All That Matters

The World Expo Center in Dalian, where the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2011 was held. Copyright World Economic Forum via flickr

Last week I had the pleasure to attend the World Economic Forum in Dalian, China. The meeting in Dalian is called the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, and in comparison to the more widely known one in Davos it apparently has more a focus on new technologies. How else would it be possible to present the latest advances in lighting technologies as part of a session organized by Nature…

The meeting was actually quite diverse; there were sessions even on topics such as art and Buddhism.  Yet, clearly there was a focus on business and global governance, and in the context of the more technology-oriented approach of this meeting this meant that there were some interesting discussions on sustainable growth, alternative energies, and so on.

But what did I really learn from these? Well, if you keep up with the daily news and analysis anyway, there wasn’t too much new to be learned. Of course, it was interesting to see some of the high flyers in action and to hear their personal assessment on various issues. But this clearly wasn’t the place to formulate grant visions in much detail. One-hour panel discussions are hardly the place for that. It was far more interesting to talk to some of the participants during coffee breaks, and to exchange opinions privately. I also attended a closed session by the WEF’s Risk Response Network. Discussing not only issues such as the risks to the public arising from new technologies but also the problems we have in dealing with risks offered some new perspectives. Perhaps the secret really is to try to get invited for more of those closed sessions.

But unfortunately, the mingling of the more scientific participants and those from business or politics didn’t seem to work too well. The more scientific discussions were hardly attended by business people and vice versa. I think both sides are to blame a little, and there were not even that many science policy types attending that could bridge this gap, with one of the notable exceptions being the Chinese science minister. That seems like a big missed opportunity to me. In this age, new technologies can revolutionize any business rapidly, and being informed about the trends in science can only be good for business.

More generally, it seemed that all those CEOs, representatives of NGOs etc. very much saw the world from their top-down perspective. Some of the discussions seemed quite ‘meta’ to me. In terms of global risks and sustainability for example, there seemed to be the conviction that there are a lot of answers and solutions, but that there is a general failure of political leadership to execute these, with the danger being that the longer we wait the greater the implications if catastrophes unfold. As someone said in one of the discussions, “the motivation of politicians is to get re-elected, not to execute.” This theme was pervasive in discussions on several topics. There was also praise for the Chinese to have their more long-term vision in the form of five-year plans.

Well, this made me a bit uncomfortable. This is very much a top-down approach in the way that these top executives run their company: implement a strategy and everyone has to follow suit. Is this really the public governance we want? Follow and shut up. There was almost no mention throughout on the fact that politics also works to a large degree from the bottom up.

For example, the risk of a global flu pandemic that kills millions within weeks unfortunately is all too real (c.f. swine flu, bird flu). Or earth quakes, tsunamis. If there is indeed a lack of leadership in addressing such threats, then I think this is the result of wrong priorities. Criticising leaders for inactions will only get us that far. If there is a public consensus that certain risks need to be mitigated, leaders can be forced to act from the bottom up. via the public. But to create risk awareness, everyone needs to be aware of such risks in the first place, and this issue is where I think the discussion needs to go.

Anyway, would I attend the World Economic Forum again if given the opportunity? Certainly! The WEF, and those attending these meetings, need more confrontation with science, and more of the bottom-up perspective.

It was only a few days ago that I blogged about the threats to science in an age of global austerity. The point I made is that in many countries national budgets are cut, and that as a result science, too, faces inevitable cuts. Of course, this does not mean that I favour such cuts, but if they’re coming we’re better be prepared! Not every country can afford to increase the science budget by 10 to 20% every year, as China is doing.

And indeed, today we have yet another case in point for the inevitable fallout from such cuts, sadly highlighting the pitfalls of a lack of broader strategy. The case I am describing is limited to the UK, but this example will be interesting for others, too.

As my colleague Richard Van Noorden reported today, budget cuts have been announced across the physical sciences in the UK. The situation at the funding agency, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),  is indeed dramatic. As Richard summarises: “The agency, which has a budget of £830 million (US$1.3 billion) for 2010–11, faces cuts of some 12–15% in real terms – and a 50% cut in capital funds – over the next four years.”

[…]

Whenever these days you talk to scientists about their funding situation, the situation is bleak. In the US whichever way you look at the issue, funding cuts are on the horizon. Japan had a national debt exceeding its gross domestic product already before the earthquake, with science budget cuts implemented already then. It’s even worse now. Most European countries are also reducing science funding. And that’s not just Portugal or Greece. The UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland all are cutting back research. And what I hear from science policy makers in Germany, their relatively comfortable funding situation will not last forever either.

All in all, the situation is rather depressive, despite the fact that along with many others I strongly believe a strong scientific effort is one of the best long-term investments a country can make. Not investing in science and technology to me means a negative spiral for wealth and prosperity. But sometimes, whether you like it or not, a healthy science funding just isn’t possible. Adding to that depression is then that these deep funding cuts are not followed up with structural reforms to make sure academic research can survive those challenging circumstances.

It’s certainly time now to ask: how do you conduct science in such an environment?

There is a broader range of solutions adopted by different countries. A possibility is simply to cut back across the board, which is an option for smaller budget cuts. But that’s too simplistic and only hurts the research infrastructure indiscriminately. The question is rather how to use the available money most effectively.

[…]