In my opinion the quality of life actually depends on the global research. So, the quality of life in the less developed countries is improved by the research and developments of developed countries. The objective of research is for the benefit of the global human being and not for the originating alone. The developed countries provide technologies they wish to to the less developed ones. Now, it is their wish whether they want to sell their top level technology or just want to keep to be at the top. Ultimately, it is the law of nature that the flow is always from high level to low level. And high level is obviously considered as superior.

I think the less developed countries that do not give much weightage to research must also focus on short term research outcomes because this is only the way to slowly progress towards a developed nation.

The major problem is the prescribed inappropriate research themes and/or agenda due to lack of local funding in less developed countries. In most cases prescribed research themes with huge funding miss the solving of real problems in less developed countries. African researchers will conduct research for personal financial gain than relevance of the research on their communities, because of lack of local funding. Result of most research in Africa are appropriate or relevant to the donor communities. One good example of inappropriate research themes in livestock was the crossbreeding in smallholder livestock sector which has proved to be inappropriate, due to multiple challenges in this sector..

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) is the main driver of productivity, a long- term lever for economic growth, and a potentially vital force for environmental sustainability. Can STI address the challenges of development? There is certainly a place for STI in the Sustainable Development Goals, for instance, but the narrative must veer away from simplistic notions of technology transfer, dissemination, and absorption. As far as the less-developed countries are concerned, the proponents of STI have ignored the political economy: Who gains? Who loses? How can one navigate differences? Little attention has been paid to local actors, viz., communities, government bodies, nongovernment and civil society organizations, the private sector, research institutes, and universities. Discounting obvious winners, one must know who is not given the chance to create, access, use, and benefit from STI. The closer STI is to local challenges the more likely it is to be successful. So, there must be a strong focus on end-users: they must frame the problem, define and shape innovation over time, and make it more inclusive and fit for purpose. Toward this, with appreciative inquiry, we need to revisit knowledge of what has worked—how, when, where, why, and for whom—and what has not. We can also look at old ideas and things that were innovated long ago in new contexts. We must enlarge the space for dialogue and listen more. The most innovative thing to do may well be to fortify political will.

a major problem in some developing countries is that work done at the university and government research division end up as the sises and report in some liberties and only read most of the time by other researchers in particular areas and dont find itself to the grass root ie farmers on the ground. Further, our research are not bedded in farmers problems but guided by programs that can attract funding from International donors.

I think most research findings are not applied through intervention due to lack of funding and appropriate sector office/organization that can uptake research output and change into action. Therefore, we need to focus on intervention/sustainable development and action research in order to see the impacts of research on the quality of life of people in need. Further, we need to conduct applied/problem-solving research mostly in less developed countries.

I think there are significant resource and infrastructural limitations in these areas in addition to multiple administrative, political, social hurdles. The primary goal of research should be to answer questions related to the problem. In my opinion, most researchers in these areas focus on the secondary goals of the research instead.