APPENDIX 26
Memorandum from Dr Andrew Dorward, Director,
Centre for Development and Poverty Reduction, Imperial College,
London
1. The co-ordination of research support
with Government policy on the use of science in development policy,
taking into account the work of the Research Councils and the
objectives of HM Treasury, DTI, OST, FCO, the British Council
and DFID
Increasing liaison between DFID and the Research
Councils is to be welcomed, however it is important that the arrangements
become more transparent as regards their administration and as
regards their specific focus, and that this is supported by a
clear commitment by Research Councils to support of work in and
relevant to developing countries. One of my colleagues, for example,
reports that in their experience (with the MRC) applications for
funds to undertake research targeted at developing countries may
be given a lower priority (with very highly rated projects being
turned down due to funding restrictions).
An important issue here concerns the prioritisation
of research. One approach is that in addition to looking for rapid
poverty reduction gains from research (and from better utilisation
of existing knowledge), the UK government should pay particular
attention to the science of longer term problems that are global,
affecting both North and South, and require shared knowledge and
cooperation. Such processes presently include, for example, climate
change and shared processes of environmental change; pandemic
diseases; biosecurity (and its effect on ecosystems and trade);
bio-technology for small/poor farmers; information technology
revolutions. Choice of research priorities should be linked to
(a) the potential risks that an issue poses to achievement of
the Millennium Development Goals, as well as its potential contribution
to hastening their achievement, and (b) comparative advantage
of the UK in that field. Better coordination across DFID, Research
Councils and other research funders might aid in prioritization
and also allow an effective division of funding responsibilities
to address different issues, and different aspects of these issues,
in ways that reflect and accommodate particular funders' interests
and mandates, but also properly "cover the waterfront".
A critical issue for DFID's new research strategy
relates to its approach to prioritising research. This appears
to have focussed on (a) developing a broad management/funding
structure (discussed below, where we question the proposed balance
between large programmes and smaller responsive research projects),
(b) consideration of different funding mechanisms and partnerships,
and (c) identification of topics for the "first round"
of new research funding (in large programmes). Too little attention
appears to have been given to mechanisms and processes for identifying
research priorities of those who will use research outputs, with
inputs from policy makers, business, civil society and DFID (and
other donor) offices in developing countries. Given DFID's strong
commitment to research relevance and uptake, this is very surprising.
A major issue here is the need to overcome the very short term
nature of much development work and development funding, and hence
to look beyond the short time horizons forced on many working
on development problems.
2. The means by which DFID acquires and uses
scientific advice in developing and implementing its policies
and programmes
This varies between different areas of DFID
activity (for example research has been managed very differently
in the health and natural resources sectors) and is in a rapid
state of flux at present. Key considerations here are the balance
between competitive bidding (and the processes of inviting and
awarding bids) and ongoing relations with "core" providers.
Increasing emphasis on competitive bidding is to be welcomed (provided
that it is conducted in a way that is transparent and fair, and
does not place too high a burden on bidders preparing bids—a
problem in the past, but which DFID has to some extent attempted
to address).
Increasing emphasis on the application of research
to practical problems in developing countries is also important
and welcome. However too strong an emphasis on this and too narrow
a focus on today's problems carries the danger of undermining
the basic scientific base from which to address tomorrow's problems—this
base requiring both development of pure science (needed to underpin
future applied advances) and scientists with both technical knowledge
and knowledge of developing country problems/opportunities. We
are concerned that the new research policy being developed by
DFID will fall into this trap. DFID and the Research Councils
need to consider together how to develop a proper balance in supporting
applied research, pure research, and an appropriate level of expertise
in the UK.
