Action not talk should be the Egyptian reaction to dwindling stature in research and development, writes Amin Howeidi* Egypt intends to spend LE50 billion on research and development in the next 12 years, a recent conference noted. The figure, equal to one per cent of our national income, is impressive. I am not sure about the 12-year period, however. Goha, the comic figure of lore, once promised the sultan to teach his donkey to read in 10 years. "Are you crazy?" his friends asked. "No, but 10 years is a long time," Goha said, "the chances are that by then the sultan will be dead, or the donkey, or myself." Some 4,000 scientists gathered for the conference but left before it ended, seemingly dubious of its worth. We have 170,000 scientists and researchers in this country, according to official figures. Yet Egypt ranks 120th among world nations on the index of scientific achievement. None of our universities is on the list of the world's top 500 academic institutions. So, before we start thinking of increasing our number of scientists, perhaps it is wise to do something about their skills. Maybe we need to start defining who is a scientist. Definitions are a good thing to have. Take, for example, the title businessman or businesswoman. Many who use it are a disgrace to the profession of business. When, years ago, workers and peasants were given 50 per cent of the seats in representative councils, we had a clear idea of who qualified as a worker or peasant. A definition of terrorism is still lacking, although Egypt has been calling for it for over 10 years. The lack of a definition for terrorism gives the US and Israel -- two countries with a nasty record of invading and occupying the land of others -- a chance to masquerade as fantastic democracies. The reason state awards in this country go to those who do not deserve them is that we have more backroom deals than definitions. This chaos cannot be allowed to go on forever. Who is a scientist? This is one question. And here is another: did we really need a conference on such a scale to discuss such an intricate issue? Big conferences are meant more for show and politics than for enlightening discussions. Informative debate can occur in small gatherings. In the past, lone scientists working in private laboratories were able to make great discoveries. Now, knowledge is so intricate that we need specialised centres, perhaps through the help and coordination of a central agency, to get anything done. I cannot see how this conference might prove useful, but I hope I am wrong. We have an abundance of scientists and scientific research institutions. And yet our research and development efforts are so modest that we feel the need for a nationwide conference to discuss the matter. Our universities should spearhead research and development, but obviously they don't. So why do we keep creating new universities and upgrading colleges into universities? It is alright to admit failure. Facing the facts is the first step to progress. We don't have a problem with money, if you ask me. What we're short of is administrative skills. Years ago, Robert McNamara said the reason the US is attracting talent from abroad is that its administrative system can absorb it. He was right. If we want to have research and development, we should not be inviting scientists from abroad to chat, but to stay and work. I will conclude with three questions. What happened to the valley of technology that was going to be created in Ismailia at a cost of $100 million? What happened to the smart villages that we kept hearing about? And what happened to the "technology university", the one Ahmed Zoweil launched amid extensive media coverage? If you know the answers, please share them with me. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
