A Unesco seminar
As a preparation for the UNESCO World Conference on Science 1999, "Science for the Twenty-First Century, A New Commitment", the Swedish National Committee for the Conference initiated a seminar on "Science and Development in the Third World".
This one-day seminar was arranged at Uppsala University, a natural choice in view of the active interests in developing problems and the engagement in research capacity building in the Third World that are present at Uppsala since long. The seminar took place at the Council for Development and Assistance Studies at the University.
Organisers of the seminar were, in addition to the Council; the student initiated Centre for Environment and Development Studies, the International Science Programmes of the Faculty of Science and Technology, and the National Committee for the UNESCO Conference. Support to the seminar was also provided by Sida/SAREC.
Here, summaries of the talks and the discussions of the seminar are presented. These summaries were made by Fredrik Nornvall. Time did not admit the drafts to be sent for approval to the speakers, and therefore the speakers should not be held responsible for the text. Anybody interested in citing the speakers should contact them personally for acceptance.
Particular thanks are due to speakers at the seminar, to Stefan Ernlund at the Council for Development and Assistance Studies who took care of much of the preparatory and practical work, to Fredrik Nornvall for his very expedient documentation work, and to Dr Lennart Hasselgren of the International Science Programmes for advice and initiatives in the planning.
Uppsala, May 24 1999
Bengt Gustafsson Sten Widmalm
The theme of Bo Sundqvist's introductory note was activities in which Uppsala University interacts with the developing world. Examples included the International Science Programmes, the Unit for International Child Health, the Council for Development and Assistance Studies, the Centre for Environment and Development Studies, and the Department for Peace and Conflict Research. The current policy of Uppsala University is to make efforts in the international field more widely known.
During the last couple of years, there has been an effort to formulate an explicit statement of the goals and strategies of Uppsala University. In an old seat of learning like Uppsala, there have traditionally been few such initiatives. An old university tends to develop autonomously, driven by interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary activities. We have lacked a concise description of what the university should be like. Research programmes, educational programmes, and courses are well documented. In contrast, activities in which the university interacts with the outside world - for example, third-world- and environment-related issues - are less known. An inventory of on-going activities presented, however, an impressive result - in extent as well as in the content of the research. For example, the International Science Programmes have been very successful. Hopefully, this programme will be extended to include a larger number of sciences within a few years. Other examples of active research institutions include the Unit for International Child Health and, within the Social Science Faculty, the Forum for Development Studies. Moreover, the student-initiated Centre for Environment and Development Studies has proved successful. Based on the spirit of Bologna University, students organise courses themselves and call teachers to give lectures. We are currently involved in discussions that aim to utilise the initiative of students to organise additional activities. Other examples of institutions that interact with the outside society are the Baltic University Programme, the Centre for Multiethnic Research, the Department of East European Studies, the Department of Peace and Conflict Research and the Centre for Studies of the Holocaust and Genocide. Considered in juxtaposition with, for example, the Dag Hammarskiöld Library, the Dag Hammarskiöld Foundation and the North African Institute, this represents an extensive environment for research. The outcome of the inventory will be to provide Uppsala University with a more distinct profile in this regard. We will make the international character of the university better known among those who work at the university, but also to society at large. The Council for Development and Assistant Studies will play a crucial role in this respect.
Lastly, I wish to make two remarks in relation to the topic of the present seminar. First, when attending the Arusha conference I learnt that the developing world and countries like Sweden share a number of problems, like that of recruiting qualified teachers. Although the circumstances are different, the problems remain the same. My second remark is related to the well-known gap between the developed world and the developing world that has to be bridged. Drawing on a comment made by C. N. R. Rao, the work required may be compared to the construction of a bridge across an ever-widening river. Nevertheless, although we may not be able to specify the size of the project, the only feasible option is to keep building the bridge. Seminars on science and development are part of this process.
The presentation had two major focuses. First, the gap in research and development between the developing world and the more advanced countries was strongly emphasised. It was argued that research and development will become comparatively more important in the future than they have been. It is crucial to reduce the gap. Second, an overview of the work that has been undertaken within the Taskforce for Higher Education was provided. The Taskforce is a collaboration between UNESCO and the World Bank. A hope that the report will have an effect on policy formulation was expressed.
The starting point for a discussion about science in development must be the recognition of the gap in research and development (R&D) that exists between the developed and the developing world. The OECD countries including Russia account for more than 90 percent of the R&D that is carried out in the world today. Whether you consider the total amount of money spent on research and development, the percentage of published articles, or the number of patents and licenses, you will reach the same result. Moreover, the remaining 10 percent is divided between very few countries, foremost the NIC-countries. Africa, on the other hand, is barely visible in the statistics. The gap in R&D has existed for a long time. However, it is more alarming today than before. The world economy is increasingly based on knowledge and sophisticated technologies. The technological achievements - especially in the field of genetics, information and communication, biotechnology and new material technology - have brought about profound changes in the patterns of production and consumption. Traditional commodities such as oil and forestry are still important, both in the developed world and in the developing world. Yet, the recognition of the increasing importance of knowledge-based production patterns, also for traditional commodities like paper and steel, is crucial. Thus, given that R&D is an instrumental driving force in development - economic growth, social development and environmental development - the gap between the developed and the developing world will continue to expand. Of course, developing countries can import knowledge and technology. In this regard, two aspects must be recognised.
The enormous expansion within the system of higher education has also led to problems. The most common problem is lack of economic resources. Deterioration of public services and severe incapacity of governments also pose serious obstacles to development. Lack of resources is a consequence of the general economic recession. Moreover, it must be recognised that the situation has worsened because of the adjustment programmes initiated by the World Bank and the IMF as part of a deliberate policy of promoting growth in the developing world. The adjustment programmes have resulted in cuts in expenditure on higher education. Necessary investments in human development have been neglected. The depth of the problem is further highlighted if we consider for the instrumental role of education in countries such as Japan and Sweden. The developing countries of today need more investment in higher education and research. The crucial role of education is now recognised even within the World Bank. The so-called Washington consensus is being disputed.
Lack of resources is only part of the problem of the decay of many universities in many developing countries. Other causes of the deterioration include:
As part of an initiative by UNESCO and the World Bank, an international taskforce for higher education was set up in 1997. The group will deliver a report in the early autumn of 1999. Rather than producing an Action Plan, the aim of the report is to provoke a discussion among those who have responsibility for administering higher education, for example, governments and members of university boards. The taskforce would like to provide insights into problems related to higher education. The report will hopefully be used as a basis for discussion in the developing world, as well as the developed world. The overall goal is a rethinking of policy.
As a point of departure, the Taskforce initiated the work by defining the concept of university. This proved to be a difficult task. Universities range from prestigious and well-known institutions like Cambridge, Uppsala and Stanford to private, businesslike establishments setting questionable exams. Additionally, there is a trend towards company universities. The trend is most visible in the US. The Walt Disney corporation provides the best example in this regard. Of course, company universities are not independent but are geared to the needs and interests of the company.
The wide range of institutions for higher education and research is to some extent beneficial. Yet, there is an obvious need for each country to have an overview of the system and responsibility for the system. The large differences between different institutions and the differences among countries make it very difficult to apply a world-model of how a university should be organised. In fact, it would be unwise to apply a world-view to universities. Although a system may function satisfactorily for one country, this does not imply that it would do so for other countries. The system of universities must first and foremost be based on:
Kwun inquired about the concept of research universities. Tham elaborated in more detail on this point, stressing the dangers of a strategy of dividing research and higher education between different institutions. Research and education must be undertaken at the same institution. He also identified cases in which the funding is so poor that the research only exists on the paper.
Yadon Kohi referred to Tham's description of open universities as a waste of resources. He pointed out that the general trend in Tanzania is to open the gates of the universities and thus make higher education available to everyone having the formal credentials. Tham responded that it all depends on the labour market and which parts of the university that are expanding. Tham identified cases in which 2 000-3 000 students attend a single lecture, arguing that this is both a waste of resources on the part of the university as well as a personal waste of effort since the dropout rate tends to be extremely high in such contexts. On the other hand, it is impossible to plan enrolment based on the needs of the labour market in detail. Tham argued that a broad perception of the situation is needed in order to avoid overcrowding and overproduction of graduates.
C. N. R. Rao commented on the politically difficult context of limited access to universities in developing countries. The common people in developing countries have very high personal aspirations. The aspirations must be in tune with the available resources. Rao praised the objective of having one research university in every country. Tham agreed with this statement and added that isolated so-called centres of excellence are of questionable value. The Taskforce has developed an understanding of the political difficulties faced by many developing countries in this regard.
Yadon Kohi commented on the issue of underemployment of graduate students. He pointed out that the open-university strategy pursued in Tanzania has been accompanied by change in the perception of the student. Rather than being "job-seekers", graduates are viewed as "job-creators". Hence, the issue of underemployment is not on the agenda in this respect. Tham emphasised the correlation between higher education and creation of jobs. Yet, Tham argued, what really matters is the kind of higher education. For example, education in history is important, but not from the perspective of the labour market. The number of students in each faculty must have a relationship with the demands of the labour market.
Mats Djurberg inquired whether the Taskforce has considered exchange programmes in terms of exchange of ideas and mutual co-operation. Tham stressed the growing market for education where countries are marketing and selling their education. Exchange programmes are important but also the main avenue for brain drain. Tham cited the case of Russian students in Sweden as an example. Instead, programmes aimed at providing a foreign student with resources to spend half of the time in the native country and half in the foreign country should be launched. Tham also stressed that it is of importance for Swedish students to study not only in the USA, Australia, and similar countries, but also in developing countries.
Dorothy Guy-Ohlson raised the question of funding, especially with reference to co-ordination of donors. Tham argued that both private and public initiatives are important. No system is purely public or private. Mixture is the keyword in this matter. What is needed is in-depth analysis and governance. Donor co-ordination has not been a part of the discussions within the Taskforce.
Sten Widmalm asked Tham to identify the most important institutions in changing the current policy and thus bringing about a change in the views on higher education. The question was framed in the context of Action Plans. Tham first emphasised the major step of even establishing the Taskforce for higher education, which is a collaboration between the World Bank and UNESCO. Second, Tham expressed the hope that the report will be read within the World Bank in order to bring about a change in attitudes. Hence, the World Bank will continue to be crucial as a policy institution. UNESCO will be important with regards to implementation.
C. N. R. Rao remarked upon the uniform perception of development. It was argued that every country needs to adopt its own perception of development. Tham agreed to this statement but added that all countries would like to alleviate poverty.
C. N. R. Rao argued the case for the promotion of basic science in the developing world. Science was perceived as a unifying force that could reduce the divide that the same phenomenon has created. The speaker emphasised that only by acquiring the language of science will the inhabitants of the developing world become equals in a world based on knowledge. In addition, the lack of research infrastructure and quality of research in less developed countries was stressed. It was concluded that empathy must play a central part if the gap is ever to be reduced.
Whenever people in developing countries talk of science, they either narrate the great benefits that are derived from science by society, or, which is more common, they cannot relate to science at all. Educated individuals and the older generation can easily refer to the benefits of science in terms of the eradication of smallpox and malaria, at least in India. The contribution of modern science to food security is well known. However, a recently conducted survey in three cities in India indicates that the average educated man does not relate the achievements of society to science. According to the common man, science is good for almost nothing. Hence, we have to worry about attitudes.
Applications of science and the technological gains derived from science make a bigger impression on people because of their obvious visibility, but science has given mankind much more to man. Basic science is an important and essential component of the knowledge base. It provides a way of looking at the world we live in; it gives us a spirit of adventure. It is because of these features that we need to teach science at school, and not merely produce scientists. Science should find a place in man's life, just like poetry and other creative endeavours of man.
Given the current attitude to science in the developing world, we face the tremendous problem of making sure that science has a role in society. We must make sure that science enters the value-system of the developing world. Science has, indirectly and directly, created a new value system, whether we like it or not. We must ensure that the developing world learns to speak the new language of science. Otherwise the result will be a great divide in the supra-national value-system, where some countries will have all the benefits of belonging to the new world of science and others nothing. I am referring to a sense of belonging to the worldwide scientific community. Only through an understanding of how society progresses, an understanding of the environment and an understanding of nature, rather than through pure technological applications, will people become free and equal.
Science has never claimed to be an instrument of social change. Nevertheless, indirectly and directly, science has contributed more to social change than is usually recognised. Two examples are provided by the discovery of electricity and the transistor. The transistor has touched the life of every human being. Additionally, we would not have had the information technology revolution without the transistor. The discovery of electricity is an even better example. Such discoveries have brought great social integration, an aspect of science that we often forget.
It is my belief that the relevance of science to the future of society is considerably more far-reaching than the influence it has had on human affairs in the past. Innovations will be comparatively more important. There are many pressing problems in society today related to increasing population pressure, a rapid decline in the quality of the global environment, depletion of natural resources, and increasing poverty, hunger and illiteracy in many countries and regions of the world. Solutions based on science are likely to provide remedial measures to some of these pressing problems, and yet science as we understand it today is not available to a vast human population. It is essentially in the advanced world that science has contributed to individual fulfilment, the growth of knowledge and the well-being of nations. A high percentage of the human population does not understand science or its utility and potential for development. A proper understanding of innovation and the way science is related to society is important for real progress, particularly in developing countries. The gap between the developing world and the developed world is based on knowledge, where science is the crucial element. In fact, it is reasonable to talk about a new knowledge-colonialism.
As we approach the 21st century, science will have newer venues and challenging opportunities, but we will also face unprecedented problems of human population and migration, accompanied by an increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Scientists have an obligation to serve the entire humanity, keeping in mind the need for a cleaner environment and better quality of life for the vast majority of the population who have hitherto been denied the basic needs. In doing this, there is much to be done in inculcating the right attitudes in the citizens and in ensuring that they have the necessary capacity to appreciate and participate in human endeavours. In this regard we have to identify what development means. The tendency in the developing world to copy and imitate what has been done elsewhere must come to a halt. We cannot forget our cultural heritage and the associated factors that have a direct bearing on our priorities and modalities. In such a context, development should imply good quality of life rather than a society based upon mass-consumption. The few success stories in the developing world have shown that there can be social progress only with proper education and attitudes, especially amongst women. Moreover, development in terms of quality of life does have to be accompanied by an increase in GDP. The south Indian state of Kerala illustrates this point.
Scientists who work in laboratories or teach in educational institutions face immense problems. Even in the best of the developing countries, libraries are in a pathetic shape. Information technology has not made any headway. The laboratories have a poor infrastructure and outdated equipment. The gap between the laboratories in the developing world and in the advanced countries is increasing day by day. Thus, the gap between the two worlds is increasing. Minimum infrastructure such as electricity and water are not available to most of the laboratories even today. Hence, developing countries will face increasing difficulties in competing with the advanced world. This is also reflected in the low number (and quality) of articles from developing countries published in major scientific journals. I compare a developing country to a man standing on the banks of a river whose width is growing every day. There is little hope of ever constructing a bridge across the river and the opposite bank gets farther and farther away. The other side of the river today is the hope for better living and of greater scientific progress.
Isolation of scientists in the developing world is an important factor to be noted. Even the best of us have great difficulty in keeping abreast of developments in our fields. It is not the ability in science alone that matters, but it also the availability of information on the spot. How does one remain competent, let alone be competitive in a developing country, where information is so difficult to get? This results in a feeling of isolation. The river of science flows from the east to the west. There are very few branches of the river that connect the developing countries to the mainstream of science. The south is isolated.
Another serious problem is the tendency in most developing countries to undermine the importance and role of science and education. This tendency, for some reason, seems to be encouraged by the new global economic scenario. Investment in science is almost non-existent in some of the developing countries. Science itself is not found attractive by a high percentage of young people in many countries.
Although is easy to describe the future of the developing world as depressing, I would rather use the word challenging. Thus, I take an optimistic approach. Major steps can in fact be taken. First, the crucial role of networking should be recognised. Networks of universities can achieve a lot in terms of overcoming the problems that I have referred to above. Second, the role of the government must be recognised. The governments of developing countries will have to shoulder the responsibility of supporting science because there is little industrial support available yet in these countries. For example, the government supports 90 percent of research and education in India. The corresponding figure for Brazil is 85 percent and for Africa almost 100 percent. The governments have to be the instrument of change. They have to be the catalysts and the providers. Besides the governments, academies and educational institutions have much to contribute in changing the attitudes of the people and the politicians. In relation to industrial support, it should also be noted that the role of innovations will become increasingly important. In a global world, industries in developing countries risk being competed out of business due to poor research and development. The developing world has to recognise the importance of industrial research.
The preceding discussion clearly points to the urgent need to take all necessary measures in capacity-building. Below some necessary measures are listed.
