Sir

Your report (Nature 407, 276; 2000) about the World Bank giving higher priority to science was a welcome reminder that, unfortunately, national and international 'development' organizations have given short shrift to the scientific and technological base that is essential to enable countries to prosper.

In December 1992, former US president Jimmy Carter and I, with a distinguished task force from the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, released a report entitled “Partnerships for Global Development: The Clearing Horizon”. We underscored the critical importance of science and technology in economic development along with the imperative for global cooperation.

During the 1990s, however, major donors yielded to pressure to use almost all aid resources for distributing food and medicine today instead of improving agricultural productivity and vaccines for tomorrow. Further, developed countries suffered 'aid fatigue' because foreign assistance seemed to be a perpetual handout rather than a catalyst for economic independence. Investment in science and education was also marginalized by grave difficulties in creating financial stability with honest, democratic governance under the rule of law.

US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, seeing a growing need for science and perhaps sensing the new rustlings at the bank, recently named a science adviser: Norman Neureiter, a chemist with an extraordinarily sophisticated understanding of how universities and the private sector interact with the public sector to spark economic growth. This long-needed graft of science onto US diplomacy will demand intensive care for many months.

Along similar lines, don't expect a quick turnaround from the World Bank's higher priority on science. The bank will have to rethink its mission and operations to decide how global technological change meshes with its economic strategy.