Mainz, Germany

Dear Bandyopadhyay,

I'm inclined to say that whether research should be differently oriented in a developing country depends on the particular field in question. Certainly, there should be room for research on the particular problems of any particular society; and problems of development are not unimportant. On the other hand, developing countries and their researchers should not allow themselves to be sold short of their research potential, and no one can predict where excellence and genius will arise. S.N. Bose comes to mind and his collaboration with Einstein in the 1920's; and, of course, Chandrasekhar and his controversy with Eddington in the 1930's. There are many other examples; and then again, who would have expected such genius in a Michael Faraday? 

There is room for greater emphasis on excellence, always and everywhere, though the particular problems differ from time to time and from place to place. 

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear Bandyopadhyay,

I'm inclined to say that whether research should be differently oriented in a developing country depends on the particular field in question. Certainly, there should be room for research on the particular problems of any particular society; and problems of development are not unimportant. On the other hand, developing countries and their researchers should not allow themselves to be sold short of their research potential, and no one can predict where excellence and genius will arise. S.N. Bose comes to mind and his collaboration with Einstein in the 1920's; and, of course, Chandrasekhar and his controversy with Eddington in the 1930's. There are many other examples; and then again, who would have expected such genius in a Michael Faraday? 

There is room for greater emphasis on excellence, always and everywhere, though the particular problems differ from time to time and from place to place. 

H.G. Callaway

The orientation of research should be the same everywhere, but this has very different implications depending upon the state of the country it happens in. 

Research should first address the needs of the population, which will be very different in developing countries. There, information on disease rates and risk factors may be lacking, surveillance systems absent and data incomplete or absent. 

Second, the resources available will be different. In a rich country, an episode of ocular trachoma can be treated with a single €20 antibiotic. This €20 represents perhaps four times the per capita health spending of many developing countries, so as a solution it's simply irrelevant. So research needs to be externally valid – studying appropriate questions, assessing practical affordable solutions etc.

Finally, the question of community involvement in research is an important one. Developing countries often contain large population groups who have no access to setting the health agenda. These groups need to be part of the agenda-setting process in research.

It is desirable that for a developing country “Development” should have the highest priority because that will benefit the greatest number of people of the country. Most of the research organizations are run by tax payers’ money and therefore it is necessary that the interest of the major population should get the priority. I don’t deny the importance of research but I believe that the major fund allotted to research should be spent to those areas that are necessary for present and future development of the country. Open ended research demanding very high resource input should get less priority.

AND I believe at the end of the day we the researchers should be answerable to the society.

@H.G. Callaway The scientists you mentioned are exceptions and that proves the rule.

:

Time scale is different, but the orientation of research is identical!

A very worthwhile read in this area is Ezekiel Emanuel and colleagues' paper on the ethics of research in developing countries. They spell out with great clarity the mission of research as a necessary groundwork to understanding the ethical issues. 

The paper is freely downloadable from here:

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/5/930.full.pdf

This is all about the idealistic side of science and scientists. In reality we get a total other picture, ultimately research is in the service of politics and politics knows first of all war and peace. Did Einstein not propose to make the atomic bomb, and what about the Manhattan Project. The whole quantum-world was in the service of it or against it. And Pauli was not accepted, although he needed the money, because of the weird things that happened around him. David Bohm was working at the Manhattan project under Oppenheimer without realizing it. Most of the times are scientists working on one very small detail of a huge project, and nobody can imagine the whole structure while working at the small fraction of it. Only when the history books are written, we can make new connections between facts from the past. But history is also not very popular on the schools and the way it is served is sometimes very boring. I preferred mathematics and hardly opened my history books. When years go by, we get a total different approach and the question is what can be done.

Research in the service of the people, a positive way to think about but has a scientist not first of all to sign a contract of the oath of secrecy.

And if we can't speak about, what else can be said. Many scientists become artists because this is just another language for reality.

Rita De Vuyst: Sadly, what you say is true of research in general. Academic research is all about academic research. Participants work for nothing, and academics take their data not, as the participants expect, to make the world a better place, but for doctorates, publications, research grants, academic empire building. 

I was filled with disgust at the literature on sex work in Africa, which focussed endlessly on prevalence of HIV, use of condoms, numbers of clients. It had nothing to say about police brutality, rape, entrapment in poverty that are the real problems of sex work in Kenya. The stories I heard from sex workers made me realise how deeply stigmatised they were by the research that was being done on them, researched and portrayed as carriers of disease, guilty and filthy. And the white men who did the research flew to conferences, hired trains of research students, and were Respected Men in their Field. 

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to developing countries, but it  is all the more blatant because the vast sums spent on research fail to address the needs of the communities being researched. 

Unfortunately what Ronán said is absolutely right that “Academic research is all about academic research. Participants work for nothing, and academics take their data not, as the participants expect, to make the world a better place, but for doctorates, publications, research grants, academic empire building”

This situation should change and that change can happen if and only if we the educated people (I consciously use “educated people” instead of scientists because I want to encompass every domain of research) of the developing countries can accept at least some responsibility towards our motherland. The first thing we should do is to ensure that our nation can become self sufficient at least in matters related to every day life. The technologists should be innovative enough to make our industry self sufficient. Our research should be directed towards that. Economists, educationists, medical experts, should all try to generate the necessary research output for the same cause. Internationalism in research is a very big concept - it needs very firm footings of the country to which the researchers belong.

