|
Of course science
pays in the knowledge it spreads. It leads to a more productive
work force. Ideally, science also will lead to innovation that
will have significant payoff for the public. At its most
successful, an MSI will comprise part of a system that
encourages the transformation of academic science to innovation
for the national, regional and global good.
Effective science is
an integral part of a sophisticated system. Advanced nations
have the capacity to create, organize, transform, transmit and
use scientific and technological knowledge. They also can adapt
knowledge created elsewhere. There are communication and
collaboration among scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs,
manufacturers and users.
In an ideal system,
there is ‘pull’ from the business sector, which actively
supports research and development. There is ‘push’ from the
scientists who recognize the potential real-world applications
of their research. There is a spectrum of trained personnel to
handle every link in the chain from research to development to
manufacturing to distribution and use. And there are
opportunities for feedback, adaptation and further development
at each stage. These disparate actors operate on a solid and
transparent legal and commercial foundation.
In nearly all
countries, the system has gaps. But that doesn’t mean innovation
can’t happen. What are the real challenges? The first is
understanding the innovation process: identifying a need and
harnessing local talent and resources to create a solution. Next
is transforming the new concept into a reality.
Innovation doesn’t
happen only in wealthy countries. One thinks of new crop
varieties – wheat in Mexico, rice in the Philippines. These
resulted from world-class science and led to increased
productivity, increased income, and vastly decreased famine in
most of the world. The birth control pill was developed in
Mexico from natural products, leading to enormous profits for
its US inventor and the pharmaceutical companies that invested
in it. It also helped to stem worldwide population growth.
How can Central
America foster innovation?
Beginning with the
MSI would be one option. A typical MSI consists of one or more
Centers of Excellence, or “MSI Institutes.” They are selected
competitively through international peer review. A critical mass
of MSI-caliber scientists, committed to pursuing frontier
science, is a prerequisite for an MSI. In the case of Central
America, the MSI could be done by individual country or
regionally.
If there is interest
in exploring the MSI as a tool for innovation, the Science
Initiative Group could help catalyze the process. I would like
to emphasize that the MSI belongs to the host countries
themselves. They determine their own priorities and mechanisms,
with SIG serving as advisor and facilitator.
Our role would be to
bring together groups of scientists to help assess areas of
scientific strength, relevance, and greatest potential for
innovation. We also would hold discussions with ministries of
finance and science and technology, and other ministries as
appropriate, such as commerce and trade and higher education. We
also would coordinate discussions with the IDB and/or other
financing agencies. Government commitment and viable financing
strategies are essential for creating an MSI.
A Central American
MSI could incorporate specific strategies for taking science to
the marketplace. This could be the starting point for developing
broader national (or regional) innovation strategies, to begin
to fill the gaps in the system.
Innovation mechanisms
in the MSI context could take advantage of the globalization of
science. That is, scientists could engage in joint ventures with
counterparts from the United States or Canada. The MSIs could
focus on areas where Central America has an advantage in terms
of natural resources, for example cotton in Nicaragua. Costa
Rica created a thriving business from ecotourism, and Costa
Rica’s ingenuity shows how wide a spectrum innovation actually
covers.
The MSI represents an
important first step in creating a real culture and
infrastructure for innovation.
In the United States,
the integration of research and innovation has occurred only
since World War II, when several models emerged for bringing
science and technology to the marketplace. Academics,
particularly engineers, started coming out of the universities
to start new companies. Research incubators were funded by the
private sector.
The relationship
between industry and government changed in the US with the Bayh-Dole
Act of 1980. This law allowed federally-funded research to be
commercialized, based on the premise that it is good investment
because otherwise the research would not be exploited. The
payback to the public comes from tax dollars and economic
growth.
Any innovation
strategy would need to consider the relationship among academia,
industry and government. It also would have to address the
significant issues of academic freedom and intellectual
property.
The notion of
matching grants to promote technological innovation seems to be
an excellent one. But money alone is not enough. When we started
the MSI, we researched the factors leading to the success or
failure of other capacity-building initiatives. The initiatives
that have had the greatest impact are the ones that enjoy the
active engagement and support of whole a range of actors. The
MSI is successful because it involves not only scientists, but
also policy makers, educators, government officials, financing
entities, aid agencies, and increasingly the business sector as
well.
The Science
Initiative Group is committed to the development of world-class,
productive science wherever scientists, policy makers,
government ministries and funding agencies are willing to come
together to make it happen. We stand ready to help in any way we
can. We are ready to help now.
Thank you very much.
|
SIG
Resources