processes occur in countries which are experiencing already rapid economic growth, especially China. Similarly, the most rapid innovation processes are occurring in certain technologies, especially information and communication technologies and biotechnology. Note that very large numbers of the poor are still to be found in middle-income countries.
On the other hand, DFID should seriously consider its potential role in stimulating more rapid innovation in lagging geographic areas and fields. Thus poor countries in Africa might benefit greatly by increased rates of innovation. So too might fields such as small-farmer agriculture, primary health care, and local environmental management.
8. What should the international community do to enhance developing countries’ capacity to exploit innovation for wealth creation? Can you give any examples of good practice?
“Demand pull” or “supply push”? Should the emphasis be on creating the conditions which foster innovation or on creating the capacity to innovate? Clearly both are necessary. Where social and economic conditions discourage innovation, innovators will become frustrated and leave. Even given conducive conditions, innovation requires knowledge, skills and resources.
DFID might find it useful to differentiate between innovation in commercial versus public goods. Where conditions exist conducive to innovation in the private sector, there is a relatively good history of private sector innovation. DFID might have a greater role to play fostering innovation in public goods. In this respect, it is important to recognize that the public sector plays a greater role in very poor nations, where markets are not sufficiently developed to support high levels of commercial innovation, and where complementary institutions are weak or absent.
There is a traditional, but useful distinction made between innovation in traditional versus innovation in modernizing communities. Both are important, but successful innovation in traditional communities is perhaps more difficult, and perhaps more important in achieving the MDGs. One difference is that modernizing communities tend to have access to more modern knowledge systems – schools, agricultural and industrial extension services, market-based information services. And they have accepted these systems. The further extension of these institutions to serve subsistence populations is an important step in improving innovation in currently traditional communities. Considerable care must be taken to gain the trust of traditional peoples in these modernizing institutions, something that is difficult when rural schools and health sevices function poorly and treat their clients poorly. Moreover, traditional communities are often marginalized from the policies that promote innovation, facing social and economic climates that are not conducive to innovation. These circumstances must also be improved. Then too, modern scientific and technological knowledge must be available and accessible to these people – affordable, available geographically, in their languages, etc.
Engaging the private sector
9. What action is needed to enhance the role of the private sector in harnessing SETI for the achievement of the MDGs? How can the international community better engage with the private sector towards this end and what role should DFID play?
The private sector in developing nations must emphasize technological innovation, adaptation, deepening, and improvement. The private sector in developed nations has to increase the transfer of appropriate technologies to developing nations, especially to poor countries. In both cases, the incentives for doing so are likely to be profits. The international community should work to see that profit incentives are institutionalized, and to remove impediments that interfere with profit incentives.
It should be recognized that the private sector can be defined to include academic and civil society organizations as well as for-profit firms. Some civil society organizations, such as professional societies and the Royal Academies have an important role to play in SETI approaches to international development. Public-private partnerships should also include government partnerships with these organizations. Indeed, some domestic not-for-profit organizations might play such a role, but have little incentive to do so without government intervention. Thus, the U.S. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association has played an important role in U.S. energy assistance, due to the encouragement and finance supplied by USAID.
There is also an important role for the private sector in advocacy – promoting the work of academia, government and civil society in harnessing SETI for the achievement of the MDGs. Again, the private sector will do so most effectively when it perceives a profit motivation in doing so. Still, there is a need for education to clarify for private sector leaders the importance of better SETI training in the schools and universities, the importance of better SETI in government, and the importance of better SETI in civil society organizations. Such education should also help convince the private sector of the critical need for partnerships to enable and encourage SETI.
10. What are the characteristics of successful Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), that harness or promote SETI for the achievement of the MDGs? Can you give any examples of good practice?
I would guess that the most important characteristic for success it that each partner brings to the partnership those things that it does better than the others. Government is especially good at financing that which the economist terms “public goods”. The private sector is especially good at providing goods and services for which markets exist. Civil society is especially good at providing services to those outside the market economy, It is also good at mobilizing social and political support for the actions of government and social and political concern about the actions of the for-profit sector.
