little scientific capability. This assumes developing countries can transform their
economies by utilising science and technology developed elsewhere and follow broadly
similar development trajectories. The key to this process is argued to be to ensure that
technology is transferred, not merely transplanted and that it is adapted to suit local
conditions. Problems to be overcome include the ownership of intellectual property
rights, the commercial value of production technology, the different mix of factors of
production in different environments, and the scarcity of qualified scientists and
engineers. With goodwill and some measure of disinterest on the part of the owners of
technology, technological dependence can then be replaced by technological
cooperation that vests some measure of control with organisations in the host country.
This may be easier to achieve with obsolescent technologies and may be increasingly
difficult the closer the technology is to that of leading exponents who would suffer
competitive disadvantages by making the technology available to others.
An alternative perspective is to stress the qualitative differences in the development
problems of the poorer countries and argue for the development of indigenous and
appropriate science and technology that cannot come about simply through technology
transfer no matter how efficient. Proponents of this view note that the research and
development which is concentrated in developed countries is often simply irrelevant to
the needs of rural populations where even the simplest technology cannot be maintained
and capital is much scarcer than labour. They point to the tardiness and underfunding of
research on tropical agriculture and diseases as an example of how the development
priorities of rich countries have shaped the impact of science and technology on
developing countries. Much of the agricultural research that has been applied they
argue, is directed towards improving the production of cash crops for export, not
meeting the basic needs of the local population. And medical research has focused on
the diseases of the rich rather than those of the poor. From this perspective the need is
for those who can create and radically adapt scientific and technological knowledge for
domestic application, not simply transfer it. They can then contribute to scientific and
technological development domestically and internationally. Technological dependency
can then be replaced by a judicious mix of appropriate and indigenously developed
science and technology which is grounded directly in the needs of the populations it
serves.
The world is never as simple as the common habit of constructing dichotomies
suggests. Both views contain elements of truth and paint incomplete pictures. This is
partly because the problems of development have both local and international
dimensions and because science is in a sense universal (it seeks knowledge which is not
bound by specific cultural contexts) but the utility of its application (technology) is
specific to context. National science and technology strategies based on these different
views demand an understanding of the room to manoeuvre that national economies
have. Small countries with limited access to markets cannot hope to sustain a wide base
of technological industries. Even medium and large size countries are unlikely to have