In order to assure the survival of science in the developing world it is necessary to pay attention to:
A remark was made in reference to the mushroom growth of management programmes in India. The speaker argued that it is not the management programmes per se that are the problem, but the context in which management is used. For example, India is fortunate enough to have the Indian Institute of Management. In his response, Rao agreed with the statement. He elaborated on the point by arguing that it is the large number of management programmes, and the expense of more important fields of training and research, that is the problem. In recent years, the increase of management schools and institutions has, however, accelerated rapidly.
Clas-Göran Granqvist remarked upon the conception of science. He argued that, on the one hand, science was presented as a dividing force. On the other hand, science was perceived as a unifying force. How are these perceptions to be reconciled? Rao replied that it is not a matter of a dichotomy. Science can be both a dividing force and a unifying force. Moreover, it is not a philosophical but a practical question: How can science be used to make people feel more equal and important as human beings? This is difficult, but also the ultimate goal of science. Today, knowledge is functioning as a dividing force. The gap can only be reduced through human understanding and empathy.
Sten Hagberg, drawing on his experience from Burkina Faso, commented on the content of development. He argued that many speak of development but there is very little attention directed to the content of development. Development has become a buzzword without any real meaning. Rao agreed with the statement and referred to his presentation. What really matters is the quality of life. Each country, and perhaps each individual, must identify what good quality of life implies. It includes good health, clean water, and food. Science should contribute to a good quality of life.
Sten Widmalm reminded of the political dimension of science by arguing that scientists are, in a sense, a movable commodity that can be sold abroad. Unlike the agriculturists, the scientific community is divided. The scientific community has been unable to lobby successfully and has thus not received adequate resources. Should the UNESCO conference in Budapest mainly be used to develop strategies to convince governments to support higher education and basic education? Perhaps the more developed countries should make fiscal commitments to support education in less developed countries. Rao framed his response in an Indian context and argued that the current divide is between basic education and higher education. However, it is not a matter of higher education versus basic education. Clearly, we need both. The state of higher education has deteriorated during the last couple of years because of an overemphasis on primary education. Higher education cannot only be supported by the private sector since the economic resources are lacking. Research and higher education are dependent on a critical mass of educated manpower. There must be a reasonable balance between basic and higher education.
Malur Bhagavan commented on the translocation of research and development from industrialised countries to developing countries. This is a current trend. First, the quality is the same but salaries are lower. Thus, from the viewpoint of a large corporation, translocation is cost-effective. Second, local manpower can be used when entering the market. This is the exact opposite of brain drain. First, would you say that a similar phenomenon could be identified in terms of scientific research? Second, would this imply a scenario where "pockets" of development regions emerge but are unable to produce any real feedback to the local community? Rao responded by arguing that the major problem in many developing countries is the absence of a critical mass of scientists. Translocation of high technology research can create a critical mass. Moreover, co-operation within the South will play a major role in establishing a critical mass. Centres of excellence can become useful. The absence of high-technology centres is more dangerous than having centres of excellence that that are unable to give feedback to the community. This can however be overcome in the long run. Rao continued by emphasising the importance of links between small-scale but high-quality research institutions in the South and prestigious establishments in the North.
Bengt Gustafsson followed up by remarking upon the mushroom growth of software houses in India (Bangalore) and posing the question whether there is a risk of software houses indirectly reducing the interest among talented students to continue in, for example, chemistry and physics. Rao described the phenomenon of software houses as a bitter sweet pill. The products that software companies produce are not of any real use to India but the huge software industry in India provides employment to a large number of people.
Yadon Kohi made three remarks in relation to Rao's presentation. First, he compared the monetary rewards of being a scientist with those of not being a scientist. Second, he remarked upon the funding of research in the basic sciences. The government has a crucial role in funding basic research since, in the end, it will benefit industrial needs. His third remark concerned the issue of scientific journals in developing countries. He noted that professors and researchers returning to their native countries tend to publish articles in international journals rather than in the local journal. Hence, a vicious circle is created and the state of journals in the third world will remain inferior. Fourth, he pointed out the dilemma of expanding the educational system at the expense of quality. The educational system must be expanded in order to create a critical mass of knowledge. However, if the educational system is expanded too much or too fast, the result is inferior quality of education. He added that one way of achieving an expansion is an exchange of examiners between different countries in order to compare the standard of education. This is a common feature within the Commonwealth. Rao agreed with these statements. He added that the developing world has not learnt how to channel human resources into relevant areas in the labour market. The college degree is valued too highly in the developing world. Concerning the state of scientific journals in the developing world, Rao argued that there is little hope of improvement.
Niclas Hällström commented on the risks and side-effects of science. Science is not a coherent concept. Science can be good, but also, in a sense "evil". Rao recognised that there are no clear-cut views on science. He added that science is becoming extremely fragmented by increased specialisation. Still, science must be made universal, he argued.
Sook-II Kwun emphasised the role of basic sciences in industrial and economic development. Since South Korea has scarce natural resources but abundant human resources, science policies have relied on the utilisation of human resources. He presented the science- and technology-led economic development in South Korea from the 1950´s and onwards. Further, he presented an extensive survey of the various educational programmes that have been established by the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, and the South Korean Science and Engineering Foundation, among other institutions. In addition, an outline of supportive actions in the field of science and technology was provided. He concluded by emphasising the key importance of science in development.
South Korea was a poor country in the 1950´s. During the Korean War, most of the country was reduced to ashes. Yet, since the 1960´s the per capita GNP has increased fifty-fold (from $200 to $10,000). How has South Korea been able to achieve such growth? Three factors have been of crucial importance:
However, the South Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF), which is government-funded, increased expenditure on basic research by 25 percent during 1998. KOSEF and the government obviously recognised that basic science will promote industrial development. There are, however, reasons for believing that the expenditure on basic science will decrease in the future, since the current Minister of Science and Technology tends to focus more on the technological sectors of the economy and less on basic research.
While hitherto a linear research spectrum has been characteristic of basic research - applied research - development, this spectrum no longer holds. It is impossible to say where basic research ends and where applied sciences begin. The results of basic scientific research are directly applied to the production of marketable commodities. Basic science plays a fundamental role in the industrial development of South Korea. Since the fusion of technology and interdisciplinary research is one of the mainstreams of new technologies, basic science must be emphasised as the key to interdisciplinary research.
The rapid expansion of the South Korean economy within a few decades after the Korean War was partly due to the existence of well-educated human resources. Korean parents took a great interest in the education of their children. Confucian teaching influenced the enthusiasm for education. According Confucius, achievements in the academic field are comparatively more prestigious than achievements in the business sector. Owing to this philosophy, a well-educated, hard-working population was available to enter the sciences and engineering fields when government policy led the way. The need for education was further elevated by the scarcity of natural resources in South Korea. To promote science and research, a number of special programmes have been introduced.
Special Education Centres for the Scientifically Gifted: The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and KOSEF developed a special programme in 1998 to encourage those who showed potential in the science and engineering fields. The purpose of the centre is to identify the scientifically gifted among students from elementary to high school and improve their capability as much as possible through weekend courses, summer and winter schools, and correspondence courses. It is anticipated that an exclusive system for producing scientific and technological manpower can be established with a coherent system of Science High Schools, Science and Engineering Universities, and Science and Engineering Graduate Schools. All expenses for running the programme are met in full by KOSEF.
Science High School Programme: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has established Science High Schools. These schools accept scientifically gifted children and provide a systematic education in science. The first science high school was established in 1983. There are currently 15 of them across the nation. To qualify for entrance to a science high school, applicants should be within the top 3 percent in their junior high school. The curriculum is intensive, as it requires completion of the general high school courses by the first term of the second year in an accelerated programme leading to university. The completion of the second year entitles a student to apply for admission to a science and engineering university. The student-teacher ratio is strikingly lower (5-7:1) than in the general high school (40:1).
The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Programme: When the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) was established in 1971, it started only with graduate programmes related to science and engineering departments. To induce top students across the nation, they offered incentives. One incentive was to exempt graduates of KAIST from military service for three years. However, they were to serve South Korea either in industry or in research institutions for five years after graduation. The other incentive was to house all graduate students in dormitories and offer scholarships. Top-class students from science and engineering fields across the nation went to KAIST. In 1989, KAIST started to accept undergraduate students, most of whom were graduates of science high schools. KAIST has established well-equipped laboratories with of an allocation of $150,000 per scientist.