It is not always important that the partnership be formally defined, nor explicit.
I would suggest that the rapid diffusion of cell phones is a good example. The international community promoted policies that would unleash competitive processes in developing countries, and many developing country governments implemented such policies. Developed country private firms took advantage of the burgeoning technological opportunities to rapidly improve cell phones and cellular services, and to lower their costs. Entrepreneurs in developing countries linked with multinational firms to go into the cellular business, and rapidly took advantage of the commercial opportunities that had been created. Social entrepreneurs, such as the Grameen Bank, seized the opportunity to invent new institutions that would enable the poor in villages and urban slums to acquire and utilize cell phone service.
The diffusion of the Internet is another example. Again, a critical step was the introduction of policies that allowed a competitive market to form for Internet service providers. The private sector appropriated the technology relatively rapidly for its own purposes, with some areas such as the hospitality and tourist industries becoming leaders. Government policies encouraged the adoption of the technology within government agencies, such as those in the education and health sector. Civil society organizations, such as professional societies both used the Internet, and helped their members to master the technology. Other civil society organizations, such as trade associations, used their influence with the government to promote pro-Internet policy changes. Civil society organizations and donors helped to pioneer new institutions such as telecenters, while the commercial sector pioneered cybercafés and Internet-connected business centers. The academic institutions were the leaders in adopting and disseminating the technology, and trained people in its use.
11. In which areas of SETI could new or enhanced PPPs add most value? – This could include PPPs in specific areas of research or product development, or in particular sectors, countries or regions.
Clearly, the geographic area most in need is Africa, although there are many enclaves of poverty in other continents, some quite large. Thus public-private partnerships would meet the most pressing needs in these geographic areas.
The geographic areas in which PPPs will be easiest to form and will be most successful are probably the newly industrialized countries. Thus the “bang-for-the-buck” may be quite high in developing countries with limited poverty but rapid economic growth.
I suggest that the most important role for public-private partnerships is in the generation of remunerative employment, and this is best done by developing industry and commerce. The poorest countries have agricultural economies, so PPPs that build agricultural employment are important for them. An example might be private firms creating markets for the product of poor farmers, and private firms creating markets for the farming inputs that the farmers use (seed, fertilizer, simple equipment) – while the public sector creates agricultural infrastructure (farm to market roads, irrigation infrastructure, etc.) and provides extension services. Tata Chemicals, Tata Kisan Sansar (TKS) program in India, which uses ICT to provide information for farmers, in conjunction with marketing inputs might be an interesting example, especially in terms of its relations with the public sector.
Countries develop economically by expanding from agricultural development to industry, commerce, and post-industrial economic activities. Thus one might expect that PPPs would be especially important in promoting that transformation. The private sector of course best runs manufacturing, many financial services, wholesale and retail trade, etc. Yet these sectors depend on the public sector policies and institutions, as well as on physical infrastructure provided by the public sector.
I would give priority to PPPs in the development of biomedical technology appropriate to the needs of poor people in developing nations. So too would I give priority to developing engineering and agricultural technology appropriate to tropical regions and poor nations. Information and Communications technology seem especially promising of high returns to investment, as they are adapted to the needs of developing nations.
Policy and practice
12. Can you give any examples of good practice in terms of how SETI has been handled in developing Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) and other national planning processes in developing countries? Is there a role for the international community and DFID to play in supporting the representation of SETI in such processes?
The recent development of the World Bank’s Millennium Science Initiative in Uganda might be a useful example. The problem of donor funding of science and technology in poor countries is especially acute, and this project moves toward a new paradigm in that respect. The Bank and the Government agreed that a SETI project would have high priority, and each assigned a team to explore possibilities. An assessment of SETI conditions and issues was written by a joint team. Consultations were held with hundreds of Ugandan SETI leaders participating. A US$21 million project was eventually designed, based upon the findings of this process, and is to be initiated this year.
