LASPAU and HIID Host Science and Technology Policy Discussion

University faculty and higher education professionals met at Harvard on April 14 to offer the perspective of the academic community on new directions the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is contemplating in its science and technology lending in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The IDB has invested $1.4 billion in Latin American science and technology loans and $3.8 billion in related loans over the past four decades.

Claudio de Moura Castro, chief of the Sustainable Development Unit at the IDB and the principal author of the Bank's strategy paper on science and technology for development, joined in the roundtable discussion, which was hosted by the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) and LASPAU: Academic and Professional Programs for the Americas.

Lewis Branscomb, a LASPAU trustee and Aetna Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management Emeritus at the Kennedy School of Government, and David Bloom, deputy director of HIID and professor of population and health economics at the School of Public Health, led the discussion.

To date, funding for science -- defined as exploring nature in order to understand it -- has shown a more successful return than funding for technology -- defined as the creation of goods and services. Researchers in Latin America are geared more toward science than technology; a shift in outlook is required for successful technological research and innovation. A major issue in formulating the new lending policy is determining how to assist this transformation.

Castro noted, "The art of running a factory benefits very little from science -- it's completely technology. The distinction is not so sharp elsewhere. Overhauling a health care system, for example, might include connecting physicians by electronic networks. There must be a conceptual framework that makes the distinction between where science and technology are clearly separated Ñ where the line is blurred Ñ and why the difference is important."

Branscomb commented that the distinction between science and technology is not as important as the need to create incentives for innovation: "Science and technology do not create development -- research and innovation do."

This point was expanded by Harvey Brooks, Benjamin Pierce Professor of Technology and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, who noted, "Science has to be original, but technology doesn't. Asia began by absorbing Western technology and very quickly improving on it. Sometimes there are great leaps, and that's what you need science for. But most of technology is millions and millions of small improvements."

Joan Dassin, basic education adviser to the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of the U.S. Agency for International Development, stressed that lending must be closely connected to the economy. She commented, "Perhaps the issue is between a supply-driven model and a demand-driven model, rather than between science and technology."

Judith Tendler, professor of political economy at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at M.I.T., pointed to the biases in industrial/technology policy caused by the relative neglect by development banks (and other supporting public institutions) of the working-capital needs of firms -- which often finance "soft" improvements in productivity -- in relation to investment capital. She also pointed to "the missing middle" -- the medium-sized local and formal firms that are often neglected by government policy because they fall outside the current two-handed support to, on the one hand, large industry and, on the other hand, small, informal-sector firms.

Most roundtable participants agreed that education and training was a critical component of any lending strategy. The issue was highlighted by Peter Ashton, Charles Bullard Professor of Forestry at Harvard and Faculty Fellow in HIID, who noted that unless children are educated in the uses and importance of technology right from kindergarten, there will be no customers for technology in the future.