Where there is a will…

Studying gender inequality won't fix health without the political will

Claudio Schuftan, an advocate for the right to health based in Vietnam, sounded a pessimistic note yesterday in a discussion on research into the social determinants of health.

As participants discussed the best ways to ensure that research into poor living conditions and gender inequality is treated as a rigorous science, Schuftan asked us whether we “were living in a dream world”. His point was that the scientific community talks of the need for more evidence – but what about the political will?

This is an obvious point but one worth making again amidst calls for more evidence-based policies. First, we have a lot of evidence already for what works and what doesn’t. Second, all the evidence in the world will not convince a policymaker who does not see the political will to alter health-care policies.

This was the point that Carlos Morel, director of the Center for Technological Development in Health at FIOCRUZ in Brazil, made when I spoke to him about translating innovation from Cuba to the rest of the world.

Morel said that there would be little point in Cuba transferring knowledge to countries that don’t have the capacity to use that information. Cuba’s political dictatorship – in essence, its unswerving political will – is what ensured that it first developed a robust health system on which to build more advanced scientific institutions, he said.

Africa needs to find a way now to imbue its own democracies with that strong political will for healthcare reform.

Priya Shetty, www.scidev.net, priya4876@gmail.com

How’s your IBSA?

Last post of today I think…

This conference has been dominated by voices from a small number of countries. As they are the host, it is not strange that South Africa has taken a prominent role. But many talks have also come from India and Brazil.

In a way, it’s not surprising. There are more scientists in South Africa and India than in, say, Mali. But it is putting a slightly weird spin on things.

For example, we are not hearing enough from the poorest of the poor—except in the third person when delegates from the countries above talk about wanting to boost South-South cooperation.

And that they do, constantly, which is really encouraging. The financial crisis has opened up avenues for them to rally and try to plug the gaps left by the worse affected developed countries, who foot much of the bill for science and technology support for the poorest countries.

The governments of the ‘big three’ are also pushing strongly for collaboration with each other. The IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) partnership is still evolving, but speaking to South Africa’s science minister it seems like it is going well. Each party has put $1 million into a central pot for 2009/10.

Perhaps one of the outcomes of this conference should be some sort of gentlemen’s agreement between the better off developing countries and those who are really struggling for closer cooperation, perhaps plugging some of the gaps left open by Western donors cutting funding due to the financial crisis?

Linda Nordling, SciDev.Net

Bridging the “two worlds” of science

Gevers, photo by ASSAf

This morning, Wieland Gevers from the Academy of Science of South Africa painted a picture of the “two worlds” he has worked in as a biomedical scientist.

Gevers is one of three TWAS members to receive a “TWAS medal” in 2009. This is an accolade given to a selected few members each year in recognition of the research they have done in their field.

In the 1960s, Gevers got a Rhodes scholarship to study for a PhD in Oxford. Although the science he did there feels ancient by today’s standards, he says it was a privilege to be able to spend time at the very forefront of research and, as he puts it, “absorb the principle of doing science”.

When he returned to South Africa in the 1970s, by contrast, he was faced with the task of doing something with very little. Along with his research chair went only one assistant and two small pieces of scientific equipment.

This is a common problem across the developing world today, and one of the main reasons many emigrated scientists do not want to return. If they do, many—like Gevers in the 1970s—face the task of building up the institutions necessary to enable good science at the same time as pursuing their research.

Gevers’ picture of South Africa in the 70s may be at odds with the image the country enjoys today as the brightest jewel in Africa’s scientific crown. But the excellence the country has achieved over the past 40 years should encourage scientists in countries that currently struggle with their scientific capacity to feel hopeful about their own future.

Linda Nordling, SciDev.Net

Who are the unsung heroes of developing country science?

A fascinating lecture by a South African astronomer provided food for thought this afternoon.

David Block from the University of the Witwatersrand made an impassioned and convincing argument that Edwin Hubble, the legendary astronomer, stole many of his iconic ideas from less famous colleagues.

Block’s research is published in Shrouds of the Night, a book about dark matter he co-authored with Ken Freeman last year.

For example, he says that the Hubble “tuning fork”—a way of classifying galaxies that was supposedly published by Hubble in 1926—was in fact invented in 1929 by a Sir James Jeans. Hubble, Block says, only used the tuning fork in a 1936 paper, without giving Jeans any credit.

