6.3 Global funding mechanisms should be strengthened for support of science and technology in developing nations

Of the many obstacles facing S&T institutions in the developing nations, two important problems could be alleviated with targeted global funds. These problems are:

Lack of autonomy. An institution should be able to function without political interference and other bureaucratic impediments to the practice of science, engineering, and medicine.
Limited availability of funding. Reliable financial support could help ensure autonomy and provide the necessary foreign-currency resources that enable local institutions to graduate to the international S&T arena (by participating in joint programs, attending conferences, or purchasing lab equipment).

While the possibility exists for such funding through the targeted sectoral funds discussed above, it would require exceptionally committed governments and in some places may be insufficient for generating the needed foreign-currency resources.

To address that special set of issues, the Study Panel suggests that two global funds for S&T capacity building in developing nations - an institutional fund and a program fund - be set up in a consultative fashion, drawing on the experience of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). (See Box 40.)

A Global Institutional Fund for developing nations would provide soft funding over a period of 5 to 10 years to some 20 centers of excellence of a national or regional character (operating by themselves or in developing-country networks). This funding would not be program-specific; it would be used instead to allow centers to promote the values of science, engineering, and medicine and create atmospheres in which the practice of high-quality research can flourish. Specifically, the money would help each center to develop its programs, cultivate its management, and build its long-term funding base.

Donors would meet in a consultative mode to review proposals resulting from an open call for competitive submissions, and they would select the centers according to the following criteria:

Autonomy of the institution;
Strength of its leadership, as assessed by peers;
Quality of its management;
Commitment to the values of science and engineering;
General nature, extent, and relevance of its overall program of work;
Potential to function as a hub and to network with other centers of excellence in the region;
Ability to partner with S&T institutions in the industrialized nations for pursuing research projects of mutual interest.

These characteristics are similar to those identified for centers of excellence in section 4.1 above.

A Global Program Fund for developing nations would be organized as a competitive-grant system for creating new partnerships with advanced research institutes in S&T-advanced and S&T-proficient-countries. International referees would review the quality of the projects being proposed by various centers of excellence in developing nations. The Global Program Fund would require that proposals contain the following three basic features:

A partnership between the center and an advanced research institute from either an S&T-advanced or S&T-proficient country,
The advanced research institute's willingness to put a reasonable amount of its own resources into the project and to jointly perform a significant part of the research in the center of excellence in the developing nation
The center's commitment to use some of its own resources in support of the project.

The purpose of these grants from the Global Program Fund would be to lubricate the mechanisms by which developing-country-based centers of excellence could productively interact with advanced research institutes in the S&T-advanced or S&T-proficient countries. They would facilitate bridge-building by creating incentives for developing-nation institutions to work with advanced research institutes and, importantly, vice versa. And they would increase the likelihood of productive capacity building in the developing nations. Individual researchers' skills and an institution's general competencies are best strengthened when scientists and engineers work together on specific projects.

Preference would be given to proposals that involve several local and regional institutions, but a bilateral proposal - one recipient center and one advanced research institute - would be perfectly acceptable, given the benefits of its one-on-one focus, together with the greater likelihood of meeting them.

The global funds would not have to be pooled but could remain distinct, though coordinated centrally. This would allow those donors with particular restrictions to honor them while still participating in the funding. For example, no impediments would result from regional banks' geographic limits on the recipient centers of excellence, or industrialized nations' nationality requirements for a participating advanced research institute (e.g., National Science Foundation grants are limited to U.S. recipients). And once a project was under way, donors could rely for quality control on internationally staffed reviews organized by an institution such as the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) or the InterAcademy Council (IAC).