The project will utilize peer review methods extensively for allocation of resources. It will focus on creating capacity in institutions of higher education. It will emphasize investments to improve the training of people in the science-based and technology-based learned professions, such as engineers, agronomists, public-health physicians, etc. The emphasis will be neither on research nor on innovation, but on good professional practice in areas with strong public-goods aspects. S&T education will be a strong focus.
13. How could DFID improve the treatment of SETI in Country Assistance Plans? How might it better engage with its partners in developing countries in this process?
I have no comments on the treatment of SETI in DFID’s Country Assistance Plans.
It is hard not to encourage coordination, but it must be recognized that coordination consumes resources that could be used for other aspects of management of DFID’s development portfolio. It is also important to recognize that coordination will occur to a large degree because of the participation of professionals in DFID, in other donors, in the governments of developing countries, and in other organizations in professional societies and institutions which share knowledge and understanding.
Still, I suggest it would be useful for DFID to coordinate more with other donors on SETI issues. DFID could encourage the donor community to be more explicit about SETI aspects of donor assistance policies and projects in order to facilitate such coordination. It would be especially useful to encourage multilateral agencies to lead in coordination of SETI. They have the resources to do so with developing countries, and the multilateral efforts could then serve as a basis for achieving more synergy among bilateral programs as well.
Developing country governments may be encouraged to deal more explicitly and formally with SETI policy. They will need a strengthened capacity (training, technical assistance, institution building) to do so well. It is important to recognize that SETI policies best develop from the interplay of government, the private sector, civil society, and the SETI institutions themselves. Policy-making capacity has to be strengthened across the board!
The best encouragement might be in the form of support to projects, programs and countries with sound development policies that effectively include SETI concerns, although it is hard to make decisions about the quality of government policies and institutions.
14. What should DFID do to enhance the role that research plays in informing policy and practice, both in developing countries and in DFID?
It has been very difficult to move toward knowledge based practice in the United Kingdom and other developed nations! The efforts to improve the scientific basis of medical practice are at least one hundred years old, and many are still dissatisfied with the results. Fast results should not be expected in poor countries, when results have come only slowly in the histories of rich countries.
Some approaches are obvious, although perhaps not from the viewpoint of donor assistance agencies. Professional standards must be set, and institutionalized, for the science-based and technology-based learned professions. Guidelines and standards should be institutionalized for the levels of professional training and skills required fro different functions in government and industry. Professionals must be certified. Certification should be introduced in science-based and technology-based education, especially higher education. Donor assistance projects and programs must insist on high quality SETI components. Continuing education must be offered for people in the science-based and technology-based learned professions appropriate to their needs and the needs of their countries. Incentives should be institutionalized to encourage their continuing education, and sanctions when professionals fail to keep up their skills. Peer review should be institutionalized for professional services.
One especially important aspect for DFID’s consideration is that donor assistance should build local SETI capacity. There is a tendency for donor agencies to rely on staff and consultants from abroad, but science, engineering and technological skills are best learned by doing. Donors, and developing country governments, should use professionals from developing nations in project planning and implementation, even when it appears more costly in time and money to do so. The extra cost should be seen as an investment in capacity development. The developing country expertise can be, and often should be from the country benefiting from the assistance itself. However, employment of consulting firms from the region (even outside the beneficiary nation) builds regional SETI capacity. DFID should use its own projects and program portfolio to build local SETI capacity by creating professional opportunities, and also should encourage the international financial institutions to do so.
Improving the role of research in policy is a somewhat different matter. First, the pot should not call the kettle black! DFID itself has significant problems with knowledge management – the ability to base its own policies firmly on research. DFID should improve its knowledge management practice.
Note that it is critical to get the results of social science research into science, engineering, technology and innovation policy. It is sometimes hard for physical scientists, engineers, physicians, and others to appreciate their need for inputs from economists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and organizational scientists. DFID can help to overcome this problem, especially by itself assuming leadership in bridging the gap. So too, DFID can help by leadership in its own program in bridging the gap between the science and technology community and the humanities communities, between science and culture.
