dvantages/disadvantages of putting science, technology and education

This is not a new emphasis – at least not in blue print and political statements; most of our development plans and policies have statements that glorify this major driver of social and economic development.
But because very little is happening on the ground in terms of implementations and impacts, we should never get tired of repeating the emphasis on the central role of science and technology in development, until such time it happens.
Because of what I have seen and experienced elsewhere, I dare say the popular slogan of the fifth government - “hapa kazi tu”, literally means ‘work matters’– which actually seem to be working very well, will materialise into very little in terms of outcomes of development plans such as achievement of vision 2025, without at the same time investing in the development of national capabilities in science and technology. To prove this you just need to look at the technological and innovation status of poor and rich countries.
Having said the above let me go back to the central subject of my article: Advantages and challenges of putting science and technology, and education under the same ministry. I begin by briefly differentiating between science and technology, and explain why they are always put together as a doublet S&T.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines science as knowledge attained through study or practice; or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. In short science is knowledge – embodied (in human) or disembodied (in books and scientific articles).
Technology on the other hand is the means by which mankind repro¬duces and expands its living condi-tions. It is the making, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or perform a specific function.
From the two definitions we clearly see why science and technology always appear as an indivisible doublet, S&T: you acquire knowledge (science) and apply knowledge (technology) to solve social and economic problems and challenges.
It is important to emphasise here that without ultimately putting this knowledge (science) in practice, spending scarce resources in acquiring it, is not only going to have no impact, but actually aggravate developmental problems. And most importantly, without putting knowledge into use, it will not grow – not least – in the desired direction.
A related and also important point is that, what is important in development, is not a static technology but a change in it (upgrading or totally new technology), which is enabled by both scientific knowledge and practice. A very good example is technology of tilling the land.
Many farmers still use the hand hoe; and before this technology there were tools that were even more primitive and inefficient. It was through practice these were upgraded to a hand hoe. Today there are even far better technologies for tilling the land such as a tractor. The land tilling technology grew because of experience gained through its use, assisted with scientific knowledge – especially after the technology got complicated and more science intensive.
A very similar concept, or rather one way of looking at technological change, is innovation, defined as introducing new ideas that brings more value into economic and /or social system.
In short, we can say that what brings about social and economic development is actually not science and a static technology, but technological change or innovation. Science is only one crucial element in bringing about technological change or innovation.
The word innovation emphasizes the use and change in technology for it to have impact in social and economic development. In ensuring this use and change in technology policies are central, the point that brings us to the central issue of the article – advantage and disadvantage of putting Education, and Science and Technology under the same ministry. Starting with advantage, in the following paragraphs we explain this.
Advantages
We have clearly shown that there is a very close relationship between education, and science and technology. First of all, component science of the doublet S&T refers to education; and we have referred to science as knowledge, especially when acquired through scientific method. It is largely through education and training people are equipped with knowledge. But this knowledge is only useful when it is put into practice and/ or comes from practice.
This means that putting education, and science and technology under the same ministry makes it easier to bring the two into close contact and therefore make education more appropriate for the development of needed technological capabilities; and I am sure this is the reason it is a common practice to put education, and science and technology under the same ministry.
Disadvantages
Despite above obvious advantage of putting education, science and technology, there are numerous disadvantages; in this article I will mention three:
First and major disadvantage of putting S&T with the ministry also responsible for education – especially when the name of the ministry starts with “education” – is promotion of a thinking that technology comes only from science, and within the confine of formal education, where as the experience tells us this is not the case.
The history of technology and innovation are as old as human history: human beings – ever since time in memorial – have been improving their tools of production and mode of living; long before formal scientific methods emerged. This is visible even today; we have witnessed great inventors who have not seen inside the class room.
In addition, experience on innovation surveys, including from developed countries, indicates over 60 percent of the sources of innovation are not from universities (science); and skilled labour is just one aspect of sources and forces of innovative activities that we witness. The rest is from the demand side of innovation, where users of new products and processes take a major chunk.
In summing this point up, factors facilitating innovative activities are basically from two major sides: supply (science) and demand (market). Emphasizing the equal importance of role of these two major sides, a renown American innovation scholar, Nathan Rosenberg, had the following to say: “Both the underlying evolving knowledge base in science and technology, as well as the structure of the market demand, play a central role in innovation in an interactive fashion, and neglect of either is bound to lead to a faulty conclusion and policies.”
However, experience have shown that putting S&T within the ministry also responsible for education tends to marginalize the demand side of innovation because the major focus becomes on the education system, rather than on the productive sector (e.g. firms and farms) and their customers; and education system to address the needs of the productive sector (current and potential).
This bias was clearly indicated in the past practice in Tanzania, when S&T was put together with Higher Education. The bias was brought to the public attention through the article published in the Majira of August 30th, 2007. According to that article, development expenditure for the year 2006/2007 was 3 billion for science and technology and 17 billion for higher education; and development budget for the year 2007/2008 was 1.6 billion for science and technology and 24.5 billion for the higher education.
There can be two major reasons for the observed differences. First is that these are legitimate differences stemming from the actual costs of running the two sectors. However, another reason, and most probable, is the fact that technological and innovation capability building has not been given the priority it deserves.
Second disadvantage is the fact that education alone is such a huge sector, requiring a lot of money to run it; so under the circumstance of general budget constraints, anything within this ministry automatically get undermined.
Third and also very important disadvantage is related to political motives: our government tenure is short term – at most 10 years. Any political party that is in power always seek to satisfy their voters within shortest time possible; and this can very easily done by giving due attention to education, which not only gives immediate results, also it is a major obvious concern of every citizen in the country.
To the contrary, although equally, if not more important, technology and innovation capability building is a long term thing; so automatically it escapes the attention of those in power. This is a very unfortunate situation, because in the long term, it is impossible to provide for education without first investing in technology and innovation that brings about sustainable growth that is a necessary condition for any government to provide service to its citizens.
Consequently, the best way to go is to avoid putting education, and science and technology under the same ministry; or else those responsible for this ministry to always be conscious of the challenges raised above in decision making.
Dr Bitrina Diyamett is the Executive Director of the Science, Technology and Innovation Research Organization (STIPRO)