The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 97

OCR for page 97
98 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA 25. Government Science Policy Makers’ and Research Funders’ Challenges to International Data Sharing: The Role of UNESCO Gretchen Kalonji UNESCO, France I am going to offer you a very brief overview of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). I will give some examples of current activities that have to do with the challenges of data access and sharing, particularly in the developing world, and then proceed with some ideas about new opportunities and new directions that we might pursue in hopes of getting feedback from you and even perhaps forging new collaborations. UNESCO was founded in 1949, and has an extraordinarily broad mandate covering education, science, and culture; communications and information; and ethics and philosophy. Such a broad mandate could be seen as a disadvantage, but within the context of the challenges that we are addressing at this meeting today, I hope to show you why this mandate may in fact be a very useful thing. The organization has some strong existing programs within the natural sciences sector, in particular, the well-known Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the International Hydrological Program. Both have been around for 50 or so years. We also have the ecological sciences with the Man and the Biosphere Program and the International Geosciences Program. What is perhaps less well known is our strong focus on indigenous knowledge and science policy. Science policy is one of our largest areas. We are headquartered in Paris, but have science offices in Jakarta, Nairobi, Montevideo, Venice, and Cairo. We have science officers in about 53 UNESCO offices around the world. It is a strong, geographically distributed network with people on the ground actually working on projects. UNESCO has a number of affiliated institutions, including our Category One Centers. The best known to this community is probably the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, but we also have an international hydrological education program in Delft, which is the world’s largest postgraduate freshwater program, with 80 percent of the students coming from the developing world. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, TWAS, is also a UNESCO institution. UNESCO also has what are called Category Two Centers, which are affiliated research centers established by our member states within a particular country and funded by that country. The country agrees that they will take on an international responsibility for a particular topic (e.g., water-based disasters, including one in Japan called ICHARM [International Center for Water Hazard]). We have about 22 of those in the sciences. Most are in water, and there are four new ones being established in Africa. Lastly, we have UNESCO Chairs around the world, which are appointed in a competitive process, and they are another wonderful resource for UNESCO. One of the things that we have that is particularly important for the challenges we are discussing today are the extraordinary and very well-known World Heritage sites. They are designated for either cultural value, natural value, or both. In addition to the World Heritage sites, we have the biosphere reserves and the newly emerging geoparks, which are very popular in some countries, particularly China. Those are areas where a combination of research and education and community economic development can take place in an integrated manner. We also have a network of affiliated partners. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research,1 1 See http://public.web.cern.ch/public/.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 99 was in fact created through UNESCO, and we continue to work very closely with them on issues such as digital access in Africa and physics education for teachers in Africa. The International Council for Science (ICSU) predates us but is a very close partner institution. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is another partner. We are working very closely with them on the International Year of Chemistry. One of the things that is perhaps less well understood about UNESCO is the very close relationships we have with our member states. We are unique within the United Nations specialized agencies and programs in that we actually work in the same building in Paris as the permanent delegations from the member states, which enables a very close working relationship on concrete projects. We also have a structure that is unique within the UN system. The national commissions for UNESCO bring civil society together to help set directions for the organization. These commissions are more or less active. Korea, for example, has 600 people working on education, science, and culture, and UNESCO has become a household word there. Lastly, we have perceived political neutrality. What that means is that we can convene discussions about topics that are quite thorny and have our 193 member states from around the world come together and discuss them in an amicable manner. On the other hand, we could have a more strategic focus. We need to have a better working system of all of these various parts and partners; we need to work better with other UN agencies, the private sector, and other sectors of society; and we need to enhance our visibility. Given these strengths and weaknesses, UNESCO’s science agenda should prioritize three things. First, we should help tackle problems that intrinsically require international cooperation and provide services for member states in that regard. Second, we should build on our original mandate. UNESCO was created with the slogan of building peace in the minds of men and women. We focus on those areas in which the science agenda interacts very closely with the issue of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. The broader agenda of peace is very dear to our hearts. I cite a couple of examples here. One is our work on transboundary aquifers, which I am going to talk about later in terms of large-scale data challenges. The other one is a fascinating effort called SESAME (International Center for Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East), which brings together scientists throughout the Middle East. It is a very important project in that it is putting together a synchrotron in Jordan and bringing together a scientific community from throughout the disciplines that can use this light source. It is an extraordinary example of scientists from a region with a huge amount of tension actually working together. Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, Turkish, and so on are all working on the same large-scale science project. Lastly, perhaps the bulk of our activity falls into serving the member states. We are international civil servants. We need to do the best job possible to help our member states reach their own goals for building scientific, technological, and innovation capacity in order to address poverty eradication and also provide the scientific basis for the solutions that are being proposed. Of course, we should continue to prioritize work in those areas where we have a lot of expertise, such as water. At UNESCO, we have a unique view regarding the science and the development agendas. We have a very people-centered approach—an approach that is based on empowerment, ethics, and respect for local knowledge, but also our conviction that the ability to contribute to global challenges and the opportunities to do so are in fact fundamental human rights. Since I joined UNESCO, we have melded our activities into a new strategic plan to be approved by our executive board next month. We have clustered our activities into two main areas, which I will talk about to show how the data challenges map onto some of these activities.

