Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 23 January 2008 | Nature 451, 382-383 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451382a
News
A very mysterious foundation
Shroud of secrecy surrounds innovation organization.
Some 3,000 scientists, including more than 100 Nobel laureates, have apparently accepted membership of a body called the World Innovation Foundation (WIF), which claims to be a powerful world-changing network to provide “the technological tools and miracle technologies that we shall all need to solve the world's impending global problems”.
No fewer than four Nobel laureates hold executive positions in the WIF's governance, according to its website: Jerome Karle, William Knowles, Robert Huber, and Yuan Lee.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
In a world of >6E+09 people, even one in a million odds of someone concocting an odd-ball, half-baked scheme means thousands such schemes abound all around us. Hill's WIF may just be one of those.
My impression was that Hill had lots of big ideas, but his ability might be limited to do it. This publication in _Nature_ might help him further do it.
One minor error in this article. The 1986 Nobel chemistry laureate should be Y.T Lee, that is Yuan Tze(i'm not sure about the spelling) Lee.
There is a mistake about the link with (Nature 433, 568–569; 2005). Here is the website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/full/433568a.html#related-links
Where will $22.5 billion be from? Eventually names of those 3,000 scientists, including more than 100 Nobel laureates, will be used to convince heads of states and rich businessmen to empty their pockets. Poor taxpayers from all over the world.
This ORE foundation reminds me of the Society of Blond-headed Men. (I guess in today's mania with acronyms that society would be called SOBM). The way that funding in science is going, and as fewer positions are available for more and more scientists, it is no surprise that such foundations are appearing. Come to think of it, it gives me an idea... How about the SHGSWNP? (The Society of Honorable Gentlemen Scientists Without a Nobel Prize). Maybe its members could be recruited by ORE to fill the 20000 positions...
Dr Butler respectfully approached me to clear up some outstanding queries, a day or two before completing his article on the WIF for ‘Nature’, he indicated to me that this could be a fascinating story. I responded in good faith therefore to these queries. In reading the article published in Nature, I realized that Dr. Butler has very selectively used this information. As it appears now, with the primary intention to support his preconceived views of the WIF: not as a fascinating, but rather a questionable organization. Indeed, the author questioned the credibility of the WIF and its fellowship, its managerial capacity, its programmatic approach and its transparency. I would have preferred, if he would have presented his queries in positioning himself and his intentions, to allow me and my colleagues to position ourselves. Not as a last minute inter-action under enormous pressure of time on myself, as the matter was handled. In doing so, we could have done more justice to the WIF and achieved a better understanding on both sides. I also believe, we would have better served the prestigious reputation of Nature Magazine itself, if Dr. Butler will allow me this remark. In such process, we could have given Dr. Butler evidence, that for instance Prof. Huber has accepted fellowship and vice-presidency together with being engaged in a WIF initiative in Brazil a couple of years ago, however, the fact that he has no recollection of these things, speaks for itself. We have to concede that we are in a difficult process of institutional transformation, financial consolidation, programmatic re-orientation in the past three years, partly also in responding to a continued increase of the WIF’s fellowship. As this increase reflects a demand in the international scientific community for an organization and forum like the WIF, the inner group of current and designated Board Members is aware, that many fellows expect more than being listed as a WIF-fellow. For this reason this inner-circle discusses in regular meetings ways and means to better inform, to interact and engage WIF-fellows in meaningful assignments, hopefully starting in the course of this year. In any event, we owe Prof. Huber an apology and to many others, who feel that they should be involved in the cause, for which the WIF stands for. Although this underlying process of the WIF-transformation is advancing, partly under great personal sacrifices of those involved, its pace is limited as the result of the lack of adequate financial resources and as a consequence an adequate managerial capacity. As the preservation and protection of the ‘independence’ of the WIF is considered as a fundamental principle for its institutional existence by its founders, the funding of the WIF represents an extra-ordinary challenge. Its solution is pursued a.o. in the WIF's transformation into an operational organization, which will allow to create at the same time a self-generating income mechanism for services provided by the WIF on a not-for-profit basis, hence adding a third factor. The article only indicates to the managerial capacity, which respectfully is also not factually ad correctly presented. More so, it is treating this matter in isolation of its context, not taking into account the dynamics of these inter-related factors, propelling and advancing the actual transformation process. In this context special attention needs to be attached to the programmatic approach of the WIF, also to encounter the imputation of WIF being an unrealistic organization in addressing its cause and its role, as expressed in the WIF-ORE-STEM complex and respective claims of the WIF. This concept inherited by the co-founders of the WIF has been modified and adjusted only at the end of last year in a way, that it has been reduced to a combined research-incubator structure at national level and in support of the implementation of national development strategies. It has also maintained elements of its original global orientation, however, more so in addressing global development issues in the national development context. The concept is also designed for its application