European research output has now surpassed that of North America, and Asian research output is projected to do so in a few decades. World production of research results is huge and increasing. It takes a large, highly-professional staff to keep up. In this regard, DFID seems at a disadvantage as compared with larger organizations such as the World Bank. DFID’s comparative advantage lies in its ability to tap the expertise of British academic institutions, and it should continue to do so. Reliance on Royal Academies and professional societies for SETI advice seems especially prudent.
Of course, the more important and more difficult task is in getting developing countries themselves to improve the use of research in their policy making. Obviously, before it is used the research has to be done, and that means it has to be financed. So too, the research results have to be disseminated. The Internet facilitates such dissemination, as do other novel technologies, but there has to be more done to allow free and open distribution of research results to developing nations. The policy making process has to be opened up in many developing countries. SETI related policies, especially, benefit from effective interplay among government, academia, professional societies, academies of science, civil society, and industrial groups. Institution building is needed in all these sectors. People in all these sectors have to be trained in knowledge-based policy formulation. Ultimately, the science-based and technology-based learned professions and the SETI understanding of the public and national leadership have to be strengthened. Levels have to be elevated, both in quantity and quality.
15. Can you give any examples of good practice where SETI has improved governance or service delivery, in particular in fragile states?
The place to look for good examples of SETI improvements in service delivery is not fragile states, but nations that are developing strongly. In failed states, conditions are usually too chaotic to support science, engineering, technology or innovation. But clearly, the newly industrialized states all show strong rates of innovation, and build science, engineering and technology quickly.
e-Government is perhaps an example of the way in which SETI can promote improved governance. Opening government procurement via online solicitations seems to have reduced corruption. Provision of government information online may have improved transparency. Putting transactions on the Internet seems to be improving government services. Innovations such as community radio and the Internet are strengthening citizen knowledge of government actions, and ultimately giving more voice to the governed.
Other
16. What approach should DFID take to horizon scanning, for example to identify how SETI could help or hinder development in the long term? How should DFID coordinate these activities with similar exercises undertaken in the UK and internationally? Can you give any examples of good practice?
There is a need for developing countries as well as other donors to be involved in collaborative horizon scanning in SETI. The UN agencies (WHO, FAO, UNIDO, UNFPA, etc.) should be an important venue for such scanning, and for coming to agreements among nations as to what SETI priorities should be. DFID’s recent evaluation of these multilateral organizations seems to have missed this point, and DFID’s use of the reports of those evaluations in governance organs of those organizations seems to have been less than helpful.
DFID might consider methods used in other nations for horizon scanning. In the United States, for example, USAID has had a science advisor and is considering reestablishing the post. It has a central bureau responsible for SETI functions, that seeks to establish a critical mass of professionals in each of USAID’s areas of assistance. USAID maintains contracts with many organizations to provide SETI services, including horizon scanning; these contracts include indefinite quantity contracts that can be used to provide SETI services quickly from pre-qualified sources. It has created relationships with an extensive cadre of consultants who are available to provide expert advice on an individual basis. It has fellowship and exchange programs to bring SETI professionals from academia into the Agency on a rotating basis. USAID has a long term association with the U.S. National Academies and with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and can draw upon these agencies for SETI advice.
17. Are there any other areas where you feel there is particular scope for the international community and DFID to improve their approach to using and supporting SETI?
Yes. The overall tone of the questions posed suggests an excessive emphasis in DFID’s thinking on research and experimental development of technology, and on technological innovation. These are important, but I would suggest that the importance of strong professional services have not been sufficiently recognized. For example, good engineering practice is essential for the efficient and effective development and operation of a nation’s physical infrastructure. And that infrastructure is critical to economic development and to meeting the MDGs.
I would give highest priority to developing strong cadres in the science-based and technology-based learned professions, focusing especially on those providing services with strong externalities. Areas such as public health, the control of diseases of livestock, control of crop pests and diseases, soil science, weather prediction, water resource management, forest management, fisheries management, geological surveying, cadastral surveying, food safety, and industrial standards all require highly trained professionals, and all provide significant social benefits beyond their costs.
Especially important is the development of cadres of adequately trained teachers for the SETI subjects in secondary and vocational schools and universities!
No comments:
Post a Comment