Two days ago the Government’s Chief Scientist, Professor John Beddington, “Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference (OFC),  said the world will have to produce 50 per cent more food by 2030 in order to feed the growing population.   He said the only way to do this is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, including GM and nanotechnology.”  (Daily Telegraph, 6 Jan 2010)

Today the House of Lords published a report entitled: “Nanotechnologies and Food” which acknowledged that, “Our current understanding of how they behave in the human body is not yet advanced enough to predict with any certainty what kind of impact specific nanomaterials may have on human health”.   It also recognised that there is currently insufficient research into the toxicology of nanomaterials and called on the Research Councils to take a more active role in stimulating such research.

All new technologies have risks as well as opportunities inherent in them.   We need to ensure that new technologies, including nanotechnologies, are used responsibly.   Practical Action have been working with the Responsible Nano Forum to work out in a practical way how this can be done.   The response of the Forum to the House of Lords report can be read here.

Yet to an extent the debates about the safety of new technologies applied to food production is a “side line” to the main issue of how the earth and its people can support an increase in food production.   In the past those who have grappled with this issue have assumed continued economic growth, low energy costs, and a zero marginal cost for pollution.   But these conditions now need to be questioned in the light of climate change, increased energy prices and a decline in water supplies.  

Most of the world enjoys cheap food but the unrecognised price is the high energy costs (transport and fertilisers) and high carbon emissions.   Local food production which supports biodiversity and food security is likely to offer increased food production.   But to realise this dream requires some fundemental re-framing of basic questions relating to the economics of food.   Harnessing appropriate technology to fulfil this dream requires us to be clearer in our articulation of the kind of world we want to live in.

The departments of Chemical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Michigan, United States, and collaborators from Jiangnan University in China, have developed a new technique that uses carbon nanotubes to detect biological and chemical contaminants in water at very low concentration levels (Source: Nanowerk 2009).   The news is to be welcomed because there is certainly a need for such a sensor which might be applied to detect the levels of arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Yet, getting such innovative scientific breakthroughs into use in a developing country requires more than research effort by scientists.   At the early stages of technology development there is a need to involve a variety of stakeholders in the design process.   This was a point well taken at the Science, Technology and Innovation for Poverty Reduction seminar organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology yesterday – see earlier blog.

_________________________________________

Wang, L. et al (2009) Simple, Rapid, Sensitive, and Versatile SWNT-Paper Sensor for Environmental Toxin Detection Competitive with ELISA Nano Letters,  9 (12), pp 4147–4152.

This morning about 100 people gathered to discuss Science, Technology and Innovation for Poverty Reduction.   The seminar was organised by POST, IOP and EPSRC was able to attract an interesting mix of policy makers, analysts, academics, and NGO practitioners.   More about this can be found on our main web pages.

The discussion and questions afterwards were interesting.   These centred around many issues, including: the role of the private sector, funding mechanisms for demand-led research, the merits of small versus large or high tech versus low tech, issues relating to the definition of the problem, bridging the gap between academics and practice and climate change implications.

Making short generic conclusions from a 2 hour session can be dangerous but it did seem that there was strong support for shaping the research agenda so that it included demand led issues of clear relevance and applicability to developing countries.   Further there was support for inclusive stakeholder involvement in projects that went from demand articulation through research to the actual development and delivery of new appropriate technologies.

Let us hope that policy makers really have taken these messages to heart and will take practical steps to operationalise the ideas.

According to a UN report in 2007 half the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people with water borne diseases.   The challenge to poor people comes from both availability and access to water.  For most poor people it is access to clean water that is the main issue.   Inevitably access is governed by economics – the ability to pay.   So the price point of water filter technology can be a crucial factor in adoption.

Water purification technologies have been around for many centuries so the main challenge for new technologies here is to introduce method of filtering water to a lower price point whilst at the same time providing an easy to use, safe, low maintenance, low energy system.   Yesterday Tata lauched the swach (Hindi for clean) water filter for a price of Rs30 per month – with enough capacity for the water needs of a family of five.   The product needs no electricity to work.

A further noteworthy feature is that the filter comprises both old and new technologies.   The cartridge filter is made from rice husk ash impregnated with nano-silver particles and has a capacity of 3000 litres.  Nano silver particles are now included in many products available to the consumer including items of clothing.   Yet questions over the effects of nano silver on the environment and human health are little known and disputed by scientists.   For example, Babu et al (2008) say “ nano-silver may cause potential damage to the genetic material and therefore the use of nano-silver in consumer products warrants a detail toxicological investigation to justify its safety”.

At the launch of the product the Chairman of Tata (Ratan Tata) acknowledged that water was the most basic of human needs.   Potential consumers also need to know that the products have been adequately tested and will not pose undue threats to human or environmental health.   It is hoped that Tata will publish their toxicity tests results in an open and transparent way.

_____________________________________________________________ 

K. Babu, M. Deepa, S. G. Shankar & S. Rai : Effect of Nano-Silver on Cell Division and Mitotic Chromosomes: A Prefatory Siren . The Internet Journal of Nanotechnology. 2008 Volume 2 Number 2

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.