in developing countries and countries in economic transition. It is fair to say therefore that the original visionary goal associated with ORE-STEM Complex has also been translated in this regard to the role of the WIF in promoting a mechanism, which allows the WIF and its fellowship to contribute to sustainable development in putting science and technology in support of mainstream socio-economic development and the humanitarian cause. This is still a challenging, but also a very realistic one. This goal is also reflected in three concrete project operations, which have been prepared with the involvement of the WIF during the past three years, putting also emphasis on the promotion of respective innovative concepts: * the WIF-ORE incubator structure in Kazakhstan with association to one in Kyrgyzstan as a regional cooperations of nations in central Asia and where signed Memorandum of Understandings (MofUs) are in place; * the development of renewable energy sources as mainstream-provider of electricity in rural Africa; * the development of a global preventive strategy of addressing and coping with influenza pandemics. There is no involvement of the WIF in the scientific development of a Vietnamese anti-drug medication; nevertheless the WIF promotes the concept of the scientific development of traditional medicine, for which also the Vietnamese project is representative. These projects are referred to in Dr. Butler’s article, but it is important to put these activities of the WIF into the right context, also an expression of the WIF's transformation into an operational organization with a realistic approach. This transformation has left the US$ 22.5 billion ORE-STEM Complex behind to a great extent, therefore has overridden a matter of the past, to which the author has given now so much attention in his article. However, Dr. Butler’s reference to the website of the WIF in this regard raises legitimate concern about the self-exposure to the WIF to the public, its permanent adjustment to changes and also conceptual developments, which has been neglected to a lesser degree within the article. It also bridges to the author’s allegation of the WIF's lack of transparency, its shroud of secrecy, qualifying the WIF as a mysterious foundation. The issue, which Dr. Butler has made public also points at the early days of the WIF, when Glenn Seaborg, one of the greatest scientist of the 20th century, who had served in one or the other way as scientific advisor to the U.S. Presidents over a period of virtually half of a century, became the dominant personality with myself in founding the WIF. Under these circumstances secrecy was not considered as an option, but as a paramount factor of giving this creation of the WIF a chance to take off, to develop the WIF into an organization and tool of leverage and relevance. In the years following the creation of the WIF, this notion of "secrecy" was further reinforced by the founders' pledge to preserve the ‘independence’ of the WIF under all circumstances. It is evident that such secrecy conflicts with transparency and arouses suspicion and speculations, as the article vividly demonstrates. Therefore this notion and understanding was legally settled nearly three years ago, in registering the WIF in Switzerland as a legal entity and charity in the service of public interest. Therefore the matter of Dr. Butler’s concern has been brought to a formal solution through this registration as an NGO, not-for-profit organization. Of course it can be argued, if such legal and more internal settlement is sufficiently translated into the public exposure of the WIF. There will be deficits in this regard, as this matter is also subject to the current WIF's transformation process, which we hope to complete in the course of this year. I also understand that some of my statements in respect to this notion, which are related to the past, may have given rise to conclusions, as "of shrouds of secrecy surrounding the WIF", as the article points out. In fact the author may have also come to this conclusion in noting a certain reservation on my side to provide him with the financial statements of the WIF, as referred to in the article. But I hope that Dr. Butler also understands my reservations: He left me in the dark with regard to his intentions. In this respect Dr. Butler put me under extreme pressure at the time, which did not allow me to consult on this matter with my colleagues, including with designated Board Members, which is misinterpreted in the article also. In contrast to the impression, which Dr. Butler’s article conveys, I am not "running" the WIF as "a one-man Davos conference", but the WIF is very much the result of a team-work effort, particularly more so in the past three years since the WIF became a registered Swiss not-for-profit charity. For this reason, I would have had preferred more time to consult with my colleagues, who are actively engaged in the WIF-transformation process, but who are also spread over the five continents. Unfortunately I have to say that they are not as easily accessible as Dr. Baehr on a limited response time scale that was the case here, and where this was due to the author’s very quick deadline for publication within Nature. In the light of these observations, I have not rebutted paragraph by paragraph, but try to put the author’s arguments and intimated conclusions into the broader context of the WIF. Herewith, I also count on his professional fairness and on the prestigious reputation of "Nature", to enter a serious dialogue with the WIF in the future; also with the intention to eventually consider some "damage repair", which the majority of the WIF-fellowship will expect. Dr. David Hill Executive Director of the World Innovation Foundation [comment posted by NatureNews editor on behalf of Dr Hill]
Nature stands by its reporter in these matters Oliver Morton Chief News and Features Editor Nature
Further to the article, Dr Ian Pearson has now accepted a WIF consultancy role in central Asia and where he will be engaged in formulating strategic direction with other WIF Fellows. He is therefore NOT resigning his WIF Fellowship or honours. This is to put the record straight in this respect and where other areas of the article will be redressed in due course. Dr David Hill World Innovation Foundation Charity Bern, Switzerland