Three
years in the making, their new report, "Innovation:
Applying Knowledge In Development" (PDF), is a weighty
tome, coming in at just under 200 pages. It takes a hard
look at the relationship between efforts in scientific
research (and technological innovation) and the breadth of
economic development. I'm not done reading it, but I can
already tell it will be an important contribution to the
debate on the best approaches to development. I can also
already see some places where it has blind spots.
The few
news
stories
about the report (none, as far as I can find, in the
major US media) emphasize its key conclusion, one with which
we are in full agreement: scientists and technology experts
should play a role in steering a nation's development as
large as, if not larger than, the role played by economists.
This is backed up in the report by good historical evidence.
Nations where a scientific advisor plays a key role in
government decision-making have a better track record of
development.
Many of the present structures arise
from outdated economic thinking, [Task Force leader Dr.
Calestous] Juma says. ''It was thought that the main
sources of economic change were land, labour and
capital,'' he told IPS. ''But now science and technology
is the driving force behind economic transition. And
changes in the world of science and technology are
coming much faster than in the world of land, labour and
capital.''
[...]
''Putting science at the centre of
government decision-taking is politically significant
both in the developing and the industrialised world,''
Juma said. [...] But science can deliver quick and more
dramatic benefits in the developing world. ''Jamaica has
a well established mechanism of scientific advice to the
prime minister's office,'' Juma said. ''In human health
Jamaica now records the same longevity as industrialised
countries because of the use of science in the health
system.''
The report focuses on four key recommendations:
- The creation of science and technology advisory
groups at the national level;
- Greater investment in local institutions of higher
learning, and their greater involvement in the service
of community and national development;
- The strengthening of programs to encourage and
support business development;
- Greater investment in infrastructure --
communication, information, energy, transit -- as the
underpinnings of technological innovation.
The report, at least upon first review, has two glaring
omissions.
Firstly, the term "open source" appears only once in the
entire document, and then only as "open source material" in
a discussion of the value of open access research. The
utility of open source is never mentioned, either in terms
of Free/Open Source Software as a useful tool for
low-expense, high-value infrastructure development or in
terms of open source as a
broader model for scientific research. While scientific
and technological advice at the national level is certainly
critical, and the encouragement of scientific and
technological business development of definite importance,
it's hard to imagine an
effective technology development policy which does not
take advantage of both the low cost of free software and the
social benefits of open, collaborative efforts.
Secondly, the report seems almost hesitant about the
implications of their recommendations. It's not surprising
that they don't talk about "leapfrogging,"
but they don't seem (again, at first review) to consider
going beyond simply replacing Western aid. The four key
recommendations, for example, are perfect for accelerating a
nascent
biotech/nanotech
industries, as these technologies depend less on a heavy
industrial base and more on well-educated researchers and a
robust information infrastructure. Development doesn't have
to just mean catching up; it can also mean moving ahead.