Throwing more money at scientific research will get us nowhere, writes Amin Howeidi* There is a consensus in Egypt that scientific research is in dire straits. Many, including the prime minister, blame it on that all too familiar enemy, a lack of resources. "Despite a rise in allocations to 0.9 per cent of national income in 2001/ 2002 for research this is still less than we need. And part of the problem," Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif told a conference a few weeks ago, "is the low contribution of the private sector to research and development." It sounds to me like a pretty lame excuse. The problem is too complicated to be reduced to a simple lack of cash, and as a consequence cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it. Let me take you through the facts and figures. In 2003/2004 our gross national product was LE474 billion, of which LE1.6 billion was allocated to scientific research. That money was divided between more than 220 institutes for scientific research that exist in this country. Around 30 per cent of these are run by government departments, with the rest affiliated to the Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of State for Scientific Research, or else the armed forces. The efficiency of the vast majority of these institutes is questionable at best. At the same time part of the annual budgetary allocation to research remains unused, and this despite the shortage of scientific periodicals, books and modern laboratory equipment. It is hardly surprising, then, that more than a million of Egypt's most talented scientists and researchers have emigrated to other countries. The facts make for depressing reading. What is clear, though, is that the money earmarked for scientific research is being mishandled. Not that the mismanagement is not confined to money. We are also making a mess of our human resources, largely because we are so obsessed with quantity rather than quality. Just think -- over 200 institutions of scientific research. All of which are housed in buildings requiring maintenance, requiring the usual infrastructure, both material and administrative. Who is controlling these institutions? Who is coordinating the research, to ensure there are no overlaps? Who willed them into existence in the first place? What do they do? And how is their efficacy assessed? We have managed to create a jungle of inefficiency, throwing money at administration rather than research. If we are concerned about the budget then it is high time an independent report was commissioned on how scientific research allocations are spent. How much money goes to administration and how much to research? What would emerge, I'm fairly willing to best, is that the problem is not a shortfall in funding but in management. We live in a technological age, in a knowledge-based economy in which the only way to keep ahead of the game is to know where you are going. Yet it appears that multi-headed hydra, our scientific research establishment, is pulling in more than 200 different directions. The government may be incapable of allocating any more money for research, and the private sector may be unwilling to shoulder the costs of the research and development that is essential if it is to remain in business. But this is only part of the problem, and it is a problem with which we have to deal as a matter of urgency. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary responses. Bill Clinton, when still governor of Arkansas, once tested all the teachers in the state to ensure that underperformers were weeded out. It was a daring measure, but it was for the public good. Can we do the same? We have three options. One is to hold more conferences about the problem, make excuses and leave it at that. Another is to create more research institutions -- the equivalent of adding insult to injury. The third is to reduce the number of research centres -- to around 20 to 30. Give each a task, monitor them and make sure that they get the job done. It's quality that matters. We cannot afford to keep wasting money and human resources. The battle to keep abreast of technological developments is fierce, and on its result depends the prosperity of the nation. We need leadership. We need competent people in charge. It is not a question of pride, but of survival. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