South Korean science and technology policy (S&T) has passed through several different phases, in response to changing national development objectives and strategies. The S&T policy has been adjusted to meet economic and social needs.
In the 1960's, the main objective was to strengthen education in S&T, reinforce the S&T infrastructure and expand the technical training system. The main goal of development was to lay a foundation for industrialisation by the development of import-substitution industries, by the expansion of light industries, and by support for producer-good industries. In order to pursue these goals systematically, the Ministry of Science and Technology was established in 1967. The goals were integrated plans for S&T development, co-ordinated testing, surveying and research functions, international S&T co-operation, and research on and use of atomic energy. In addition, the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) was established as the first interdisciplinary research institute. KIST was able to attract qualified scientists by providing high salaries and an autonomous research environment.
The 1970's saw an increased support for basic science. As labour-intensive industries were gradually replaced by heavy and chemical industries in the 1970's, an S&T infrastructure capable of modifying and internalising the foreign technology was essential in order to meet industrial demands. To promote research applicable to industry, the government established a number of government research institutes. In addition, a science town was started in 1973 to accommodate many of the newly established research institutes. In 1977, the government established the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) to encourage basic research. By supporting university research activities, KOSEF has played a major role in developing the basic science and engineering capacity in South Korea.
In the late 1980's, the policy of development of industrial technology by technology import and modification came face to face with its limitations. In order to overcome these, the government enacted the Promotion of Basic Science Research Law (1989) to provide financial support for research in basic science in R&D institutes and universities. South Korea needed to invent. Also in 1989, KOSEF initiated a programme to establish science and engineering research centres. These centres are supported by the government as well as by industry.
In the 1990's, the number of industrial technologies directly derived from basic science grew rapidly. The government is giving strong support to basic research in universities. In 1997, the Special Law on Innovation in S&T was enacted in order to promote the national R&D capacity to the level of the G-7 countries. In addition, the law forced the government to allocate at least 5 percent of the total national budget to R&D expenditure by the year 2002. Expenditure on basic research will also be increased. A problem with regard to expenditure on R&D is the comparatively large proportion spent by private industry. Currently, the government is spending 20 percent while private industry accounts for 80 percent of the total expenditure.
Expenditure on research and development increased sevenfold from $1,865 million in 1986 to $12,819 million in 1997. R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased from 1.68 percent in 1986 to 2.89 percent in 1997. Compared to other OECD nations, South Korea spends, in absolute figures, a low amount on R&D, even though the proportion of GDP is relatively higher than that of other OECD nations.
The ratio of basic research expenditure to the total R&D expenditure is lower than that of USA, Japan, Germany and France. Hence, even though the ratio increased to 13.3 percent in 1997, it is necessary to give more support to basic research to stimulate innovation and educate talented young scientists. As mentioned earlier, the ratio will hopefully be increased to 20 percent by the year 2000.
The number of scientific papers published in South Korea is rather poor. Recently, however, there has been an increase in the number of scientific papers published in SCI journals. South Korea's ranking on an international scale, based on the Science Citation Index, has risen from 30th in 1992 to 17th in 1998. Yet South Korea's contribution represents only 1 percent of the total SCI number.
The distribution of researchers in South Korea is as follows: 75.7 percent of Ph.D. holders work in universities compared to 13.6 percent at research institutions and 10.8 percent in industry. This distribution is not sound because financial support to universities is rather poor compared to support to other sectors. Considering the proportion of researchers in the active population, it is not enough to enable South Korea to catch up with the advanced countries. South Korea still lags behind, for example, the USA, Japan and France. This suggests a need for a science policy that will attract more students to the science and engineering fields in South Korea.
Individual Research Grants: The Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) and the Korean Research Foundation (RF) are important organisations supporting individual research activity in South Korea. The latter especially recognises the importance of individual research activity and gives substantial support to it. The largest proportion of KOSEF and KRF funds are granted to university researchers in order to foster the potential of the universities. Together, these institutions supported almost 400 projects per year between 1978 and 1985. The number of projects increased to 2,500 per year between 1986 and 1990, and has recently reached the level of 5,000 projects per year.
Centres of Excellence: The Centre of Excellence programme is run by KOSEF with a long-term perspective. The programme consists of Science Research Centres and Engineering Research Centres. KOSEF is supporting 48 centres in 1999. The programme has greatly contributed to recent successes in the basic sciences in South Korea. It enables professors to afford high-quality laboratory equipment and do better research. The results of the centres are regularly evaluated. One of the results is an increase in the number of scientific papers.
Creative Research Promotion Programme: This programme was initiated in 1997. Its aim is the acquisition of independent core-technology to act as seeding for new industries. It is based on a nine-year plan, with a project review every three years. The current grant is approximately $1 million per year. The programme supported 27 research subjects in 1997 and 19 research subjects in 1998.
Asia-Pacific Centre for Theoretical Physics: This programme was initiated in 1996 by KOSEF in order to meet the growing need for political and economic collaboration in the Asia-Pacific region and to expand the limits of national R&D potential. The purpose of APCTP is to nurture the next-generation physicists in the Asia-Pacific region. Currently, 10 nations are taking part in the collaborative programme.
Technology fusion and interdisciplinary research are in the mainstream of the development of new technologies. In 1998, a study of the structure of the 562 individual research projects supported by KOSEF was undertaken. In this survey, it was found that 40 percent of all the projects were interdisciplinary. For example, research in mathematics needed knowledge inflow from other fields to the amount of 8.3 percent. Hence, South Korea strongly emphasises the interdisciplinary feature in individual research.
The knowledge-inflow/outflow among research fields in individual research projects is crucial. Research in all science and engineering fields is closely interconnected. Development in one particular field needs the support of other fields. Therefore, basic research is very important in science and engineering.
On the basis of South Korea's experience in economic development and of recent research trends, two features may be noted. First, science education should be reinforced in a development context. In South Korea, with its shortage of natural resources, the cultivation of scientific manpower through science education is the driving force behind economic development. Second, the role of basic science for industrial development must be emphasised. Considering the international competition and restrictions on R&D expenditure, R&D investment in technologies that can be directly applicable to industry may be preferred to basic science. But without the support of basic science the technologies required by industry cannot be successfully developed. Moreover, the results of basic research in specific fields, such as bioengineering, are directly applied to marketable commodities. Investment in basic research is necessary not only for the acquisition of knowledge but also for the future of industry.
Sten Widmalm asked Kwun to elaborate on the concept of linear relationship in research and development. Kwun, employing the example of superconductors, argued that the results of basic research are often applied immediately. The traditional view, where research in basic science is utilised by the applied sciences, does not hold. This is a current trend in international research.
Malur Bhagavan, after recognising the impressive example set by South Korea in a development perspective, had three questions. First, how much government support is there for girls wanting to enter into higher education programmes, especially in the science field? Does the government provide scholarships? Second, in the context of talent support, how do you make sure that you are tapping talent from all social classes? In other words, how do you make sure that everybody has the same chance to enter higher education? Third, what guidance do the universities give to students studying for research degrees? What is the policy for recruitment of doctoral students and what happens to the students when they have completed their Ph.D. degree? In relation to the first question, Kwun pointed out that the programmes for scientifically gifted young students are fully supported by the government. The government meets all the expenses. In relation to the second question Kwun answered by referring to the existence of a two-university system, one national and one private. The tuition of national universities is approximately half of the tuition of private universities. There are many scholarships within the national university system. Earlier, the relatively poor students went to the national university and the relatively well off students went to the private universities. Today, the situation is reversed. In relation to the third question, Kwun noted that more than 70 percent of Ph.D. degree holders are working within the universities. He explained this by referring to the teachings of Confucius. The teaching profession is extremely prestigious, even though the salary is comparatively low.
Bhagavan supplemented his question by adding the dimension of problems related to recruitment of Ph.D. students. In addition, he inquired about the ranking of universities and the current policy of the government in this regard. Kwun replied by pointing out that the government announces student quotas for each department within the university. The result is harsh competition among the students. In relation to ranking, Kwun argued that national universities are higher ranked than private universities. There are, however, private universities that can compete with national universities. The difference in prestige also entails a risk since students who fail to be admitted to a prestigious university at the first attempt apply repeatedly until they are admitted. This result is a waste of human and economic resources.
Gunnel Cederlöf raised the issue of the political dimensions of science by inquiring whether interdisciplinary research in South Korea also includes social sciences. In other words, is there a critical discussion in South Korea about the political aspects of science? She referred to the earlier presentation given by C. N. R. Rao. Kwun replied that interdisciplinary research only rarely includes the social sciences in South Korea. However, he also gave an example of more extensive research collaboration - linguistics is used when programming a computer.
Dorothy Guy-Ohlson inquired about the gender distribution in the special programmes. Are there special support programmes for female students? Kwun, referring to the teachings of Confucius, admitted that South Korean society has a strong tendency to favour males at the expense of females. However, in order to enable females to compete, a special support programme for female professors has been launched. South Korea has women's universities, where all of the students are females and approximately two-thirds of the teachers are female.
Lennart Hasselgren encouraged Kwun to elaborate on his experiences of interacting with politicians. How is interaction between the scientific community and the political community structured? Kwun referred primarily to his own experiences and argued that he had been appointed Minister of Science and Education by accident. Thanks to his personal resource base within the scientific community, Kwun was able to enact a law on minimum investment in science and technology. Moreover, Kwun argued that "politicians can drive but they do not know where to go."
Gunilla Björklund inquired to what extent South Korea is involved in international research collaboration. Additionally, she asked what kind of international programmes South Korea encourages. Kwun pointed out three examples of international interaction in South Korea. First, the Asian-Pacific Centre for Theoretical Physics enables South Korea to collaborate with other countries. Second, 60-70 percent of the professors in South Korea have obtained their doctoral degree in the USA. Thus, informal collaboration takes place. Thirdly, the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation has special programmes that facilitate collaboration with the USA, and some other countries. The latter is an exchange programme.
Malur Bhagavan prefaced another question by emphasising the crucial role of science policy. In the context of policy, institutions are clearly of key importance. Which are the institutions that formulate science policy? Kwun stressed the crucial role that the Minister of Science and Technology plays in the formulation of science policy. When a policy is formulated it is addressed to the Minister. If the Minister accepts the policy, it will be brought before the Congress. Thus, there are institutions and channels but much is dependent on who is appointed as minister of science and technology, Kwun argued.
The presentation focused on problems related to the development of science and technology in Tanzania. Tanzania shares these problems with many countries on the African continent. Yadon Kohi provided a historical account of the efforts made to establish research institutes and universities. He argued that most of the efforts have been ineffective, in Tanzania as well as in other African countries. Although the development of science and technology in Africa is bleak by comparison with, for instance, South Korea, Kohi expressed an optimistic view. He concluded by emphasising the role of partnership in development.
It is very interesting to compare South Korea and Tanzania with regard to achievements in science and technology, since both countries represent extreme examples of development through education. The former represents an example of how science and technology should be administered, while the latter represents an example of how it should not be administered. This presentation will focus on some aspects of the failure of science and technology in Tanzania.
Ancient history acknowledges that a wealth of science and technology existed on the African continent and the historical remains of immense archaeological and anthropological interest confirm this claim. However, something went wrong.
Almost without exception, the development of modern science has been concentrated in the countries of the North and most of the technology transfer has happened there. The South kept itself isolated. During the 1940's, when the world was coming together as a result of the emergence of the UN system, a concern at the division between the developing and the developed world was expressed.
In 1963, the First United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology (UNCAST) for the benefit of the less developed world was held in Geneva. The conference emphasised the need for developing countries to recognise that science and technology are a fundamental part of the development process.
During the early 1960's, African states were more concerned with political evolution within the continent, marked by the struggle for independence, than with the progress of science. Following the lull of the 1960's, a sense of collective responsibility emerged in Africa. This resulted in the convening of the First Regional Conference of Ministers Responsible for the Application of Science and Technology (CASTAFRICA I). The conference was held in Brazzaville, Congo, in 1974.
Five years after the CASTAFRICA conference, in 1979, an UNESCO initiative resulted in yet another conference. This one was held in Vienna, Austria. The outcome of the conference, the Vienna Programme of Action (VPA), was acclaimed by the third-world countries as a landmark in the development of science and technology for socio-economic development. The VPA was considered to be the solution to the problem of science and technology in the developing world. However, it was soon realised by the potential recipient countries of the VPA that the mission could not be implemented in the form envisaged.
The failure of global initiatives to implement the promises was felt very sharply in Africa. Prompted by this failure and the persistence of economic stagnation in Africa, the member states of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) became determined to undertake measures for the benefit of the continent and thus resolved to adopt a declaration with far-reaching consequences: The Lagos Plan of Action for Development of Africa: 1980-2000 (LPA). In order to effectively apply science and technology in development, the member states agreed to do the following:
A number of specific programmes - at the national level as well as at the regional and sub-regional level - were recommended as means of implementing the declaration. Most of these have not been launched.
The next major conference on science will be held in Budapest in 1999. As part of the process, the countries in southern Africa have produced - through the African Academy of Science - a declaration on their own, the Tunis Declaration. The theme of the conference is "Millennial Perspective in Science, Technology, and Development in Africa, and Its Possible Direction for the 21st Century". It is our hope that the Budapest conference represents a turning point in the development of science and technology in Africa.
In 1948, Tanzania, together with its neighbouring countries of Uganda and Kenya, formed the East African family. Their co-operation included trade, transport, public services and education. Based on the British colonial legacy, the education and research system was operated centrally. This implied that research areas were divided among the countries. For example, Kenya was solely responsible for forestry research. Each country had its specific research agenda and the results where then shared.
In 1968, Tanzania established a science and technology system that operated concurrently with the existing regional co-operation system. This was the Tanzanian National Scientific Research Council. With the collapse of regional co-operation in 1977, Tanzania established its own science and technology management system. The Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology was established in 1986. Subsequently, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education was established in 1990.
In 1985, in response to the Lagos Plan of Action, Tanzania was able to be the third country in Africa to spell out an explicit national policy of science and technology. The policy was reviewed in 1995 and will be renewed periodically thereafter in accordance with changing needs.
The Tanzania National Science and Technology Policy of 1985, like the Lagos Action Plan, is a very distinct document beginning with a sombre preamble and then detailing what needs to be done sector by sector. The general objectives were aimed at adequate human resources and infrastructure development.
In 1986, the Committee of Science and Technology (COSTECH) was established. Thus, in addition to a national science policy, a management system for science and technology was in place.
But, as a result of the Lagos Plan, the policy of 1985 also included the commitment to spend 1.5 percent of GDP on research and development. By the year 2000, it was said, Tanzania was to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on research and development. Unfortunately, even though some factors have worked in favour of reaching this goal, for example the election of the president of COSTECH as President of Tanzania in 1995, most have not. Because of enormous external debts, the national budget was frozen in 1996. In 1997, the weather phenomenon El Nino hit Tanzania, causing tremendous destruction of the physical infrastructure. As of 1999, Tanzania is spending 0.2 percent of GDP on research and development - a far cry from the projected 3.5 percent.
The structuring of the school system is clearly of importance. The education system in Tanzania comprises the following stages:
| PRIMARY SCHOOL | |
| Standard I-VII | 7 years |
| SECONDARY SCHOOL | |
| Ordinary: I-IV | 4 years |
| Advanced: V-VI | 2 years |
| TERTIARY LEVEL | |
| Diploma | 1-2 years |
| Advanced Diploma | 2-3 years |
| Degree | 3-5 years |
The Tanzanian system of 7-4-2-3 years (16 years) of schooling is the same as, for example, that of South Korea (6-3-3-4). Yet, the two countries have reached very different results. Recently, a tendency to add one year of university education can be discerned. The fourth year at the university should be spent in preparing to become an entrepreneur. The graduate, who has traditionally been viewed as a "job-seeker" should be a "job-creator". This has been implemented in the field of agriculture. Concerns about the productivity of the schooling system in the developing world have been expressed repeatedly. This is a concern of Tanzania as well. Figures for enrolment at the various stages of the educational system in Tanzania (1993) are as follows:
| Stage | Enrolment |
| Total | 19, 442,066 |
| Primary, Std. VII | 2,889,880 |
| Secondary, O-level, I | 918,265 |
| Secondary, A-level, V | 69,960 |
| Secondary, A-level, VI | 13,958 |
Even though it must be recognised that enrolment has increased annually over an extended period of time, the figures presented above indicate a skew distribution of enrolment at each stage. The reason is an overemphasis on primary education, promoted by international agencies. Moreover, there is little emphasis on science. Of the total number of high school students, 60 percent are involved in a science programme.
