UK global antipoverty strategy criticised by Royal Society
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The UK Department for International Development抯 (DFID) efforts to combat poverty in the world抯 poorest countries were strongly criticised as short term and uncoordinated by the Royal Society earlier this month.
The Royal Society, a UK independent academy of sciences, issued its harsh criticisms in response to the House of Common抯 Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy.
The Royal Society said that the department had "insufficient in-house scientific expertise and poor relationships with the research councils and other government departments about scientific issues."
The Royal Society抯 foreign secretary, Julia Higgins, said, "Research, knowledge, and technology have an important role to play in creating healthier and more prosperous societies, but current arrangements within the department are woefully inadequate. Without a chief scientist, supported by a dedicated scientific team, it is likely that DFID is missing opportunities to use the latest developments in science to inform development policy or even gain the full benefits of the research it commissions.
"The society is also concerned with DFID抯 narrow focus on short term research," she added.
A spokesperson for the department rejected the Royal Society抯 accusations, saying that its approach was neither "short term or uncoordinated." He said, "Our mandate under the International Development Act is poverty reduction. We only fund science contributing to that end. We cover a range of scientific disciplines, hence we have five chief advisers (covering environment, human development, economics, social development, and governance) rather than one chief scientist."
"We now have almost 500 scientific and professional advisers working across the department梑oth in the UK and overseas梐nd we are increasing resources for the commissioning, monitoring, and dissemination of relevant scientific research."
Andrew Scott, policy and programmes director of the Intermediate Technology Development Group, a charity that aims to show and advocate the sustainable use of technology to reduce poverty in developing countries, questioned the Royal Society抯 conclusions.
He said that the Department for International Development lacked a focal point for overall science and technology issues. "Whether this would best be addressed by establishing a position of chief scientist is debatable," he said.
"The need within DFID is more for capacity on broader science and technology policy issues (such as technology transfer, innovation systems) rather than scientific research. The focus by the Royal Society on DFID抯 capacity also overlooks the need for change in most British scientific research organisations to take greater account of the needs of the majority of the world抯 population in their own policies and activities."(BMJ Vittal Katikireddi)
The Royal Society, a UK independent academy of sciences, issued its harsh criticisms in response to the House of Common抯 Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into the use of science in UK international development policy.
The Royal Society said that the department had "insufficient in-house scientific expertise and poor relationships with the research councils and other government departments about scientific issues."
The Royal Society抯 foreign secretary, Julia Higgins, said, "Research, knowledge, and technology have an important role to play in creating healthier and more prosperous societies, but current arrangements within the department are woefully inadequate. Without a chief scientist, supported by a dedicated scientific team, it is likely that DFID is missing opportunities to use the latest developments in science to inform development policy or even gain the full benefits of the research it commissions.
"The society is also concerned with DFID抯 narrow focus on short term research," she added.
A spokesperson for the department rejected the Royal Society抯 accusations, saying that its approach was neither "short term or uncoordinated." He said, "Our mandate under the International Development Act is poverty reduction. We only fund science contributing to that end. We cover a range of scientific disciplines, hence we have five chief advisers (covering environment, human development, economics, social development, and governance) rather than one chief scientist."
"We now have almost 500 scientific and professional advisers working across the department梑oth in the UK and overseas梐nd we are increasing resources for the commissioning, monitoring, and dissemination of relevant scientific research."
Andrew Scott, policy and programmes director of the Intermediate Technology Development Group, a charity that aims to show and advocate the sustainable use of technology to reduce poverty in developing countries, questioned the Royal Society抯 conclusions.
He said that the Department for International Development lacked a focal point for overall science and technology issues. "Whether this would best be addressed by establishing a position of chief scientist is debatable," he said.
"The need within DFID is more for capacity on broader science and technology policy issues (such as technology transfer, innovation systems) rather than scientific research. The focus by the Royal Society on DFID抯 capacity also overlooks the need for change in most British scientific research organisations to take greater account of the needs of the majority of the world抯 population in their own policies and activities."(BMJ Vittal Katikireddi)