Opinion - News Analysis   

Developing Africa’s science and research base

If goodwill turned automatically to gold, African universities would be loaded. Warm words about the importance of science and innovation to the continent’s economy and development are voiced regularly by both Western and African governments, and more will be heard this week as the African Ministerial Council of Science and Technology (Amcost) meets in Mombasa for its third conference.

Noah Wekesa, Kenya’s Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, who takes over leadership of Amcost at the conference, has stated that “the only way we can empower citizens is to embrace science and technology,” and has promised to encourage African governments to meet their goal of allocating 1 per cent of gross domestic product to science. The words have been just as warm from the West, which made pledges at the 2005 G8 meeting in Gleneagles to support training, innovation and research as part of its commitment to increase aid to Africa.

Firm outcomes from any of these promises have proved more elusive. The latest newsletter from Research Africa, a consortium that disseminates research as a tool for sustainable development, raises concerns about African countries’ abilities to meet their commitments to science, and calls on G8 countries to start putting their money where their mouths are.

But while more has certainly been said than done, it is not all hot air, according to Andy Cherry, science and technology adviser of the Africa Unit, Association of Commonwealth Universities. “G8 countries have not been doing as much as they could,” he says, “But they are doing more than they did in the past.”

And this is in spite of the fact that Africa seems to be expecting less. Mr. Wekesa has insisted that only when the continent has sorted out its own funding for science can it expect other countries to help.

“Africa is now taking responsibility for itself,” says Mr. Cherry. “Donors can sit back and say we don’t want to do anything until Africa does it first. Africa is tired of being led by donors’ agendas.”

This change does create difficulties for those involved in supporting science and technology in Africa, because it is harder to know who should make decisions. Some schemes, such as the U.K. government-funded England-Africa Partnership Scheme to build links between African and English higher education institutions, have sparked criticism for failing to include enough African involvement in the way they are organised, says Mr. Cherry.

Similarly, the idea of funding centres of excellence in Africa, proposed by the Commission for Africa, which was appointed by the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and supported at Gleneagles, has caused a more muted response in Africa. The concern is that such centres could suck in all expertise in a particular field to a single location, draining it from the rest of the continent.

This highlights another hotly debated issue. Should decisions abut science be made locally, by individual African countries, or collectively as a continent?

“Most of the problems that need to be solved by science and technology are local,” says Calestous Juma, professor of the practice of development at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, suggesting that initiatives funded at a continental level tend to be driven by donor’s interests. He argues that only when domestic support for science is established can wider collaborative programmes develop.

Certainly, while the poverty of many African countries means they can sometimes lack clout as individual states, it is not going to be easy to get commitments to firm action from 53 countries, all at different stages of development. Ironically, the G8 has faced similar problems in acting collectively, with some countries, such as the U.K. and Japan, going much further to fulfil the G8 pledges than others.

In Africa, the issue of local versus continental programmes of action relates not only to decision-making about resources for science, but to their distribution. Donor countries are nervous about giving large sums to individual governments in countries that are unstable or at risk of corruption. Hence efforts to create an African science and innovation fund as a mechanism for mobilising and directing resources, although agreement on how to organise it is proving difficult.

G8 countries may soon find they cannot afford not to help Africa, which is already looking to China and India as alternative sources of support.

“African countries are starting to choose their friends on the basis of their commitment to building Africa’s scientific and technological capabilities,” says Professor Juma. “Science in Africa is going to advance irrespective of G8 funding.”

He argues that it would be better for the G8 to abandon the practice of making pledges that cannot be kept and instead work on pragmatic partnerships involving universities, industry and other players.

But the fact that debate now focusses on how, rather than whether, Africa should be supporting innovation, shows that these pledges have achieved some purpose. And if the momentum continues, goodwill could turn to gold for everyone concerned.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

India and Russia
Prisoners and mental health
Blaming it on the judiciary in Pakistan
Maharashtra: ‘graveyard of farmers’
Needed, a code of child rights
Developing Africa’s science and research base
Corrections and clarifications
Traumatised Pakistan
Nandigram issue
Hasty approval

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu