Science for the twenty-first century

A New Commitment

-

-

Where the money comes from

Many experts agree that science and technology (S&T) investment needs to be above one percent of GDP to have any significant impact on the level of development. S&T investment in the most developed countries is closer to two percent of GDP, with Sweden spending the largest proportion (three percent). In sub-Saharan Africa, only South Africa and the Seychelles spend one percent or more of GDP on R&D:

GERD1 as a percentage of GDP2


North America 2.5
Japan and NICs3 2.3
Western Europe 1.8
Oceania 1.5
(World average) 1.4
CIS 1.0
Central & Eastern Europe 0.8
India & Central Asia 0.6
China 0.8
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.3
South-East Asia 0.3
Latin America 0.3
Arab States 0.2

1 (GERD: Gross domestic expenditure on research and development - 2 Source: UNESCO World Science Report 1998 - 3 NIC: newly industrialising country Source: UNESCO World Science Report 1998)

But, says UNESCO Director-General Federico Mayor, as important as the level of funding is that the funding should come from a country's own wealth, not from loans. In developing countries over 60 percent of R&D finance comes from foreign loans and grants (eg. 64 percent of S&T funding in Kenya in the early 1990s, 68 percent in Tanzania and 98 percent in Uganda).

"You cannot make a good take-off if you have not reached the right speed", says Federico Mayor. Since UNESCO's conference on science and technology in Africa, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1994, he has been calling on African countries to invest at least 0.4 percent of GDP in S&T research and development. "By increasing the proportion of their own budget spent on S&T, even by 0.05 percent per year", he says, "all African countries could reach the target of 0.4 percent or 0.5 percent in 6 to 8 years. This is already enough for take off. But it has to be their own money. Dependence on loans is one of the reasons why there are problems today. It has become an immense trap. With external assistance you owe a lot of money, engineers will leave and the best people will be taken by the top scientific centres in the world".

Industrial versus public sector funding
If scientific research was considered a 'public good' at the turn of the 20th century, there is evidence that it is increasingly seen as a 'market good' today, at least in industrialised countries. In the USA, industry now funds about 61.4 percent of R&D and the government about 34.6 percent (in 1996). In Japan industry funds an even greater proportion of R&D (67.1 percent compared to 22.4 percent by government) while the ratio in the European Union is slightly less pronounced (52.8 percent and 32.7 percent respectively). Evidence that newly industrialising countries have largely skipped the transition from an academic to an industrial base can be seen in the Republic of Korea, where in 1994 industry was financing a staggering 84 percent of R&D compared to 15.9 percent by government.

But, if there is an awareness in developing countries that a strong science and technology base is associated with wealth, a weak industrial infrastructure often means that the private sector still plays a minor role. The state accounts for about 80 percent of total expenditure on R&D carried out in many developing countries, with most of this money coming from loans.

Defence spending on R&D
Meanwhile, military spending on R&D has been declining globally since the end of the Cold War. Although the USA spent $37 billion on defence R&D in the fiscal year 1997, this represents about 50 percent of federal government R&D spending compared to the 70 percent earmarked at the peak in 1987. In the USA, there is a move towards 'dual use' research, with both military and civilian applications, for example in electronics. Similarly, EU defence spending overall has dropped by 20 percent since 1986 and now represents about 17 percent of all public R&D spending.

While Japan's military R&D spending has been low for several decades (1.1 percent of GERD in 1994, compared to 22.4 percent in USA and 8.2 percent in Western Europe), the dramatic drop in defence R&D in CIS countries since the break-up of the Soviet Union has left many public sector research centres with almost no budget. In the late 1980s as much as 70 percent of state R&D spending was for military applications in Russia. Today the proportion is in line with other nuclear powers, at about 25 percent. The problem for research in CIS countries is that the difference has not been made up by civilian state spending or by the private sector. And the money that is earmarked arrives late or not at all.

For Federico Mayor, military spending is still too high and often outstrips education. "We say we need more aircraft carriers and submarines. To do what? Where is the enemy? We have this immense machine that we are unable to stop. Today the enemy is inside - we are notably confronted by the problems of multi-ethnic or multi-religious tensions. Let us invest in education". The imbalance is especially harmful to growth in poor countries, like Chad, he says, that have been wracked by civil war but maintain high defence budgets even in times of peace.

Basic versus applied research
In industrialised countries, the growing share of private sector R&D funding has brought with it a concern to see a short-term return on the investment. This has led to a decline in basic research, although Japan, which has long had a significant private sector base has actually increased basic research investment.

With the shift to private sector finance comes the temptation not to share knowledge. According to the UNESCO 1998 World Science Report, " pressure is being brought to bear on scientists to withhold critical elements of knowledge production from open publications. Secrecy is no longer a taboo. International regimes like the intellectual property rights under GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) with regard to biodiversity and the penetration of multi-nationals in the developing countries are catalysing this shift in orientation" (p. 278).

Meanwhile, basic research has conventionally been seen as the responsibility of the state, especially in developing countries with a colonial history. In these countries, a shift towards private sector funding, combined with a feeling that basic research is a luxury they cannot afford, could ultimately lead to creative desertification. "There can be no applied science if there is no science to apply", recalls Federico Mayor. And the concept of strategic basic research has now replaced the idea that basic research is science for its own sake. According to the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, UK, graduates and researchers trained in basic research often possess novel, useful skills and knowledge. These can be a source of important methodologies and new instrumentation that can generate industrial and technological capabilities.











Edited and updated by UNESCO's Office of Public Information (OPI)