This is in sharp contrast to South Korea, where 87 percent of high school graduates went on to university. South Korea and Tanzania have clearly embarked on different development routes. In 1961, GDP was comparable in the two countries. Today, Tanzania has a per capita income at the $200 level - the same as in 1961 - while South Korea has been able to reach a per capita income of $10,000.
In 1990, a separate Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education was established. The next step was to consider whether the East African region, since it has a common political history, could work together. What can be done to bring this region together? In this, Sweden has played a central part. It has been acknowledged for many years that Sweden has played a significant role in the promotion of science education in number of African countries, Tanzania benefiting substantially. This has arisen from the recognition of science and technology as pivotal in the development process.
Having carried out a study of the changing global scenario and its impact on the role of donor support in science-led programmes, Uppsala University has been masterminding a process of rethinking in order to determine the form of partnership relevant in the next millennium. The mechanisms of funding must be more focused.
The Arusha conference, which followed the Uppsala initiative, was held in March 1999. The theme of the conference was Basic Science for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa. Some of the conference's recommendations for actions included:
Although history acknowledges Africa's place in the scientific achievements of ancient times, the contrary is true today. Africa does not appear on the modern map of the generation of knowledge in science and technology.
External initiatives have contributed significantly in reminding Africa of the need to recover from the self-imposed inactivity in the development process. African nations need to address the development agenda with an emphasis on the fundamental need for knowledge in science and technology. Partnership is crucial. The Uppsala declaration was a reminder in this regard.
The changing global scenario demands that external initiatives be regarded as the basis for partnerships geared towards achieving the minimum conditions required for the development process to be set in motion.
African nations have expressed their inner desire by publishing their intended programmes of action. These need to be translated into fiscal commitments. We believe this will cement the evolving partnership conditions, for the benefit of Africa.
There is room for an external dialogue between and among partners on development to their mutual benefit. The Arusha Declaration on basic science expressed the desire that countries in eastern and southern Africa collaborate.
The efforts that have recently been invested in arguing the case of basic science for development in the Third World encourages the view that the UNESCO conference in Budapest will represent a turning point. The future will depend on commitment. Maybe we are heading towards a New Social Contract.
Malur Bhagavan commented on the large number of graduates and posed the question of what happens to graduates after they have finished their degree. For example, how many continue their academic career by completing a doctoral degree? Kohi framed his answer in a historical account. After independence, the need for teachers was vast. Thus, emphasis was put on the first degree. Very few complete a doctoral degree.
Lennart Hasselgren added to Kohi's reply that funding is the major problem in this regard. This problem is shared by most African nations. Many students would like to go on to graduate school, but grants are lacking. Sida/SAREC contributes, but the problem is huge.
Kohi continued his reply by adding that Tanzania supports undergraduates rather than postgraduate students. Moreover, he added, Tanzania has lost a large proportion of its postgraduates. They have moved to neighbouring countries, such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, where the rewards were larger. Recently, the situation has been reversed and it is now possible to discern a tendency among educated Tanzanians to return to their native country.
Lennart Hasselgren pointed out that in the countries south of Sudan there are 66 doctoral students in physics in an area with a population of 230 million.
C. N. R. Rao remarked on the possibility of establishing exchange programmes in the South. He volunteered to take 2-3 doctoral students each year from Tanzania. Well-designed exchange programmes are a way of taking care of the manpower problem. The problem of brain drain will be avoided. Kohi accepted the offer and expressed a desire to follow up the initiative.
Bengt Gustafsson referred to the history of the problems that were discussed during the seminar. Is there an insight into the difficulties which the system places in the way of implementation? Is there still room for the social sciences to explore the reasons for the problems? Kohi, expressing an optimistic view, pointed out that the IMF debt conditions are easing and that funds are thus becoming available. Tanzania is beginning to see a change in the inflow of funds to research. The development is positive. Kohi also put trust in the present President of Tanzania. The president's experiences as the chairman of the Commission for Science and Technology raise the hopes of development in science.
A question concerning the dropout rate in the schooling system was addressed to Kohi. What is the reason for the unbelievable dropout rate? Kohi referred to the British influences in the schooling system in Tanzania. The British system is characterised by a "sudden death" phenomenon. The barriers between the stages are very distinct. This applies even to the university, where you can be dismissed at any time. Tanzania has inherited the British system.
On receiving this response, the questioner added the dimension of review of the system. If the structure of the system results in high dropout rates by discouraging students from pursuing an education up to the university level, should not the system be reviewed? Kohi referred to the large population base of Tanzania. Three million Tanzanians cannot be enrolled in the university system. Instead, the majority of the population should be given vocational training.
Rao added that the dropout rate is extremely high all over the developing world. That is one of the major problems in the developing world with regard to the schooling system. Few continue to high school. There are, however, cases in which there have been improvements, for example, Brazil. Yet, the social, cultural and economic barriers continue to put a brake on achievement in the developing countries. Child labour is one problem in this respect. Thus, the dropout rate is uniformly high.
Malur Bhagavan described the evolution of the research cooperation policies and strategies at SAREC since it was established 24 years ago. He focused on how the integrated approach towards research capacity-building in developing countries slowly emerged. The changes in the philosophy of SAREC were dictated by experience. In addition, he elaborated on SAREC's "Sandwich Model" for research training leading to doctorate degrees, which is built around the concept of requiring the research student to alternate periodically between her/his home institution in a developing country and the host institution in Sweden (or in an other industrialised country). One of several major advantages of this model is the minimisation of the risk of brain drain.
I will start by briefly presenting the philosophy that led to the establishment of the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation in Developing Countries (SAREC). In addition, an overview of the progress made within SAREC over the last 24 years is provided. The historical account constitutes a background to the current policy of SAREC. It will provide an idea of the evolution of thinking in development assistance in relation to higher education and research capacity.
SAREC was started 24 years ago. The process that led to the establishment of SAREC was the feeling that it was not enough simply to concentrate on technical assistance - project assistance - in developing countries. The issue of local knowledge creation needed to be addressed in developing countries. Thus, there was a early recognition of the questions in this field in Sweden. A parliamentary commission was set-up, which eventually led to a report and later the establishment of SAREC in 1975. Twenty years later, in July 1995, SAREC was integrated into the new Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and became Sida's Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC).
However, the idea behind support for research was still traditional in character. It followed the concept that support should focus on individual research projects chosen principally on the criteria of the production of research results of high quality, in addition to being relevant to developing countries The emphasis on results and quality, with the capacity criterion taking a back seat, led to a situation where more than 90 percent of SAREC's resources went into major international programs, for example in agriculture and health.
The philosophy described above was followed for about a decade, from 1975 to the mid-1980's. During this period SAREC learnt a lot. In the mid-1980's, SAREC started to ask itself what actually happens to the research work that was supported by the agency. In addition, SAREC started to consider whether there actually was any knowledge creation going on locally in developing countries. What happened after a research project was completed? This led to a period of self-assessment. After a critical self-examination, SAREC concluded that the strategy pursued up till this point did not have the expected outcome in terms of knowledge creation in the developing world.
SAREC's philosophy underwent a fairly radical change. The insistence on individual results-oriented projects gave way to emphasis on research capacity building within the developing countries. In addition, there was a shift in balance in terms of expenditure. In the latter respect, the result today is that about one-third of the resources are allocated to international high-profile research programmes, one-third to regional (i.e. continental and sub-continental) and special programmes, and one-third to bilateral research co-operation with a few selected developing countries. In the bilateral programmes the capacity building component is very strong, while in the regional and special programmes both capacity building and research results production components are equally addressed and integrated. In terms of the division of resources as between research capacity building and the production of research results, there is now a proper balance. Metaphorically speaking, while SAREC's approach is one of "walking on two legs", the weight shifts from one leg (capacity) to the other (results), depending on the type of programme, as in the Tai Chi Chuan "moving meditation" exercises. In an historical perspective, the most radical feature in the mid-1980's was the shift towards capacity-building for research in the developing countries.
A few years into the capacity building phase uncovered the need for yet another adjustment in SAREC's approach. While bilateral and regional programmes were well into research training aimed at producing doctorate degrees, it became fairly clear that this process would grind to a halt if the recruiting base for entry into doctorate programmes was not strengthened. It was realised that in most of Sida/SAREC's partner developing countries not enough students were being trained to take high quality masters degrees to be able to enter the doctorate-stream. Further, there weren't enough experienced senior researchers in these universities to provide local supervision to masters and doctorate students.