OCR for page 97
100 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA One area is strengthening science, technology, and innovation ecosystems. Societies have to have good policy, and we put an enormous amount of attention into that effort, particularly in Africa. Some of the symposium speakers have stressed that universities are really the heart of healthy technological innovation ecosystems. We have a big focus on higher education in the developing world, and on mobilizing the popular understanding and support for science, such as science for parliamentarians, science journalism, and working with science museums, as well as programs that enhance participation of indigenous people. To summarize, this cluster focuses on • Promoting science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies and access to knowledge; • Building capacities in basic sciences and engineering, including through strengthening higher education systems; and • Mobilizing broad-based societal participation in STI. The second cluster is mobilizing science for sustainability. This is an activity where large-scale scientific communities come together to set a collective scientific agenda. I want to discuss a couple of examples for how these large-scale data issues become the actual work of our UNESCO family. In freshwater, UNESCO has the International Hydrological Program, which is an intergovernmental effort. Each nation has its own committee that works on setting a collective agenda in the area of freshwater. Then together they develop a 6-year plan that they modify over time. This is just one of the examples in which a community of hydrologists working together is trying to assemble the kind of data that we need. An example of the success of their work is in the transboundary aquifer in parts of the world, including Africa. In this kind of an effort, UNESCO plays a coordinating and somewhat catalytic role, but basically there are multiples of hundreds of hydrologists around the world working on a common agenda. This is very important for avoiding conflict. Our connections with the UN system means that the scientists can work with the legal people in the United Nations and the diplomatic representatives to help forge the law in the general assembly concerning the equitable sharing of transboundary aquifers. In the current work plan for freshwater intergovernmental science programs, there is a big emphasis on education, sustainability, basic sciences, and climate change. There are also cross-cutting programs, such as networks of hydrologists who work on a regional and global basis sharing data for hydrological research. For example, there is a Nile River basin group that brings together the scientists who are dealing with the Nile River water issues. Another example of data sharing that is qualitatively different is the Man and the Biosphere Program. In this program, there are 564 sites in 109 countries. These sites are proposed by each country. There is an intergovernmental body that decides whether it can become a biosphere reserve. The interesting thing about the biosphere reserves is that, unlike the World Heritage sites, they involve a region that is protected because of biological diversity, but humans also live there. There is also a buffer zone surrounding the core region, and an extended zone. What that means is that activities such as mining, tourism, and farming are not forbidden. It gives scientists the opportunity to have some very vibrant case studies of the international balance between biodiversity conservation and economic development and livelihoods for local communities. Let me briefly touch upon some other areas. UNESCO’s science policy activities range from international, like the World Science Report and the World Engineering Report, to regional and country- based policy support. Twenty-two countries in Africa are working with us right now on their science policies.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 101 In the geological sciences, there are many examples in which the global change research community has been working together with a broader geological community, particularly the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), on getting access to and combining and sharing geological information from a variety of sources, including paper-based sources. It is a very exciting time now for the biodiversity community, too, and an intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been discussed. The biodiversity analog of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will undertake a very large-scale effort to promote access to data in the area of biodiversity. This is particularly exciting because of the newly created Nagoya Protocol for Access and Benefit Sharing. There are three qualitative areas to which I believe UNESCO contributes. First, it helps strengthen the capacity of member states to engage in data-intensive science. Second, it provides platforms for more effective community engagement. Lastly, UNESCO enhances awareness of the value of freely sharing scientific data. UNESCO could, if it is of interest to other partners to work with us, potentially host a meeting in Paris with our member states about the same topic, because they are the direct representatives to the government. They are the ones who need to hear the speeches like the one from Professor Yang about how wonderful it was for China to make data freely accessible. My second idea is to incorporate within our existing efforts on strengthening higher education a collaboration on developing capacity in data-intensive science in partner universities, especially in Africa. It should be very straightforward to integrate awareness-raising activities into some of our existing efforts, like our work with ICSU in preparation for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), or programs on science for parliamentarians, or our work on policy. Lastly, I am very excited about the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It seems very likely that UNESCO, together with the UN Environment Programme and maybe another agency, will be taking the lead as the institutional cohost for IPBES. I would be interested in brainstorming with individuals or organizations about this extraordinary opportunity.