According to Block, Hubble also stole another galaxy classification system and the “Hubble” luminosity profile—a way of modelling the light intensity emitted by a galaxy—from a mysterious “Mr Reynolds” who penned an article on it years before Hubble mentions it in his work.

Block believes this to be a J H Reynolds, an amateur astronomer living at the same time. Incidentally, his telescope eventually found its way to Egypt where it for a long while was the most powerful telescope to study the southern skies.

Figures like Reynolds and Jeans are the unsung heroes of science, Block said. Without a doubt, it should be the Jeans tuning fork, the Reynolds luminosity profile and the Reynolds galaxy classification system.

Why Reynolds or Jeans never spoke up about the blatant plagiarism of their ideas is a mystery. Reynolds and Hubble corresponded, and Block has unearthed strong evidence that Hubble borrowed ideas from Reynolds in old letters.

This begs another important question: Scientific collaborations between Northern and Southern scientists are not always equal. How many unsung scientific heroes from the developing world had their ideas nabbed by people who had the power and networks to claim them as their own?

Linda Nordling, SciDev.Net

TWAS 11th general conference, Durban

Welcome to the blog for the TWAS 11th general conference taking place in Durban, South Africa, this week!

I will be filing several reports each day on this blog, focusing on what is happening in the world of harnessing science and technology for development. You will hear from a lot of bigwigs, including South Africa’s relatively new science minister Naledi Pandor and the African Union’s science commissioner Jean-Pierre Ezin.

These are interesting times. It is a while now that ‘science for development’ has been on policymakers’ lips, and it is not presumptuous to expect to see some results.

But world finances are not what they used to be, and there is a real risk in many parts of the developing world — not least Africa — that science could lose out to other pressing funding priorities.

On Wednesday, I’ll report back from what will promises to be an extremely interesting symposium on the impact of the global financial crisis on research and education in developing countries. Some funders have already said they are cutting grants, but what are the reports from the coalface?

The tougher financial times we all face these days are likely to be a recurring theme throughout the conference. But the next few days also promise to be a showcase of how, with a little ingenuity and a lot of determination, limited resources can be made to go a long way.

So watch this space!

Linda Nordling, SciDev.Net

Creating a climate for change

Rajendra Pachauri underlined the scientific rationale for action on climate change.

The poorest countries will be the hardest hit by climate change and we, as science journalists, must do more to highlight their plight and support their position — this was one of the key messages to emerge from the much-anticipated climate change session at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists this morning.

Echoing the sentiments in his SciDev.Net Opinion article published last week, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said the media has a crucial role in underlining the scientific rationale for action on climate change, which includes reporting on the worst impacts of climate change, many of which are expected in the developing world.

David King, former UK chief scientific advisor, similarly suggested that the media can help put pressure on governments to take action against climate change.

This means emphasising the need to “defossilise” economies over the next 40 years. Science will have a huge part to play. “There are amazing opportunities for innovators in the private sector,” said King. And the time for action is now. Change is coming, and “any country that doesn’t start defossilising now will find the transition very expensive”.

Developing countries are, in some ways, at an advantage as they can jump straight to low-carbon economies — if they are given help to do so. The willingness to help is certainly there — only last week UK prime minister Gordon Brown highlighted the need to work with African countries in the battle against climate change. He said billions of pounds need to move from North to South to help African countries manage climate change impacts.

But — and this is key — such support must not be just another hand-out. It must come with the skills, people and technology needed to support long-term sustainable development. I won’t argue with that.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

World Bank turns the spotlight on capacity-building

Makerere University in Uganda: back in the World Bank's good books (Credit: Flickr/Aluka Digital Library)

Six years ago, we ran a provocative editorial asking “Does the World Bank really care about science“. This pointed to the glaring gap between the bank’s rhetorical commitment to supporting science in the interests of development, and the lack of substantial evidence that this commitment was reflected in its lending policies.

Most revealing was the continuation of a policy introduced in the 1980s of refusing to grant loans to support the growth of higher education, on the grounds that boosting primary education was the most effective way of tackling poverty.

Since then, the short-sightedness of this approach has been acknowledged. Today the bank is at the forefront of efforts to stimulate a commitment by governments across the developing world in science, technology and innovation.

And following a widely attended forum in Washington in February 2007 on the broad need for such a commitment, it is now turning its attention to a key aspect: capacity-building partnerships.

How to promote these effectively will be the focus of a second forum, to be held provisionally at the bank’s headquarters in Washington DC, in December this year.

“The objective of such partnerships is to create a bridge between those who already have the capacity, and those who need to build their own capacity,” Al Watkins, co-ordinator for science, technology and innovation at the bank, and the leading force behind the 2007 forum, told the Royal Society meeting.

“Country after country has been increasing support for science in the last few years,” said Watkins. “Higher education is booming in these countries, which is a good thing; it is becoming clear that the route out of poverty is through tertiary education, and particularly through science and through engineering.”

“But where is the capacity going to come from to meet this demand? In the universities, for example, there is a large number of staff vacancies and faculty numbers are shrinking. It is a very serious issue.”

Watkins’ goal with the new forum is to stimulate a global discussion on the steps needed to build capacity in science and technology – and, in particular, to do this by establishing active partnerships between institutions in developed and developing countries.

He is keen to demonstrate that capacity building is not limited to increasing investment in research and development. “For many countries, that is not the critical missing ingredient,” he says.

“There is already a wealth of knowledge out there. The developed world already knows how to solve many of the problems facing developing countries. The problem is that that knowledge is not being transferred to such countries, and that they do not have the capacity to adapt it and diffuse it for local use.”

Watkins’ message received a cool welcome from those in the scientific community who argue that investment in research and development should be the top priority. Nor did he mention the phrase “science diplomacy” – the nominal focus of the Royal Society meeting.

But others welcomed the clear signal that, in the modern world, building the capacity to absorb (and therefore use) science effectively can be just as important as building the capacity to produce it. The real challenge is to confront the mechanisms for achieving this – and the barriers that prevent it from happening.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net

Science as a political tool? Don’t even think about it!

“Forget about using science to achieve political goals; it doesn’t even work.”

Christopher Whitty (Credit: LSHTM/Anne Koeber)

That was the stark message delivered by Chris Whitty (right), recently appointed head of research at the UK Department for International Development (DFID), to the two-day meeting taking place in London this week on “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy“.

Whitty, a malaria specialist who was appointed in January (see UK’s DFID appoints research chief) and emphasised that he was speaking in a personal rather than an official capacity, delivered what he described as a “hymn of praise” for the role of science in international development.

He listed some of the “wonderful things” that science was capable of doing to help to mitigate the effects of poverty around the world, while adding that “it has been massively overlooked by those involved in international development for many years”.

But he was scornful of efforts to use scientific and technical assistance to achieve broader political goals such as increasing influence or even contributing to social stability, both of which he included among “less good reasons” to engage in science in developing countries.

“They are less good because they don’t work,” he said.

One idea he criticised was that training scientists was a valuable way of buying influence with a country’s scientific community. The historical record showed that highly trained scientists often left their countries of origin to continue their work overseas.

“Another idea is that science can promote social stability,” said Whitty. “The evidence is the reverse. Science can be a transformative influence. But transformation can lead to turbulence, which itself can lead to conflict.”

Even the idea that science should be promoted because it was an unalloyed good had its problems. “This is clearly not correct. For example, there is some good south-south collaboration on nuclear issues that does not bring joy to the rest of the world.” No names were mentioned; but no names were needed.

The reason for engaging in science in developing countries should have a single, clear, purpose, he suggested: “to transform the lives of the poor”. A simple enough message. But one that placed a large question mark over the desirability of seeking to use science for diplomatic ends, particularly in the context of relationships with the developing world.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net.

Funding available

There is one area of health research where you don’t have to fight for funding.

As Dr Roger Glass, chair of the session on Implementation/Operational Research held on the second day of the meeting, said, ″When have you ever attended a conference where you have three organisations saying there is funding available [for research]?″

So, people interested in conducting operational or implementation research (or as the World Bank calls it: impact evaluation), put in that proposal now to The Global Fund, the World Bank and USAID.

And the best part is, all three groups encourage incorporation of training schemes for local personnel in the field in the proposal for funding, so that meets capacity building agendas as well. This is especially important as most of the ground personnel are usually community workers, and not trained researchers.

However, participants who regularly work on the ground brought up the very relevant fact that although the funding bodies say there is flexibility in funding to include operational research, the reality is many people on the ground are either not aware of this flexibility or those in charge of the funds are not themselves that flexible.

Another interesting observation brought up was the continued usage of paper and pen in conducting surveys when most field workers would have a ″pocket computer″ with them in the form of their mobile phone. Time to bring surveying techniques into the 21st century?

Shiow Chin Tan, SciDev.Net