View the presentation made by Dr David J. Grimshaw

Yesterday the Triple Helix Society at Cambridge University posed the intriguing question: “Would you prefer a mobile phone or a toilet?”   The aparently simple question raised many important issues around the area of the use and role of technology in development. The question itself could be answered from many different perspectives, for example, empirically, gender based or in support of livelihoods.

Most of the evidence would suggest that people in developing countries would prefer a mobile phone, especially if you happened to ask a man rather than a woman. Whatever the “answer” to the question might be, the panel were united in the view that the preferences of people are at the heart of development.   If you take the view that development is about freedom then choice is key to unlocking that freedom. But whose preferences are taken into account when development interventions are planned and implemented?  

The debate after the short panel presentations was perhaps the most interesting part of the evening. Questions raised included the following: what is the role of technology in development?; what is the best way to introduce new technologies?; can open innovation models help “ownership” of technology development?; and are there some good examples of countries that have used a “technology route” to development?

The raw statistics are alarming: by 2050 there will be 9 billion people to feed and climate change will make water and land more scarce.   A report published today by the Royal Society: Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture highlights these statistics and goes on to recommend an investment of £2 billion publicly funded research on global food security over the next 10 years.   If you think this is to be welcomed…think again.   For example, read the expert opinion of two prominent people quoted below and ponder who is setting the research agenda: farmers or scientists? developed countries or developing countries? rich or poor? public or corporate?  

“There is no panacea for ensuring global food security. Science-based approaches introduced alongside social science and economic innovations are essential if we’re to have a decent chance of feeding the world’s population in 40 years time.   Technologies that work on a farm in the UK may have little impact for harvests in Africa.   Research is going to need to take into account a diverse range of crops, localities, cultures and numerous other circumstances. “   Source: Professor Baulcombe, Royal Society, 2009.

“Scientific evidence proves that low input systems, such as organic, can provide sustainable solutions to food security. The IAASTD report, produced by 400 international scientists and supported by 60 governments, including the UK, backed organic agriculture and similar ‘agro-ecological’ approaches as part of a ‘radical change’ in the way the world produces food.”   Source: Emma Hockridge, Soil Association Policy Coordinator.

The report from the Royal Society takes a science-led approach to the exclusion of other approaches that have been advocated from sound evidence.   Earlier in 2009 two new books emphasised the importance of putting farmers at the centre of agricultural innovation and development: Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development and Innovaton Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods.  According to a panel at the launch of these two books, farmer centred innovation needs to do four things:

1. Move from an exclusive focus on farmers, farms and technologies to broader innovation systems.
2. Revamp agricultural education systems for a new era.
3. Overhaul incentive and reward systems to put farmers first and promote ‘participatory innovation systems’.
4. Put ‘a politics of demand’ at the centre of a new set of accountability mechanisms for research and development.

Whilst these four things are advocated in the context of agricultural research, if we change the context to some other kind of “science-led new technology”, it would be worth thinking about how generic these issues might be.   Perhaps it is time for donors to hear the message that research needs to be demand-led, participatory, and focused on innovation systems.

A day after climate change talks ended in deadlock in Bangkok one of the richest men in the world, George Soros pledged US$1 billion as an investment in clean energy technology. Will this make a difference in terms of reducing carbon emissions?  Yes, probably … But a further question is: Will the clean energy technology be adopted in developing countries? Unlikely … on the evidence of previous new technology diffusion.

There are many and complex reasons why new technologies do not reach poor people. In the case of low-carbon energy technologies their adoption and diffusion into developing countries will depend on new intellectual property regimes, new business models, new approaches to the ownership and development of the technologies, and a new research agenda. So many “new” things are needed that arguably the technology is the least of the challenges.

We certainly need hope to overcome the gloom of climate change but we should perhaps reflect on the extent to which that hope is being bought at the price of diverting attention away from the really difficult issues.

This week’s Economist includes a Special Report on Telecoms in Emerging Markets.   Some interesting trends are highlighted but care is needed when interpreting figures on teledensity.   Nevertheless, mobile data networks may well produce a more cost effective impact on poverty than investment in other forms of broadband Internet access. 