OCR for page 97
102 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA 26. International Scientific Organizations: Views and Examples Bengt Gustafsson Uppsala University, Sweden ICSU Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science I will begin with some historical remarks. History provides an enormous data bank, which is also useful when we discuss the accessibility of data banks in contemporary research. By starting the discussion by referring to the development in Europe some four to five hundred years ago, we find scientists quite often keeping their truths between themselves, and even sending cryptographic messages to each other to prevent others from reading or understanding. The interesting counter-examples in the early seventeenth century were the new artisans, the small factories, and the people developing technology for mining. They were open-minded, and symbolized modernity. Openness was from the very beginning connected to the idea of progress—progress in arts and in building a new society. That was clear and strongly brought forward by Francis Bacon. Let me cite from an account of this by William Eamon in the Minerva article, From the Secrets of Nature to Public Knowledge: The Origins of the Concept of Openness in Science: “One of the lasting effects of the influence of Bacon’s philosophy was the establishment of a new model of the scientific research worker as one dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge for the public good. No longer was science to exist merely for the pleasure and illumination of a few minds; it was to be used for the advancement of commonwealth in general. This new demand required that more knowledge be shared, both within the scientific community and with society at large.”2 However, this was not the beginning; traditions along these lines existed before the Renaissance in Europe. But the ideas from Bacon’s time form the ideological tradition in which we scientists still live and work. This was also the spirit in which the Royal Society was formed in 1660, in fact, directly inspired by Bacon and his writing, and that also pursued the idea of transmitting publicly the findings by its Philosophical Transactions. There were many academies formed on this model. One was my own academy, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in the following century. The aim was to develop and spread knowledge in mathematics, natural sciences, economy, trade, useful arts, and manufacturing. There was also the idea of publishing descriptions of research achievements and creating a pregnant almanac containing advice for farmers and others, which was the second book printed in Swedish during more than 100 years. Only the Bible was read more than the Academy almanac. These ideas are important cornerstones in the foundation of all academies still and also for the International Council for Science (ICSU), which has about 100 national members, most of them academies, as well as some international scientific unions. Since the 1930s, ICSU has built its activity on the Principle of the Universality of Science (Universality Principle). This principle is fundamental to scientific progress. According to the 5th statute of ICSU, the principle involves freedom of movement, association, expression, and communication with scientists, as well as equitable access to data, information, and research materials. In pursuing its objectives for the rights and responsibilities of scientists, ICSU actively upholds this principle and, in so doing, opposes any discrimination on the basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sexual orientation, or age. ICSU states that it shall not accept disruption of its own activities by statements or reactions that intentionally or otherwise prevent the application of this principle. What can we do to uphold this principle in reality? ICSU has taken a number of steps for this, such as 2 Eamon, W (1985). From the Secrets of Nature to Public Knowledge: The Origins of the Concept of Openness in Science. Minerva 23, pp. 321-347.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 103 establishing committees, including its current Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science (CFRS). It is clear from the name of this committee that it has wide objectives, reflecting the view that the freedom advocated in the Universality Principle should also require that important responsibilities are taken by the scientific community relative to the society. In addition to this committee, ICSU has also taken other initiatives, which are directed more particularly toward securing data distribution and data accessibility, such as initiating a Strategic Coordinating Committee on Information and Data, looking at the interaction of the World Data System, the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), and other ICSU data- and information-related activities. ICSU has also cooperated with other organizations in forming an International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications. The CFRS discusses and takes stands against breaches of the Universality Principle. This is often done in collaboration with several other organizations, in particular, the members of ICSU. Another important collaborator is the International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies. The CFRS advises ICSU and ICSU members on related matters and helps arrange conferences and workshops on issues of responsibility and integrity of science. In doing so, it is important for the committee to also try to reach conclusions; after such workshops and