I'm from a developing country, and I think that the nature of the research in developing countries differ from developed countries. Because in developed countries the infrastructure is available to undertake research, requirements are available and setting the conditions for conducting research.

Unlike developing countries that they do not get what is available in developed countries

Unfortunately it is the same in all countries, there is only one superintendent who take cares of the closed circle of knowledge until it is presented in the palaces of stores where the customers can consume until the pockets are empty. In many countries, the government is giving money by the social system to keep the economy going .and the knowledge banned. Thanks to all inventions the whole society is going blind to a new slavery. Only a free artist has kept the power to pack it in a new language of symbols.

A consumer society is very lazy to catch the message, receptors are dying soon and all the knowledge, spirituality and the intuition of the mind of farmers is lost and turned into agro-economics. The lost connection with the real nature is very painful and it is in the undeveloped countries that maybe the knowledge of the human race with be preserved. The poorer the wiser is may be also true.

Ahup - 

The question at. the link below is related to your question. There, I think most people answering felt that local efforts were important to solve local problems .  I thought your readers might be interested. 

Jim 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_agree_that_science_is_universal_but_technology_is_local_If_yes_why?_tpcectx=profile_answers

Dear James

Thank you very much for the information

Regards,

Anup

Science is universal, developed countries have raised to some advances through science and its technological  applications. The needs of developing countries are more focused on good education systems rather than on the reinvention of the wheel.  Industrial and technological products are part of the international market, thus accessible to the needs of developed or developing countries. Some developing countries are not able yet to raise to high research activities as the space one for example, for lack of competencies and  for priorities scheduling. In the same time some of them are not able yet to be part of economic competition with established industries and technologies. May be some research subjects could be oriented to local needs as some local diseases or some agricultural or climate change locations or in humanities....etc... but the rest is same. May be international cooperation on scientific research is the more suitable. Research fundamentals are same every where but the means are not. Developing countries couldn't raise to developed societies without an efficient eduction system who is the unique guarantee to let people master their professions, their environment, and the running of their societies. Good educated people what ever the metier are people who know how to perform their work with intelligence and dedication.

For a developing country re invention in space science is definitely not necessary but it is indeed important to become self sufficient in the commodities required for everyday living. It is definitely required to generate know how for the communication technology though it is available in the international market. This is essential for the countries defense.

Think about the situation that to what extent we are dependent on MNC’s for our daily requirements. We don’t get even a tube of tooth paste from our industry. It is the responsibility of the educated people to change this situation.

 Yes this is a point, but the same happens in the developed countries. We don't have clothes made in our country, neither HIFI material etc. 

Europe developed a project to build the strongest computer for the simulations of the brain. We also can ask if that is necessary. The project will take 10 years. With a small little effort everyone can go and listen to the jazz musicians and see what happens.

The university of Ghent has organised different lectures about '100 years of jazz".  Yesterday a jazz trio played and tried to explain what happens while playing music. Only a 30 people were present. This is indeed a very good beginning, an open dialogue and trying to understand each other. Just pity that the publicity for this event was only made within the buildings of the university. So the people of the street get no insight into what happens within the structures of the organised society.

Many years ago, philosophers spoke about alienation, I think that it gets more and more reality with all the structures we live in, but we are so used at it and there is no escape, that only very few people are conscious about it and try to make it more transparent for others.  

Unrestricted import of know how may be dangerous. Especially in agriculture domain this can generate a serious threat to the food sovereignty of the country. In the name of green revolution multinational companies (MNC) introduce high yielding seeds. If we accept that without evaluating the fertilizer and water requirements we will become totally dependent on those MNC’s.

In India farmers have been developing seeds using their own indigenous skill. In the name of research GM seeds are developed by MNC’s and they are promoting them to flourish their business. If we accept that the natural seeds may be contaminated which in turn may result total destruction of the bio-diversity of the country. These GM seeds are specially designed such that they will produce expected yield if and only if we use the prescribed fertilizers. These fertilizers are available only from the MNC that produced the seed. Moreover some of them are terminating type. Food is a vital commodity and if a total control on its production can be achieved it is done. The concerned MNC will rule the country.

In the name of Green Revolution what happened in Panjab can be seen in the following book. In those days GM seeds were not their. One can easily understand what would have happened if they were there.

http://www.trabal.org/courses/pdf/greenrev.pdf

Dear Brenda and Taiar,

I quote from Brenda's answer "research should not be limited only to solving local problems. There are indeed budding geniuses everywhere". I do agree to this view. but unfortunately general research program in a country is not conducted by the geniuses only. With reference to India the research of scientists like Professor J. C. Bose or Prof. Satyen Bose can not be considered as routine works, they are exceptions. As a rule therefore I feel the normal R and D planning should give priority  to the local developmental problem. There will be exceptions always and that will prove the rule.  Sovereignty in the area of education Industry and agriculture (food) should be considered as the prime target.

I feel at the end of the day as a researcher I must be answerable to the society. This is true not only for a developing country but also this must be applicable to all the developed as well as under developed countries.

 I understand that a researcher also want to give service to the local population. But most of the times the researcher has no impact on what is done with the results.

Research is mostly be in the service of science (abstract structure) and the spin offs (concrete structure).

There is an alienation on all levels; consumption level, automation level, research level.

The society is not coherent functioning for the moment. You have to be president to have the power to change. And you have to be a good man. It’s a good question.