The upshot of this recognition was that as of the early 1990's SAREC widened and deepened its support firstly to incorporate training at the masters degree level into its "sandwich programmes", and secondly to make it possible for post-doctoral university staff to spend short periods of time in at Swedish universities to update their knowledge and scientific competence. (Sida/SAREC is, however, definitely not contemplating to go any deeper than this, say by directing support towards the undergraduate level.)
Despite the efforts of Sida/SAREC and one or two other like-minded research donor agencies, the results in terms of research capacity building (e.g. number of doctorate degree holders, well-equipped laboratories and libraries and other research infrastructure) are still meagre in relation to the enormous need. One of the main reasons for this is, of course, lack of economic resources at the disposal of the developing country universities and research institutes. Yet, it is not only a question of monetary resources. The available money needs to be correctly directed. In view of this, Sida/SAREC started to analyse other root causes that were inhibiting more effective and efficient use of available resources by developing country universities. It came to be realised that in many countries strategic thinking at the top level of the university was lacking. Further, the fragmentation of donors' support into numerous small programmes was endemic. An overall view was lacking. University leadership knew very little about these diversity of disparate projects. There was no scrutiny of their relevance, quality and inter-connectedness.
Recognising this situation, SAREC approached the university leadership in several of its partner developing countries and offered financial assistance and advise so that the universities could by themselves formulate their own strategies, plans and policies for development of research. For example, universities in Maputo in Mozambique, Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and Addis Ababa in Ethiopia have received support of this nature. This is now beginning to yield exciting and important results. Still, this is not enough. If the governments of the developing countries do not put a high priority on higher education and research by allocating adequate resources from their own national budgets, no improvement will be possible in the present bleak situation, in particular in Africa south of Sahara. To this end, university leadership must generate and maintain great pressure on the local political leadership and policy makers..
Summarising the features presented above, the current philosophy of Sida/SAREC is to integrate a spectrum of approaches: research capacity building, research results production, generating and implementing coherent policies, strategies and plans at the level of university leadership, policy advocacy directed at and policy impact on governments through university leadership. This integrated approach is now in place in some of Sida/SAREC's partner countries in Eastern and Southern Africa.
The traditional way of assisting developing countries in research training is by means of exchange programs. Doctoral students from developing countries complete their Ph.D. degree abroad. This is also the main avenue for brain drain. Lack of adequate research infrastructure, financial and technical resources, and, last but not least, reasonable monetary and career incentives deter trained researchers from returning to their home countries and institutions. This is the classical "scholarship model". Recognising the negative features of the "scholarship model", chief among which is brain drain, SAREC has developed and implemented an alternative "sandwich model".
The sandwich model, with its insistence on periodically alternating stay in the home country/institution and in the Swedish host institution, ensures that the research student maintains close links with her/his home base. The periodic stays usually extend to six months in any given year. Within the framework of this model, it takes on an average four to five years for a master's degree holder to acquire a doctorate degree at a Swedish university. The program has been successful in the following regards:
However, donor-supported initiatives such as the one described above can only have a limited effect. It cannot solve, for example, Ethiopia's or Tanzania's or Nicaragua's problems of local knowledge generation. What it can do is provide modest catalytic resources that can assist countries to generate and implement their own research development policies, strategies and plans. The issue of generating the substantial resources required for achieving sustainable, across-the-board development in research capacity and competence can only be achieved through committing local means. Failing that, donor dependence, which is a major problem in most development areas, will persist. emerges. Donor dependence is a key issue that everybody involved in this field must seriously address.
During the last few years there has been a major shift in content and form of "development thinking" among donor countries. The concept "development assistance" has given way to the concepts "development co-operation" and "international co-operation". This is a clear signal that the old patterns of providing assistance to developing countries are being slowly being phased out. The recipient country must also share the responsibility for development and provide resources of its own, as well as ensure accountability, transparency and good governance. Several of the major donor countries have substantially cut down the levels of their development assistance. The Nordic countries are an exception, in the sense that their reductions have been minimal.
Science seems to have had little impact on governments. In particular, scientists have not been able to make an impact on governments in the sense of obliging them to release the monetary resources that are needed for development in science. This has to be changed. If the scientific community in a developing country is unable to influence the local powers-that-be who hold the purse strings, then resources and thus development will remain out of the reach of the local universities and the local scientific community.
The state of higher education and research is closely linked to the state of the economy. Given the economic situation in many developing countries, where the debt burden is immense and the export price of primary commodities have plummeted, it is an uphill task to argue for adequate resources for higher education and research. Unless the Economy recovers it is difficult to see that the required resources will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, it is still possible to argue that investment in higher education and research, in particular in science and technology, is the crucial investment for the future. Even if the Economy recovers, the country will be unable to achieve substantial results without educated manpower.
Sida/SAREC has realised the central importance of policy both at the university leadership and the national authorities levels, and will continue to work with measures and mechanisms related to policy issues.
Sook-II Kwun inquired whether the funds allocated to Sida/SAREC originate from the public sector or the private sector. Bhagavan pointed out that the Swedish government funds Swedish development assistance. He added that while there are initiatives from universities and NGOs, their contribution is mostly in kind.
Sten Widmalm, referring to the "sandwich model", said that hopes of solving the problem of brain drain had been raised. But are the Ph.D. students who have been supported in the "sandwich frame" still working in their native country after they have completed the doctoral degree? Has this aspect been evaluated? Bhagavan indicated that the full impact cannot yet be completely assessed, as most programmes are still running, and the effect of what happens after a programme has been completed can only be assessed after the event. It is therefore difficult, at this stage, to say what is going to happen when a programme has been phased out.
Malin Åkerblom, referring to experiences from Bangladesh, argued that even though research funding is ended, Ph.D.s stay in the country. For instance, they work in the industry.
Lennart Hasselgren reminded the seminar of the fact that the sandwich model is linked to investments in the infrastructure in the developing country, i.e. the local capacity. The sandwich model is based on a long-term commitment.
Mats Djurberg inquired about the perceived responses of other donor agencies. He also remarked on the key importance of donor co-ordination. Are donors co-ordinated? Bhagavan framed his answer in an historical and comparative account of the different approaches taken by research donors. Traditionally, donors concentrated on selecting the brightest researchers and providing resources for them to conduct research. As described above, in the case of Sida/SAREC, the sandwich model replaced this "cherry-picking" model. As a result of the experiences of Sida/SAREC, other countries have become interested, for example Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway. Yet, the only country that has pursued a variation of the sandwich model is Denmark. The general perception of the sandwich model among donors is positive. It has frequently been praises. However, the long-term commitment that is required in pursuing the model tends to reduce the enthusiasm substantially. The classical scholarship model is still dominating.
Regarding donor co-ordination, it must be recognised that although it is important, it is extremely difficult to achieve. Part of the problem is that donor agencies need an image - a brand name - in order to be able to "sell the idea" to the rest of society, especially the politicians. Concerning research donor co-ordination, Sida/SAREC has recently taken the novel and pioneering initiative of promoting the idea of developing country universities themselves co-ordinating the donors' contributions. One example is the Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo, Mozambique. Another is the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Once a year, the university leadership meets with various donors. Here the conventional "co-ordination roles" have been switched round. Part of the explanation for this is Sida/SAREC's constant advocacy in this direction. This is a promising path for the future.
Penny Davies, Centre for Environment and Development Studies
During the seminar the need for science education and research has been emphasised. The need for investment in science for development has been strongly stressed. Another aspect, which has barely been touched upon, is the content of science itself. What are the contents of science and what should the contents of science be? The relationship between science and the labour market has been remarked upon but it is also important to consider the relationship between science and the social needs of developing countries. What are the special needs of a developing country? Here it is important to pose the question of what areas should be researched. One can criticise the so-called western model and emphasise its shortcomings. Should less developed countries follow the western model? A related issue is the question of who formulates the contents of science. Who sets the agenda? Which institutions are suitable for setting the agenda of scientific research? Science is a political issue. Science is not neutral. In this context, what is the role of the university and who defines the role of the university? Is it the World Bank that sets the agenda for research in developing countries?