According to the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) mobile teledensity reached over 100% in 2007 (some people have more than one SIM and/or phone) in Western Europe.   In Ghana the density reached 98% in January 2009 and is forecast to get to 100% in Kenya and Tanzania by 2013.   But most of the traffic generated by this increased access will be voice – and voice is the most important means of communications for the poor who are more likely to have lower literacy levels.   A major challenge remains: to upgrade the voice networks to allow fast data.   Plans are in hand in most countries in Africa to improve the mobile data networks.   But the reality is likely to be that fast connectivity such as 3G networks will be restricted to the urban areas.   The costs of handsets is also an issue with a basic mobile phone down to around $15 but a smartphone costing over $100.  Network provider charges for Internet access to use applications such as Google Maps are also likely to be high.   In real terms probably many times higher than they are in the developed world.

Yet, amidst this context there are three encouraging signs for optimism:

• There is a growing “open source” sector of the mobile phone market.   The Android operating system runs on mobile phones from various manufacturers.   The source code is open so that applications developers can write programs that are tailor made for specific functions, languages, cultures, and geographies.   These apps can then be downloaded free of charge by users.
• Some of the new applications are very relevant for use in developing countries.      For example, epidemiologists and ecologists often collect data in the field and, on returning to their laboratory, enter their data into a database for further analysis.   The recent introduction of mobile phones that utilise the open source Android operating system, and which include (among other features) both GPS and Google Maps, provide new opportunities for developing mobile phone applications, which in conjunction with web applications, allow two-way communication between field workers and their project databases.  Source: Aanensen DM, Huntley DM, Feil EJ, al-Own F, Spratt BG, 2009 EpiCollect: Linking Smartphones to Web Applications for Epidemiology, Ecology and Community Data Collection. PLoS ONE 4(9): e6968. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006968
• Scientists are prepared to share their findings in open source journals such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS – see above).   Thereby enabling scientists working in developing countries immediate access to good peer reviewed work. 

The challenge is to upgrade the mobile phone networks to enable fast data traffic.   Perhaps this is a candidate for applying advance market commitments that have been successful in the field of vaccines.

Smart phones, smart maps, and smart apps are all very well but they need to be enabled by smart markets.

Delivery of water is measured by the litre and the recommended daily intake (although contested by some) is that every person needs at least 2 litres per day to remain in good health.   Should there be a recommended daily intake of knowledge?    Whilst we might take for granted access to knowledge whenever we need  it, billions of poor people do not have this luxury.   Perhaps, like water, one drip at  a time will not quench the thirst for knowledge.   Some critical mass may be needed.

According to a story on the BBC News this week access to a mobile phone is more common than access to fresh water in Kenya.   The BBC are running a series of stories this week about the impact of a fibre optic cable reaching the east coast of Kenya.   It is clear from these reports that (comparatively speaking):

• the cost of accessing the Internet is high (Access Kenya have reduced charges from £2500 per month to £750 per month)
• the speed of accessing the Internet is slow (a domestic connection might reach 512Kb for £30 per month)

You may be wondering why, if people are short of drinking water they want access to the web?   A good question.   But the answer is not so simple.   Pause to think that supplies of drinking water might be a necessary condition for getting out of poverty but not a sufficient condition.   Access to knowledge that can effectively improve livelihoods will have an economic return.   But such information needs to be delivered in a timely manner and at a speed that makes it effective in helping to change ways of doing things.

Last night the Royal Society brought  together leading thinkers to consider the future of nanotechnologies.   The invitation to the event said, “It is five years since the publication of the landmark Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The report highlighted nanotechnologies’ promise as well as defining the path to responsible exploitation. Progress has been made toward its recommendations, but has attention lagged behind the pace of development?”

It was interesting that the speakers identified many “gaps” (between science and technology, academia and industry, and so on).   One particular gap was not mentioned…that between the rich and the poor.   Yet if we go back to the report published 5 years ago it identified a potential nanodivide (section 6.3).

Although there has been a great deal of positive work on upstream dialogues and public engagement on nanotechnologies, there still remains the illusive challenge of how to develop appropriate nanotechnologies to meet human needs.   More practical research involving a range of stakeholders will be needed to learn about effective ways of reducing the gap between technology in developed countries and that in developing countries.

This week two quite different approaches to the problem of how to provide Internet access in developing countries (in particular Africa) caught my attention because each comes at the problem from a different standpoint.  

First, a small organisation called hotmouse has launched a rugged terminal running Ubuntu.   This device is positioned to be more robust than standard hardware for the dusty heat of Africa.