conferences, conclusions are published as statements or advisory notes. Some recent examples, in addition to this workshop, is a workshop on access and benefit sharing of genetic resources held in Berne in June 2011, as well as one on private sector–academia interaction in November 2011 in Sigtuna, Sweden. Other workshops are planned on science policy advice, science and antiscience, and science in contemporary wars. All these workshops must be truly international and will have a focus on the balance of responsibility and freedom in science. Now, turning more particularly toward the question of access to scientific data, it must be stressed that the present situation, although improving, is far from satisfactory. As Paul Uhlir pointed out in a 2010 essay in the CODATA Data Science Journal, there are still “information gulags,” that is, large numbers of data resources in dark repositories; “intellectual straitjackets,” exclusive property protection of data when not needed; as well as “memory holes,” meaning that data once collected are often later destroyed or not conserved properly3. Existing data are most often not properly archived. Even quite important data are not maintained. Early National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data are examples of this. Let me now focus on my own field, astronomy, and provide several examples to show the progress in openness, with a more historical twist than that of the stimulating presentation by Željko Ivezić. A famous example of secrecy in science is the behavior of Galileo Galilei when he summarized his pioneering telescopic studies of the planet Saturn in the early 1610s. He did not interpret what he saw as a ring system, since there seemed to be two bodies on either side of the planet, or possibly “ears” on the planet. Yet, to claim his discovery in spite of the uncertain interpretation, he used an anagram (when deciphered indicating that the planet “had triple form”) as a form of commitment scheme. Not until several decades later, Christian Huygens correctly identified the ring system and announced its existence. Twice a century, Venus passes across the solar disk; the first detailed European observations of this phenomenon were made in 1639. James Gregory next proposed that a method could be developed to find the distance to the sun by timing exactly when Venus enters the solar disk and when it leaves the disk. If that is done from several places on Earth, the distance to the sun could be determined accurately. Edmond Halley proposed that astronomers should observe the Venus transits systematically next time, which happened to be after his death in 1742. Astronomers traveled to various parts of the world to measure the transits of Venus accurately. The first passage was in 1761. There were even measurements made from a 3 Uhlir, P. (2010, October 7). Information Gulags, Intellectual Straightjackets, and Memory Holes: Three Principles to Guide the Preservation of Scientific Data, CODATA. Data Science Journal, 9.

OCR for page 97
104 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA naval frigate while fighting pirates in the Mediterranean. The data were then assembled, shared among a network of astronomers, and made common. During the event 8 years later, astronomers were even better spread across the globe, including a British expedition on Tahiti where young James Cook was sent with his vessel to carry out the observations. His observations turned out to be rather poor. The excuse given by Cook was that the quadrant was robbed by a local chief and dismantled, and then only provisionally mended. On his way back, however, he discovered some new regions of the earth and reported this back to the admiralty, and they forgave him explicitly for his bad observations. The data were assembled and discussed among the astronomers, because they did not have the quality expected—the distance calculated by Jérôme Lalande in Paris was 153 million kilometers plus 1 million kilometers, which was not as good as they had hoped for. This very problem of coordinating all observations and minimizing the errors led to requirements for further openness. Another great international project from the following century was the great star map, Carte du Ciel, where 22 observatories joined in constructing rather similar telescopes, which together exposed 22,000 photographic glass plates with 4.6 million stars to be measured and printed. Many people, including non- expert women, were engaged in these activities. The whole result was published in 254 volumes. Again, the need to reach the goal required wide international collaboration, and to achieve optimal quality, openness was necessary. This experience that such ventures must be carried out in common, not only to make the heavy workload possible but also to achieve an optimal analysis of the data, demonstrated to the astronomy community the importance of sharing data. In contemporary astronomy we find this intimate collaboration taking place not only in discussing the data or sharing data but also in the very setting up of projects and determining how to analyze the data, how to release them, how to publicize them, and how to provide assistance so as to allow as many people as possible to contribute. At many of the largest international telescope facilities, financed by consortia with universities or states as members, nonmember astronomers may take part, and in some cases even be principal investigators (PIs) on projects. At least in principle, only excellence of the project proposal matters. Finally, in most cases, all data are made