Current proposals for DFID's Central Research
Strategy appear to be placing a very strong emphasis on funding
relatively large programmes focussed around "major development
problems". This is to be accompanied by a very substantial
scaling down of smaller "responsive research" projects
put forward from outside such programmes. This scaling down appears
to be justified in terms of the high administrative cost to DFID
of the smaller "responsive research" projects. The logic
and benefits of this argument are highly questionable. First,
costs have to be related to benefits, and evidence is therefore
needed of the overall greater cost effective impacts of larger
projects. Second, large programmes are inherently inflexible and
slow, so that by the time a consensus has been reached around
a "large problem", and the research tendering and commissioning
process completed, a significant amount of time will have elapsed.
To put almost all research funds into such a slow and cumbersome
system is not a recipe for cutting edge research that addresses
current problems and opportunities with current knowledge. Third,
small and almost speculative projects can have major payoffs in
setting up whole new lines of enquiry: to almost abandon this
opportunity again seems very unwise. Fourth, very limited funding
for "smaller responsive" project is likely to lead to
increasing concentration of development related research in large
specialist institutions. Where such concentration is needed in
particular fields requiring large and specialist facilities, this
will occur naturally in these fields. Further pressures for concentration
are likely to be unhealthy—reducing the diversity needed
for the intellectual and economic competition that stimulates
good and relevant research. DFID should therefore be strongly
encouraged to reconsider this proposed scaling down of funding
for responsive research projects.
3. The extent to which investment in research
and the promotion of innovation play a part in DFID's country
level development programmes
Again this varies between sectors and countries
but short term programmes and objectives tend to discourage country
programmes from supporting longer term research—an issue
that has become increasingly important over the last few years,
and which needs to be addressed more thoroughly in DFID's central
research strategy.
4. The ways in which the role of the UK private
sector and public/private partnerships in science and technology
research in knowledge transfer and in capacity building programmes
for the benefit of developing countries can be enhanced
DFID is to be complemented for some recent initiatives
in supporting these partnerships. However it is important that
economic and institutional innovations for uptake of the outputs
of such partnerships are given due weight—it is too easy
to assume that once useful technologies have been developed then
they will be taken up within developing countries, but all too
often the economic and institutional conditions necessary for
such uptake are not present. Consideration of these constraints,
and of means of overcoming them, need to be built into these partnerships
from the beginning.
We observe that despite increasing emphasis
on private sector development, capacity building programmes still
tend to be biased towards government agencies and NGOs, and their
employees, and in many cases private firms are ineligible for
support. While there may have been some small improvement on this
in the last few years, there is still a long way to go.
5. The extent of scientific and engineering
training provided by the UK as part of development policy and
the subsequent utilisation of such training in developing countries.
Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been
dramatic reduction in DFID support to scientific training. Support
for MSc and PhD training has fallen dramatically and DFID explicitly
excludes any support to formal PhD research training within many
research programmes (see for example its recent call for research
proposals). There are valid concerns about the cost-effectiveness
of some postgraduate (particularly MSc) training: increasing cost-effective
local provision in some countries and regions, and ability to
finance it from local sources; tendency in some countries for
scholarships to be awarded as part of patronage systems; limited
long term use of such training; high attrition rates due to HIV/AIDS.
However some of these concerns do not apply to some of the poorest
countries (for example the ability to provide and finance good
local training), while others are challenges that need to be addressed
rather than avoided (patronage, limited use of training, and high
attrition rates). Support for PhD training within funded research
projects offers explicit opportunities for cost effective conduct
of research at the same time as building research capacity in
developing countries, while maintaining (again at low cost) the
UK science/expertise base (as discussed under (2) above).
Another major problem is how to absorb trained
PhDs and postgraduates into relevant positions in their countries.
One immediate way forward is to link training to long-term development
programmes funded by DFID providing support for relevant posts,
including aiding and funding appropriate professional career development
pathways. For more academic trainees based at universities and
research centres, there might be a need to develop career establishment
funding programmes to allow such individuals to return to home
institutions with adequate start-up research funds to begin their
research careers. Finally, coordinated aid to help develop scientific
infrastructure—libraries, laboratories, computing facilities
but also professional teacher training—could also lead to
long term improvement in scientific capacity development.
November 2003
| 