Second, Microsoft has launched OneApp – software that will run on a range of basic mobile phones to allow the user to access applications such as Facebook and offer the potential to run mobile banking services.

These initiatives are to be welcomed.  Yet some fundemental questions need to be thought through.   Will access to the Internet improve the livelihoods of poor people living in remote rural areas?   Would alternative solutions, such as voice based knowledge sharing, be more in tune with local culture, literacy levels, and availability of electricity?

The RS/RAEng report (published five years ago) raised concerns that there was a potential for nanotechnologies to intensify the gap between rich and poor countries.

Practical Action was consulted by the Royal Society working party and the following letter was published in The Guardian (20 August 2004):

“Our concern is that yet another new technology will over-promise and under deliver; that in addition to the already apparent “digital divide”, we may be on the verge of a “nanodivide”. We should ensure that nanotechnologies are harnessed for the benefit of all peoples in the world not just those who can afford to fuel a consumer boom of new products. Many poor people in the world have basic requirements – for water, energy, and food – that are as yet unfulfilled. We need to ensure that nanotechnologies are used to achieve wider social and environmental goals (eg sustainable energy), rather than meeting short-term or developed world “market opportunities” for products such as sunscreen.”

Five years on what progress has been made in harnessing nanotechnology for the benefit of poor people? It is true that there have been further nano-dialogues, including those undertaken by Practical Action in Zimbabwe, Peru and Nepal. Some engagement with scientists in developing countries has been made, for example Practical Action in Peru has been a catalyst for the development of a nanotechnology network. However there is scant evidence of specific applications of nanotechnology being developed for use in developing countries. Some solar power applications have been developed in South Africa and elsewhere and some novel methods of removing arsenic from drinking water are being tested in Mexico but to date few, if any of these innovations have been applied and certainly not at any scale. You might think this position is fine because it is “early days”. But experience suggests that if efforts are not made around a research agenda on social and ethical issues it could be too late to affect the overall business model.

Perhaps of even greater importance is conceiving research projects that will include partnerships in developing countries. Such partnerships should include scientists, NGO’s, Government agencies, and beneficiary communities.

For further reflections on the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Report see the Report from the Responsible Nano Forum.

The latest “add on” for a mobile phone is not likely to appeal to the market of young affluent professionals who like the latest gadgets.   But in many much less affluent parts of the globe the mobile phone is reaching out as one of the technologies offering the potential to change lives.  For social conversations, for business transactions, remittances, and mobile banking the mobile phone is fast becoming a tool that connects people who live in remote rural locations in developing countries.

The needs of those people go beyond those uses named above, into areas such as health and education.   A paper published earlier this week in the open access journal PLoS ONE holds out the hope that via the combination of a microscope and mobile phone health services might reach into rural areas.  More about this can be read on the BBC Technology News site.

The research team say that: “We expect such a telemedicine system for global healthcare via mobile phone – offering inexpensive brightfield and fluorescence microscopy integrated with automated image analysis – to provide an important tool for disease diagnosis and screening, particularly in the developing world and rural areas where laboratory facilities are scarce but mobile phone infrastructure is extensive.” (Breslauer et al 2009).   This is a welcome opportunity for new technology to help poor people in rural areas but to enable the technology to be used effectively it should also be remembered that there will need to be capacity building for local communities.   The supply of the technology is a start so long as we also work to engage the potential users to gain their buy-in and ownership.   Now is the right time to do that and certainly it should not wait until the researchers have “perfected” the technology.

Reference:

Breslauer DN, Maamari RN, Switz NA, Lam WA, Fletcher DA (2009) Mobile Phone Based Clinical Microscopy for Global Health Applications. PLoS ONE 4(7): e6320. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006320

Today, The Times reports on page 54: “Simple Local Solutions to a Complex Global Issue”. Amongst other case studies the article picks out the work of Practical Action in Zimbabwe. Here we have reached 11,000 people with knowledge which is enhancing their livelihoods. These people live in an area that has no access to electricity, radio, or mobile phone. A “new technology” – an mp3 player – was introduced to enhance the existing ways of reaching people with new information and knowledge.

The technology is certainly “high-tec” but also it can rightly be argued that it is simple. Users have found it simple to use and the solution is relatively cheap.

This initiative is part of a theme of work that uses local content in local voices. Further background to this work can be found by following this link to another page on our website. We are currently working to spread this work to other countries to reach even more people in need.