The renaming of TWAS reflects changes in development. But it must ensure
that its original priorities are maintained, says David Dickson.
AsianScientist (Nov. 5, 2012) –
When the late physicist and Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam set up what was then
called the Third World Academy of Sciences, known familiarly as TWAS, in the
early 1980s, he had a clear objective in mind – to raise the status of basic science
in the eyes of political leaders of the world’s developing countries.
In an interview in 1984, Salam
recalled writing three years earlier to the heads of 13 such countries who
planned to attend a major North–South summit in Cancun, Mexico, highlighting
the importance of investing in science. Just one, India, had bothered to reply.
“Third World countries have to realize that basic science is a legitimate
activity for them to support,” he told me during the interview.
As the academy approaches its
30th anniversary next year, its vitality as an organization is clear. It now
has more than 1,000 fellows from across the developing world, and has avoided
concerns about elitism that had made me uneasy at the time. It has done so by
organizing numerous training programs for young researchers and actively
promoting South–South research collaborations on socially important issues such
as the impact of climate change, among other activities.
But it now faces a new challenge
– how to define its role at a time when a simplistic division into rich and
poor countries no longer reflects global science. Several of its prominent
members, in particular Brazil, China and India, have become scientific powers
in their own right. At the same time, for many of the world’s poorest countries,
both spending on science and developing the capacity to put scientific results
to practical use remain low priorities.
Name changes
The latest move to adapt to this
new environment took place in Tianjin, China, last month, when the academy agreed
to change its name to The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS). This follows a
previous name change in 2004, when it decided to call itself The Academy of
Sciences for the Developing World (although, rather confusingly, retaining the
acronym ‘TWAS’).
The term ‘Third World’ was
originally coined to describe countries that belonged to neither the Western
nor Soviet blocs that had confronted each other during the Cold War. But it
became an anachronism when the Cold War ended in 1989, while being seen by many,
particularly in the growing economies of Latin America, as somewhat derogatory,
since it implied a global pecking order.
However, even the 2004 title came
under criticism, since it appeared to make an explicit distinction between the
science that is done in developed and developing countries. That this line is
increasingly difficult to justify was a key factor behind the latest name
change, which was unanimously approved in Tianjin.
The new title, The World Academy
of Sciences, also has the advantage of legitimizing the retention of the
original acronym, even if the prominence of the initial T remains something of
an anomaly.
Maintaining priorities
The danger, of course, is that
the new name implies a body of equal relevance to scientists in all countries,
whether rich or poor. That means that its mission of advancing science in
countries that are – and remain – particularly needy, will have to be explained
every time the organization is introduced to government ministers or
journalists unfamiliar with its activities.
TWAS officials are quick to
emphasize that the change in title does not signify a change in mission. They
point out, for example, that the academy’s rules will still require 85 per cent
of its elected members to come from the developing world, and that the
advancement of science in these countries will explicitly remain its primary
mission.
It will be up to the academy’s
new president, Bai Chunli, who is already president of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, to ensure that there is no ‘mission creep’ (change from its original
goals), and that the priorities of the organization, whatever its title, remain
fixed in promoting science in the world’s poor countries.
China’s commitment of US$1.5
million to TWAS’s endowment fund, making it the largest single donor to date,
ahead of Brazil, indicate the importance it attaches to the academy’s
activities. So, too, do supportive comments made at the Tianjin meeting by Chinese
president Hu Jintao.
Under World Bank definitions,
based on average income per capita, Brazil, China and India remain defined as
developing countries (while specifying that “classification by income does not
necessarily reflect development status”) and thus continue to qualify for full
participation in TWAS.
But it is essential that the
split between the scientific capabilities of rich and poor – and the consequent
dependence of the latter on the former, which motivated Salam to create TWAS 30
years ago – does not become reproduced within the developing world itself.
It is now up to Bai and his
council to ensure that this does not happen. If there is any evidence that it
is beginning to occur, then deeper changes than just a change in name may be
required to keep Salam’s dream alive. But hopefully that will not be necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment