3. Who is “we”?

Looking at the statistics of global inequalities is enough for the conclusion that something should be done. No intricate theories of justice or complicated concepts of equality are needed; the inequalities are simply too stark. However, the “how” of remedies is very complicated, in development aid in general, and also when it comes to the contribution of science and technology. For example, technologies may look very straightforward but they do not work by themselves. They always imply complex social circumstances and institutions. The usefulness of new technologies for poor countries has often been disappointing, as the socio-parts of the network were neglected. The struggle against poverty requires interaction and participation of the local people. And maybe even this is not enough, many people wonder; maybe “we” should leave the initiative to “them” completely, and just be available with scientific and technological service and advice, when they ask for it.

Suppose that this is finally going to be the conclusion: that the fight against poverty will be most effective when “we” leave the initiative completely to “them”. Would this mean that “we” should simply forget about “them”? That would be impossible, as we live in a globalized world, with overwhelming amounts of global trade, global travel, global institutions, global information, global images. From a global point of view, “we” is everyone.

For science, the emergence of a global “we” looks like a very congenial development in principle. After all, isn’t science cosmopolitan by nature and spirit? Global information offers opportunities for globally inspired research questions. Economists can do statistical research on ever larger amounts of global data. Many researchers are now working on global climate problems. And when we know that many more people die of malaria and tbc than of stomach aches, why not prioritize those urgent diseases? An extra advantage is that when “they” take the initiative and would like us to assist in malaria eradication or tbc vaccination, “we” will stand prepared.

Yet research policy is not always increasingly cosmopolitan in spirit. Paradoxically, in many cases it has become increasingly nationalistic, as innovation is harnessed for economic competitiveness. Genomics research policy in the Netherlands, alas, is a clear example.

The Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI) shapes large parts of genomics research policy, including the research done by the CSG. “Valorisation” is an increasingly central goal of NGI. This sounds good, as it means that scientific publications are not the only intended outcome; it is also centrally important that society benefits. But when I went to the yearly NGI conference of 2008, which focused on valorisation, I was shocked to learn that what valorisation means for NGI in practice is patents and licenses. All the publications on their website confirm this. In the business plan 2008-2012, for example, the valorisation goals are quantified: 370 invention disclosures, 185 patents, 150 licenses. Societal benefit clearly is mainly understood as economic benefit. NGI is a member of the European valorisation organization Inno-Net Valor, which encourages valorisation throughout Europe. This organisation goes further: it defines valorisation in economic terms: “Valorisation is the translation of knowledge into commercially viable products or services.”  (See here, look under project overview.) If this is the meaning or the core of valorisation, we cannot expect NGI to encourage research to alleviate global poverty or global disease burden. And indeed, there are no such NGI projects, as far as can I can judge from the overviews available on the NGI website

Advertisement