"Where do scientists fit into Africa's science plans?"

The modern Library of Alexandria. (The rebirth of the most famous of ancient libraries might symbolize the reinforcement and regeneration of African science in general.)


David Dickson, in this editorial, wrote:

Defining an appropriate policy-making role for Africa's scientific community requires a careful balance between 'science push' and 'demand pull'.

"Science and technology" is a big field, and science and technology policy is necessarily complex. The United States, with the world's biggest national R&D enterprise, is perhaps the prototypical example. There is the National Science Foundation as well as a plethora of foundations and other entities involved in financing fundamental research. Industrial, agricultural, medical and other sectoral research systems have largely separate and autonomous R&D policy systems. In part this complexity is due to the system evolving -- just growing like Topsy -- rather than being the result of some grand plan. But the complexity is probably also due to the fact that decisions are better made by different means according to the circumstances of those decisions.

Thus in the past, crop development was largely a local matter of developing and adapting varieties to meet local needs. A variety grown in Iowa may not do well in Florida or Hawaii. It was estimated that more than half of the benefits of such R&D were realized within 100 miles of the field station where the work was done. In those circumstances, a extremely decentralized system of agricultural science developed, with block grants made to research stations, to be divided among projects by local judgment.

Biomedical research, on the other hand, faced a nation-wide population with relatively similar health needs, and biomedical research policy could be more centralized. However, since the investment in R&D in the development could be recouped by sale of products, that field was left to the private sector and to the hidden hand of the market. On the other hand, techniques for clinical practice were first the responsibility of the medical schools, and later of the National Institutes of Health, not the commercial sector.

It seems to me that the major challenge of science and technology policy is institutionalizing a process that brings the right knowledge and understanding to bear on the right issues at the right time.

Scientists obviously have the best understanding of their science, and the opportunities that exist for doing important science. Indeed, it seems that highly productive scientists who have produced widely cited papers may have even a better understanding of the dynamics of their fields than the "run of the mill" scientists. On the other hand, sometimes older scientists fail to see that the frontier that they explored has been relegated to a backwater by some other frontier in their field.

Those most knowledgeable about technology are perhaps those involved in advancing the frontiers of each specific technology -- in industry for industrial technology, in biomedical and clinical research for health technologies, etc.

In some cases, there are experts with superior knowledge of the need for new technologies. Sometimes they are technology users. Sometimes they are people who have a broad overview of the sector, as a health planner may be a good source for information on the relative needs for new vaccines, or an agricultural planner of the relative needs for new crop varieties.

Similarly, in some cases, there are experts with superior knowledge and understanding of the need for new information. Thus there are experts in the field of public health who might first detect the need for new epidemiological data about a potential disease outbreak; experts in agriculture who might first detect the need for new knowledge from plant pathology of entomology on a new crop disease or pest.

We live in societies in which those who pay the bill call the tune. Thus the owners of businesses, or the managers they pay, should be heard on the needs for industrial technology. Where governments fund R&D, it is important that not only the public interest but the public preference be considered.

There is a famous example, that of polio research. Polio was not the most serious health threat when pressure was brought to bear on the development of a vaccine, but it was probably most in the minds of the American public. There was fear fired by images of people in leg braces, wheel chairs and iron lungs. The public demand that there be an end to that fear had to be taken into account, and not just the relative burden of disease.

There are of course other values and interests at stake, but this list should suffice.

At issue in science and technology policy are: the allocation of resources, the definition of policies, the building of institutions. I would suggest that the processes of decision making on these matters are by definition political, as is the bringing to bear of different parties and influences on the decision making process.

I think political science is not sufficiently advanced to specify a process by which the best science policy decisions could be made. Some things do seem clear. Substituting the judgment of politicians for that of scientific peers in the selection of individual scientific projects seems to court inefficiency and rent-seeking behavior. Market forces seem to be very effective in the promotion of technological innovation.

In the political arena, however, efficiency is not the only criterion. The legitimacy of the decision process is also of concern. A process that in fact gets high returns from investments in S&T, but which is widely seen as illegitimate, will not fly.

I agree with Dickson's conclusion:

The optimal solution, as so often, lies somewhere between the two (science push versus demand pull). The creative spirit at the heart of scientific enterprise requires a certain degree of autonomy to flourish. But if this spirit is not harnessed to the goals and values of the society that supports it — which means in practice contributing to technological innovation for social and economic progress — such support is likely to evaporate.

For Africa, I hope to see a number of participants in the science and technology process. These would include Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine providing inputs especially from established scientists and people in the technological professions, as well as from profession societies representing a wider range of professionals. So too, I would like to see participation of legislators, people from industry and from civil society. It seems to me that the legislative and executive branches of governments should play central and analytic coordinating roles, both in terms of allocations for publicly funded S&T, and for creating policies to foster development of S&T in the for-profit and non-profit private sectors.

I am glad to see the InterAcademy Council, the African Academy of Sciences and the World Academy of sciences playing roles in Africa. I am also glad to see the International Scientific Union (ICSU), the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) and other professional societies playing roles in Africa. The fact that the Gates Foundation has joined in an effort supported for many years by other foundations (notably Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie) is great!

I hope to see more firms developing technology to meet African needs and sell in African markets, and indeed helping to develop technologies that Africans can utilize to sell better in their own and in international markets.

Many donors are needed. The technical agencies of the UN system are important, and UNESCO, WHO, FAO, UNEP, UNIDO, UNCTAD and WTO all should play important roles in their spheres of influence. So too, the international financial institutions (World Bank, African Development Bank, UNDP) have a key role, providing the funding for institution building as well as expert advice from their professional staffs.

The need is huge, and the resources severely limited. Africa needs all the players it can get to help. Integrating the efforts of the various players into sustainable science policy institutions and institution building will be complex and difficult, but should not prove impossible with good will.