Can science eliminate extreme poverty?

April 16, 2014 by James Smith, The Conversation
Science incubator with food. Credit: EPA

Science has often come to the rescue when it comes to the world's big problems, be it the Green Revolution that helped avoid mass starvation or the small pox vaccine that eradicated the disease. There is always hope that scientific innovations will help solve global problems. So can scientists help solve the globe's ultimate problem: eliminate extreme poverty? In two announcements this month, the governments of the US and UK have made a fresh commitment to try.

On 3 April, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) unveiled the Global Development Lab, with the goal of eliminating by 2030 using technology-based solutions. While not strictly a physical lab, it is an initiative that will bring together universities, the private sector, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in order to collectively trial new technological tools to fight poverty.

This is an ambitious exercise. The funding reflects that, with USAID committing to US$1 billion per year of support. The ultimate aim is seemingly intractable, but the lab and its partners will aim to develop solutions in water, health, food security and nutrition, energy, education, and climate change, all in the space of only five years.

Not many days after USAID's announcement, on 9 April, the UK government announced the launch of the Newton Fund, a £375m pot designed to improve the research capacities of emerging powers such as Brazil, India and South Africa, and in doing so strengthen ties with Britain.

This might seem like a lot of investment in scientific for development. But it is not the first time huge commitments have been made.

What after publicly-funded science?

Previous initiatives such as the Green Revolution, and attempts to eradicate malaria, among others, represent some of the largest global public investments ever made. After World War II, there has been hope that publicly-funded science would cement peace and that technology would become the foundation of the global economy.

While the impacts of these efforts have been far-reaching, they have also come with caveats of sustainability, reach and appropriateness. The Green Revolution never really took off in Africa, attempts to eradicate the mosquito as a means to control malaria have stalled, vaccination programmes struggle to gain acceptance in certain parts of the world, and among certain populations (and not just in developing countries).

These examples do not represent miracles, technological panaceas, or broken promises. They represent the enormous complexities of the relationship between science, technology and society. New knowledge on its own cannot solve societal problems, innovation does not automatically engage with pressing need, and technologies more often than not do not reach the people who need them. We have since developed a more critical, possibly jaundiced but also more realistic view of the transformational power of science.

Universal education, better communication and international collaboration have not only created new platforms for science, they have created new platforms to engage critically with science and recognise the roots of limitations – diseases of the poor have few treatments, crop yields have stagnated, the internet has remained out of the reach of too many. There are limits to science beyond the limits of technical knowledge, and these limits are often shaped by the limits of innovation to engage with problems of development.

That is why the Global Development Lab and Newton Fund are not simply new Green Revolutions or vaccine development initiatives. They recognise the central role of innovation. The Lab aims to create a "new global marketplace of innovations". Entrepreneurs, investors and corporate leaders are given as much emphasis as inventors, academics and research.

There is some consternation that some of the private sector partners – such as Coca-Cola, Cargill and Unilever – that will profit from poverty alleviation. Similarly, the Newton Fund will be administered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), not the Department for International Development (DFID) that is experienced at handling such programmes. However, the larger aim is an urgent one and such initiatives are desperately needed.

Even then, it would be wrong to interpret the launch of the Global Development Lab and Newton Fund within a week of each other as some sort of watershed in how we conceive of the nature of innovation within science for development. Rather it is a sign of an already emerging approach.

There have been many initiatives over the past few years that have blurred the boundaries of public and private – global product development partnerships such as the International Aids Vaccine Initiative fuelled by the emergence of social entrepreneurship as an alternative to "development" (see for example the excellent The Rise of the Reluctant Innovator) and the emergence of innovation hubs in developing countries (for example iHub in Nairobi). These are reshaping the relationship between science, technology and innovation for development.

Slow and steady wins

Innovation has historically been built on the interaction between public and private sectors, blurring the dichotomies. It would be a mistake to understand them as mutually exclusive. Social entrepreneurship – where profits are ploughed back into solving social problems – should not be seen as a proxy for NGOs, private-sector science should not be seen as the successor of public-sector science, and the market should not be seen as the sole vehicle for international development.

We need to think more critically about the relationship between the public and private sector. And we also need to resist the allure of only scaling up. While the Green Revolution and drug development demonstrate the power of scaling up a solution, thinking only in terms of scale risks privileging high-tech, high-risk solutions over simpler, less exciting solutions that deliver in local contexts.

The and entrepreneurs are not a like-for-like replacement for international development and local initiatives. There are pressing needs to build infrastructure, support health and education systems and support governance and civil society structures. These are necessary for to flourish and for technology to transform.

The hope is that both the Global Development Lab and Newton Fund recognise these complexities. They are taking on a big problem where in the past success has been slow.

Explore further: Expanding energy access key to solving global challenges

Related Stories

Building stronger policies to fight global hunger

July 26, 2013

As part of Feed the Future, the federal government's global hunger and food security initiative, Michigan State University will use a $10 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development to strengthen developing ...

China looks to science and technology to fuel its economy

April 10, 2014

Maintaining stability in the face of rapid change and growth, and proactively partaking in cooperative global ties in science and technology fields will be key in helping China become an innovation-based economy, according ...

Recommended for you

Archaeologists discover Cornish barrow site

April 20, 2018

An Archaeologist at The Australian National University (ANU) has discovered a prehistoric Bronze-Age barrow, or burial mound, on a hill in Cornwall and is about to start excavating the untouched site which overlooks the English ...

New ancestor of modern sea turtles found in Alabama

April 18, 2018

A sea turtle discovered in Alabama is a new species from the Late Cretaceous epoch, according to a study published April 18, 2018 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Drew Gentry from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, ...

New study improves 'crowd wisdom' estimates

April 18, 2018

In 1907, a statistician named Francis Galton recorded the entries from a weight-judging competition as people guessed the weight of an ox. Galton analyzed hundreds of estimates and found that while individual guesses varied ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
No. The poor shall be with us always no matter the economy. Monetary, barter, whatever. There shall always be those who have not. It is a part of humanity. To solve that is to remove the human from humanity.
3 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
Innovation has historically been built on the interaction between public and private sectors, blurring the dichotomies. It would be a mistake to understand them as mutually exclusive

However, government solutions and Liberty are mutually exclusive by definition. Government can only solve problems related to humanity in inverse proportion to the maintenance of liberty.

Historically, when government takes on the role of "solving" what is in fact natural consequences of free society and human behavior, the results have been the worse for humanity, not better.

For example, "inequality" is the new 'liberal progressive' mantra, ...yet it is simply a Natural Consequence of having a Free Society,... it is categorically NOT a problem to be "fixed".

Artificially removing consequences to avoid, like poverty, will not work in the long run. The best that government can do is to domesticate the poor en masse, which is to make them less than human.

3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Society, not state and not science can minimize poverty.
No one can help those who refuse help and no one should help those who think they are entitled to aid.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.