To promote support for science and to identify the political tools for achieving this must be one of the primary goals of the UNESCO conference in Budapest. In addition, the appropriate strategies must be designed. In this regard, one has to be selective. First, on a general level of analysis, it is crucial not to become entrapped by the insurmountable structural problems one faces when incorporating, for example, the debt burden into the discussion of science. It has been shown that states have been able to break loose from impossible situations. It is crucial to keep successful development cases in mind. Otherwise, one will certainly lose all hope of reducing the gap that currently divides the developing world and the more advanced world. Second, we need to recognise our schizophrenic view of the West and the so-called Western model. The West is often perceived as a model for less developed countries. Yet, it is also perceived as the enemy. Thus, in the debate, we have to navigate between these two visions. Our view clearly contains internal contradictions. We are trying to follow the West and copy the development of the Western world. Yet, it is of vital for each country to find its their own approach and perception of development. Thirdly, and related to this reasoning, it is important to address the concept of linearity in development. Should we - as I had the impression Tham did - adopt a linear model of development, implying that the developing countries must go through the same phases as, for example, Europe? Instead, we should draw lessons from successful cases of development. In this regard, South Korea represents an alternative to the linear model. In fact, it is possible that a linear perspective on development creates more problems than it solves. Lastly, we must not forget that science is very much about human capital. The question of brain drain has not been solved. We cannot act like agriculturists in terms of lobbying for resources. The resources of science are not located in the ground, but in the heads of human beings.
In a development context, it is essential to focus on capacity-building for research. The capacity must be built on the local level. The classical scholarship model results in brain drain and is thus unsatisfactory from the point of view of local capacity-building. However, as the African case illustrates, local capacity-building is very difficult. Yet, it is essential. In building capacity at the local level, we need knowledge of the situation in the country. Fortunately, Sida/SAREC is one of the few development agencies in the world that are still interested in the basic sciences and that are trying - by means of an integrated approach to development - to build capacity for research. I do not believe in centres of excellence. Instead, in building capacity it is essential that we identify and nurture whatever small resources might be available in the country. We should also focus on regional aspects of capacity-building. Lastly, it must be recognised that building capacity for research at the local level is a long-term commitment based on partnership.
I am struck by the fact that the developing world and the more advanced countries to a great extent share the same problems. For example, the problem of brain drain applies to Europe as well. During the seminar we have not touched on all the countries that will be represented at the UNESCO conference in Budapest. It is important that we recognise the former Soviet republics. It is not just a matter of Russia and Kazakhstan, there are in fact 17 republics. They too, are developing countries and need assistance in developing their capacities. I am not quite sure if it is the sandwich model that they need, but they need help. In the context of the present seminar, I have found it extremely encouraging to learn that there are concrete suggestions. What we need is a willingness to start on a small scale. The sandwich model is a very interesting alternative. It has not been in function long enough for an international evaluation. In the future, we will see whether it can be applied to other countries in the developing world as well. Lastly, I wish to comment on the concept of science. We have been discussing science without first defining science. There are basic science, applied science and perhaps shadow zones in between. We have been talking about all sciences. We should have defined science. In Sweden there is currently an emphasis on basic research. Basic science is indeed fundamental. If there is no basic science, there can be no sciences to apply. This is extremely important to remember.
List of Participants
Hossein Aminaey
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 68 23
Hossein.Aminaey@isp.uu.se
Gity Behravan
Sida, SAREC
105 25 Stockholm
08-698 52 61
gity.behavran@sida.se
Åsa Bergengren
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 35 78
Asa.Bergengren@isp.uu.se
Malur Bhagavan
Sida, SAREC
105 25 Stockholm
08-698 53 63, 08-698 56 56 (fax)
Gunilla Björklund
Marmorvägen 16 A
752 44 Uppsala
018-51 65 22, 018-50 84 45 (fax)
gunilla.bjorklund@telia.com
Gunnel Cederlöf
Seminariet för utvecklingsstudier
Övre Slottsgatan 1
753 10 Uppsala
018-471 6851, 018-12 08 32 (fax)
Gunnel.Cederlof@uland.uu.se
Magnus Dahlberg
Institutet för bostadsforskning
Box 785
801 29 Gävle
026-420 65 27, 018-36 74 56 (res.)
Magnus.Dahllberg@ibf.uu.se
Penny Davies
Centre for Environment and
Development Studies
Svartbäcksgatan 9
753 20 Uppsala
018-471 27 95, 018-12 07 69 (fax)
Penny.Davies@cemus.uu.se
Mats Djurberg
Internationella enheten
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
08-728 65 00, 08-32 70 08 (fax)
Stefan Ernlund
Council for Development and
Assistance Studies
Övre Slottsgatan 1
753 10 Uppsala
018-471 68 54, 018-12 08 32 (fax)
s_ernlund@yahoo.com
Anders Falk
Svenska UNESCOrådet
Utbildningsdepartementet
103 33 Stockholm
08-405 19 51
anders.falk@education.ministry.se
Pravina Gajjar
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 35 75
Pravina.Gajjar@isp.uu.se
Claes-Göran Granqvist
Institutionen för materialvetenskap
Box 534
751 21 Uppsala
018-471 30 67
Claes-Goran.Granqvist@Angstrom.uu.se
Bengt Gustafsson
Astronomiska Observatoriet
Box 515
751 20 Uppsala
018-53 51 57
Bengt.Gustafsson@astro.uu.se
Dorothy Guy-Ohlson
Naturhistoriska riksmuseet
Box 50007
104 05 Stockholm
08-519 541 42, 08-454 42 50 (fax)
dorothy.guy-ohlson@nfr.se
Sten Hagberg
Inst. för kulturantropologi och etnologi
Trädgårdsgatan 18
753 09 Uppsala
018-471 70 30, 018-471 70 28 (fax)
Sten.Hagberg@antro.uu.se
Lennart Hasselgren
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 35 76
Lennart.Hasselgren@isp.uu.se
Niclas Hällström
Dag Hammarskjölds Minnesfond
Övre Slottsfatan 2
753 10 Uppsala
018-12 88 72, 018-12 20 72 (fax)
Niclas.Hallstrom@dhf.uu.se
Jan Isidorsson
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 35 77
Jan.Isidorsson@isp.uu.se
Iréne Johansson
Naturvetenskapliga forskningsrådet
Box 7142
103 87 Stockholm
08-454 42 13
irene.johansson@nfr.se
Tahire Koctürk
Livsmedelsverket
Box 622
751 26 Uppsala
018-17 55 04, 018-17 14 79 (fax)
Yadon M. Kohi
COSTECH
P.O. Box 4302
Dar es Salaam
TANZANIA
+255-51-753 13 (fax)
Olle Kristenson
Svenska Kyrkan
751 79 Uppsala
018-16 99 67
olle.k.kristenson@mail.svkyrkan.se
Sook-II Kwun
Department of Physics
Seoul National University
Seoul 151 - 742
SOUTH KOREA
+82-2-880 65 91, +82-2-87 65 90 (fax)
sikwun@phya.snu.ac.kr
Fredrik Nornvall
Department of Government
Box 514
751 20 Uppsala
018-471 33 06
Fredrik.Nornvall@statsvet.uu.se
C. N. R. Rao
Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced
Scientific Research
Indian Institute of Science Campus
Bangalore 560 012
INDIA
+91-80-334 54 91, +91-80-344 24 86 (fax)
cnrrao@jnc.iisc.ernet.in
Linéa Sjöblom
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 36 15
Linea.Sjoblom@isp.uu.se
Bo Sundqvist
Uppsala University
Box 256
751 05 Uppsala
018-471 33 10
Bo.Sundqvist@uadm.uu.se
Carl Tham
c/o Norberg
Bergsgatan 16
112 23 Stockholm
08-651 03 46 (res.)
Mona Thorwaldsdotter
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 36 97
Mona.Thorwaldsdotter.isp.uu.se
Per Einar Tröften
Sida, SAREC
105 25 Stockholm
08-698 51 06
per-einar.troften@sida.se
Lena Wallensteen
W. International
Bredmansgatan 7A
752 23 Uppsala
018-52 48 79, 018-50 01 50 (fax)
Lena.Wallensteen@pcr.uu.se
Sten Widmalm
Council for Development and
Assistance Studies
Övre Slottsgatan 1
753 10 Uppsala
018-471 68 53, 018-12 08 32 (fax)
Sten.Widmalm@intkursgard.uu.se
Staffan Wiktelius
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 75 87
Staffan.Wiktelius@isp.uu.se
Malin Åkerblom
International Science Programmes
Dag Hammarskjölds väg 31
752 37 Uppsala
018-471 35 74
Malin.Akerblom@isp.uu.se
May-Britt Öhman
Avdelningen för teknik- och
vetenskapshistoria, KTH
100 44 Stockholm
08-790 86 46
maybritt@tekhist.kth.se