 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 4 - 10 November 1999 Issue No. 454 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 4 - 10 November 1999 Issue No. 454
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters In search of researchers
By Mohamed El-Sayed Said *Egypt has 125-150,000 academics and researchers in the theoretical and applied sciences. Most have doctorates and hold positions in research and development centres. So if numbers alone counted, Egypt should be on the brink of a breathtaking technological revolution.
It is not. The fact is, and has been for some time, that very few of those who call themselves researchers are actually engaged in research per se, and there is no longer any direct correlation between the title these people are allocated, and what they actually do.
Though we have gigantic scientific and technological research centres that fall beneath the umbrella of the Scientific Research Academy and various ministries, they in fact do little substantive work, too little, perhaps, to justify the resounding names of the various institutions. There are, naturally, noteworthy exceptions, but these tend to be the product of individual efforts. Is it any wonder, then, that the performance indicators of our scientific community, whether in the form of registered patents or the use of patented products and trademarks, are so low as to suggest that research and development activity in Egypt is rudimentary at best.
There is an enormous disparity between the astounding size of the scientific community occupying Egypt's research and development centres and their productivity. Nor is there an automatic contradiction between this situation and the fact that the research community is highly qualified, for the most part holding advanced degrees from Egyptian and foreign universities. Generations of negligence, laxity, red tape and indifference have sapped the incentive that drove them to acquire the best training and qualifications possible.
Interest in theoretical and applied scientific research in Egypt virtually vanished in the wake of defeat in the June 1967 War. Undoubtedly, prolonged financial straits curtailed research and development, but political factors have also been operating. Over the past quarter of a century Egypt has lacked a clear and viable vision of the country's future, let alone of the imagination and technical skills necessary to manage its institutions. Research and development centres continue to employ thousands of scholars, on meagre salaries, while remaining incapable of supporting the running costs of their projects.
The absence of a clear strategy for autonomous industrialisation has also broadened the gap between these centres and the demands of industrial and service companies. The isolation of the research cadres, the severance of any connection with performance standards, has resulted in the fact that the term "scientific community" has no credibility whatsoever when applied to those engaged in research and development in Egypt over the past quarter, or perhaps even the past half, century.
The term "scientific community", after all, implies a force autonomous of the state and fully entitled to exercise fundamental academic freedoms -- factors that the Egyptian government has yet to recognise. This entails the formulation of a science and technology policy that sets standards for inclusion or exclusion, presumably defined by the scientific community.
In light of these circumstances, we must give serious consideration to the ways in which we can spur technological development. Many have suggested, for example, that we forget about the bulk of our current research and development institutions and focus our resources on a handful of centres of excellence and a smaller segment of highly qualified and motivated researchers.
Others object to this strategy and insist, instead, that we shake up the existing institutions in order to goad them into making the reforms that will enable them to rise to international performance standards. This suggestion appears more humane than the first alternative, though it is likely to be more difficult to achieve. For one, the funding available for research and development would have to be more broadly dispersed, with no guarantees of productivity and efficacy, a situation that would not arise in the event that we concentrate our resources on a few centres of excellence.
Funding, however, is the least important aspect of the problem. Of greater consequence is the question of how to do away with the overbearing bureaucracy. To introduce radical changes too suddenly would cause chaos. On the other hand, a more gradual approach to reform gives rise to another problem: the coexistence of two incompatible styles of scientific research administration: one encumbered by bureaucracy, the other potentially dynamic. Under such conditions, we would have to entertain the prospect that mediocre elements would benefit from the admixture to the detriment of the qualified.
Unfortunately, there is no model for reform that can be applied to all research and development institutions in order to stimulate them into action. Every case has to be given careful individual study. However, we do have some important experiences we can draw on. In East Germany, for example, the research and development establishment stagnated for decades under the communist system. Having lost all justification for its perpetuation, the Academy of Scientific Research was dismantled and the scientific community was reorganised into scientific associations, as was the case in Western Germany, Great Britain and many other nations.
We do not necessarily have to follow this model. However, we must summon the necessary courage to introduce essential reforms, even if that requires major surgery entailing a thorough restructuring of this sector. Above all, however, we need an effective agenda for remedying all aspects of the research-invention-production-development cycle that is linked to the demands of the economy and industry and to the university curricula.
But, before all else, we must ask whether the government is truly committed to reviving interest in research and development or whether its commitment is propagandistic. It is possible to test the government's commitment through specific proposals with long-range implications that are at once intellectually and scientifically strong. We could, for example, identify one specific sector in which we empirically test certain tangible reforms, and then extend the experiment to a second sector, a third and so on. Of course, if we adopt this approach we would still have the decision of determining where to start.
I do not believe that the government's commitment as it stands is sufficient to effect essential reforms. But we should take advantage of and optimise all the good intentions the government has expressed. Ultimately, every scientific or research centre that proves successful will have a wonderful rebound effect, stimulating more creativity and more innovation.
*The writer is deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
