Countries constituting the rich developed world all have well established science and technology (S&T) infrastructure.They became powerful economies by using S&T as an economic platform.Approximately 30 per cent of the GDP of the UK is produced by sectors that are S&T intensive.In the closing decade of the last century, both Finland and South Korea invested heavily in R&D which facilitated their strong regrowth.
Recently elected President Park of South Korea has pointed out that the future of her country lies in science, technology and IT.It represents an interesting change in focus and one that we here in T&T may learn from as the energy sector, which dominates our economy, is very much technologically based.Its long term economic viability is strongly dependent on adopting an effective science and technology policy that would engender and foster relevant R&D.
The pain and trauma which resulted from the closing of the sugar industry should serve as an instructive reminder as to what can happen when technological improvements and adaptation are relegated to the back burner. In developing a policy, long term planning, 15 to 20 years and more, is essential as developing infrastructure and research capacity cannot be done in the short term.Also, it is a quite expensive but absolutely necessary venture.
At this time, the universities, national and regional, would be the logical choices for they have varying degrees of laboratory infrastructure and grant research degrees.The PhD is considered adequate certification for a researcher and the licence to engage in research.
An essential element in any S&T policy is funding for R&D.There are two aspects to this. The first is the funding for graduate research students and the second is fellowship funding for recently graduated PhDs and others to engage in continued research.
Historically here, both have been severely underfunded and the situation remains virtually the same today.Providing education up to the doctoral level and then not providing grant funding for fellowships to use the resulting skill bank to solve the problems faced by industry and society is shorted sighted.To rectify this, the universities must shift their focus to research and service.
The major recurrent expenditure is salaries, which may be in the 70 to 80 per cent range of the budget. Would it not make sense to provide funding, on a competitive basis, to fully engage these highly trained personnel?Another critical element of the policy must be an open door policy between industry and the university.At the national university, a post programme developed by the University of Cambridge and initially jointly taught was based on such an approach.
It was full time and the students spent two weeks in the classroom and two weeks or so in industry for programme modules.This addressed two historical short comings of post graduate science and engineering education in T&T.Firstly the issue of part time and full time students: research is more of a vocation than an occupation and hence it demands undivided attention.
Secondly, research at the regional university, particularly in engineering barring a few individuals, tended to be of the ivory tower category, unmindful of industrialisation and economic imperatives.The above mentioned programme was successful in that it allowed students to be exposed to real industry problems and to propose solutions.Industry was quite happy with it and wanted follow up from the university. The lack of fellowships proved to quite an impediment.
The providing of funding for fellowships and an increased number of graduate researchers will provide the platform to allow S&T researchers to positively impact the public as is the case in developed countries.
