not by decree alone

There is a lot of material around supporting a broad advising network to
decision-making.

The item below is only partly appropriate to Viet Nam. Science advising by
professional scientist, broad perspective, etc.

My main point to all of this being that we need to have e good environment
for such participatory, self-stimulating phenomena as open source to prosper.
It is worth knowing right now what there is to work with, before committing
resources.

Cheers all, Vern

http://www.scidev.net/archives/editorial/comment50.html
--

Parliaments need good science advice

An informed democracy requires informed decision-makers. Parliamentarians need
information about science and technology tailored to their needs.

A major challenge to any democracy is ensuring that its leaders are accountable for
their decisions through the support of a political system with adequate skills and
resources. This requirement runs across the spectrum of political responsibilities. But
it is particularly acute in the area of science and technology. Here decisions can have
as much impact on the future of a country as those taken in the fields of economic
policy or foreign affairs. But parliamentarians and other elected officials involved in
science and technology seldom possess either the relevant professional background
or the detailed personal knowledge of colleagues responsible for other areas.

Over the years, the parliaments of industrialised nations have devised a series of
devices to overcome this handicap. Most, for example, now have their own science and
technology committees, responsible for maintaining a watching brief on all government
policies that impact on, or are impacted by, these activities. A few have created offices
of technology assessment, cross-party groups allocated the task of carrying out more
in-depth studies of particular scientific and technical issues than the research staff of a
parliamentary committee would have the time or resources to pursue.

Mixed experiences

Experience with such committees has been mixed. There is always a danger that a
science and technology committee can become a political lobby for a major
technological sector, such as the aerospace industry. Such an industry may offer the
free support of its specialists, or provide detailed technical or economic justifications
for a line of investment (which may include state funding) in which non-specialist
members of a committee can find it hard to pick holes.

In other cases, such committees risk exceeding, or being perceived to exceed, their
political brief. Such was the case, for example, of the US Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA). This was set up in the early 1970s as an advisory body to the
Democrat-controlled Congress, and a counterweight to the then Republican
administration. The OTA was killed off by the Republicans in Congress in the early
1990s in an ostensibly budget-cutting move. But many felt that its termination reflected
resentment of the critical stand that OTA reports had taken on various government
projects and proposals, including the anti-ballistic missile defence system — the
so-called Star Wars Programme.

In general, however, it is accepted that it is essential for a modern, well-functioning
democracy to have a range of mechanisms to ensure that both government
decision-makers and those in parliament responsible for monitoring and approving
their actions can operate effectively on science-related issues. This message was
underlined at a meeting held in Helsinki, Finland, in mid-January, organised jointly by
the Finnish Parliament, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO), and the latter's equivalent in the Islamic States (ISESCO).

The case for science and technology committees

It is already a message being taken on board by an increasing number of developing
countries. A leading Ugandan Parliamentarian, Amuriat Oboi Patrick — chair of the
newly created Ugandan Science and Technology Commission — argued at the
Helsinki meeting that every country in Africa should set up a similar body to increase
the effectiveness with which science and technology are integrated into economic and
social development (see African parliaments 'need science committees').

Oboi went on to suggest that such bodies had much to gain by collaborating at both a
regional and an international level. Such collaboration, he added, might take the form of
sharing information about the key issues that they face as well as efforts already being
made by other parliaments to address such issues. Sharing experience and good
practice would provide a mechanism for parliaments in developing countries to learn
from both the successes and failures of their counterparts in the developed world.

As various other speakers at the Helsinki meeting made clear, such committees have
a range of functions in ensuring that science and technology are given appropriate
priority in the political arena. Too often, these topics get pushed to the bottom of the
agenda by short-terms concern, particularly regarding economic and foreign policy. A
well-functioning science and technology committee can bring a longer-term perspective
to these debates, underlining the need, for example, to invest in educational
infrastructure if a country is to participate effectively in a global knowledge-based
economy.

In some countries, this forward-looking role is explicitly acknowledged. One of the main
organisers of the Helsinki meeting, for example, was Finland's Committee for the
Future, a body explicitly set up to bring together scientists and politicians. There was
much talk about the value of such organisations in creating a meeting point between
two cultures that often find it difficult — partly because of the very different timescales
within which they operate — to find a common language with which to share their
insights.

Need for a broad perspective

There is certainly much to be gained from similar initiatives aimed at bringing together
scientists and politicians in developing countries. At the end of the Helsinki meeting,
the participants called for the creation of an international forum, to be set up in
consultation with national, regional and international parliamentary actors, and with the
support of the Finnish Parliament and UNESCO, to act as a focal point for such
developments. And there was general agreement on the needs of parliamentarians to
gain better access to information — perhaps through the Internet — about the complex
topics that they frequently find themselves facing.

At the same time, however, as some speakers at the meeting pointed out, it is
important for members of science and technology committees to remember that they
have a broader brief than merely defending or promoting the interests of the scientific or
technological community in their countries. It is equally important for them to listen to
public concerns about science, and to ensure that such concerns are reflected
responsibly in the decisions taken by policy-makers.

In practice, this means providing a space in which such concerns can be examined
and discussed away from the heat of the conventional public platform, but with the
same level of openness and transparency. It is clearly the responsibility of a science
and technology committee to provide a forum where the views of the top scientific
experts in a particularly field can be heard. Equally important, however, is to hear the
considered arguments of those who are not part of the scientific establishment, but
may have equally valid social, moral or ethical points of view to present on the topic
being discussed.

Establishing a balance between acting as a promoter of science, and as an honest
broker for discussions about science, is not easy. But it is essential if science and
technology committees — or for that matter offices of technology assessment, or
'committees for the future' — are to maintain their political legitimacy. A failure to
recognise the need for this balance can result in such organisations acting, and being
seen to act, as little more than single-interest lobby groups. These have a role in the
political system. But science and technology are too important to be left to such a
narrow approach.

© SciDev.Net 2003

David Dickson
27 January 2003

To facilitate co-ordination regarding the introduction of OSS SW in Vietnam

Subscribe to OSS:

Subscribe | Unsubscribe