fully public after about 1 year. We can compare this situation with CERN, the European high-energy physics laboratory at Geneva. Nonmember state PIs work there and are playing important roles. CERN also runs an open fellowship program, to which scientists from all over the world are encouraged to come and team up with others. Some primary data are available from earlier experiments, but the recent ones, including the Large Hadron Collider experiments, will probably not be available publicly, just because they are so extensive. It is very hard to interpret them without being a member of the experimental group. In this case the enormous database of primary data may still be closed. Astronomers produced a data manifesto 5 years ago, which was later adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). It starts with this declaration: “We, the global community of astronomy, aspire to the following guidelines for managing astronomical data, believing that these guidelines would maximize the rate and cost effectiveness of science discovery.”4 Relevant guidelines include: “All significant tables and images published in journals should appear in astronomical data centers. All data obtained with publicly funded observatories should after proprietary periods be placed in public domain. In any new major astronomical construction project, the data processing, storage, migration and management requirements should be built in at an early stage in the project and budgeted along with other parts of the project. Astronomers in all countries should have the same access to astronomical data and information. Legacy astronomical data can be valuable and high-priority legacy data should be preserved 4 Available at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/manifesto.pdf

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 105 and stored in digital form in the data centers. IAU should work with other international organizations to achieve our common goals and learn from our colleagues in other fields.” Legacy astronomical data refers to older data. For instance, the glass plates mentioned above can be valuable and even high-priority legacy data, and they should therefore be preserved and stored in digital form in the data centers. Implementing such a manifesto is, of course, a major undertaking. One important initiative along these lines is the International Virtual Observatory Alliance, which is a worldwide organization of national members, which tries to make all astronomical observational data in various wavelength bands from various instruments available publicly. Several international astronomical data centers also play a great role in these endeavors. Such efforts to promote openness are not only for generosity. There have been studies showing that the open data policy of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has increased the number of publications based on HST data by a factor of 3, and that the earlier satellite telescope International Ultraviolet Explorer has increased the number of publications based on those data by a factor of 5. Another important issue on openness is open-access publications. Most astronomy papers can now be accessed freely via a preprint database or archive (Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System), and most major journals accept this way of prepublication. Let me also comment on the problem of overcoming the digital divide. There are several concrete examples of attempts within the scientific communities in particular fields to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing world in this respect. In astronomy, this bridging has partly been driven by the important fact that many of the best astronomical sites are situated in developing countries. The IAU has recently established an office for astronomy development in the developing countries at the South African Astronomical Observatory. The experience at the International Science Programs at Uppsala University, which has been actively bridging between university science departments in the developing world and in the Nordic countries for 50 years, shows that much can be done to diminish the digital divide with patience and consistency. No doubt, astronomy is a simple example with a long tradition of international collaboration and openness. Astronomers have realized that international collaboration is necessary, because the universe is large and rich in a multitude of various phenomena. Astronomy has limited economic impact and interest and few security restrictions. And it is mainly motivated by the interest of the public, which after all have to pay for it, and is why openness is necessary. So, astronomy is a simple case. Nevertheless, we may learn from it. There is a full chain of openness aspects in the scientific process to be considered. Can we be open in project planning, letting people team up whenever they want in the process? Can we be open in planning our big investments, building our telescopes, our accelerators, and our big projects? Can we be open in data analysis even before we have published the data, and open in data use too? I think so. Our science will benefit from openness in all these respects. We can learn from history that much of science is primarily not driven by scientists, but by society. However, almost all science is also science driven. There are good reasons, both from a scientific point of view and from a societal one, for promoting better science by being open. We also can learn from examples of several of the presentations during this symposium that individuals matter. By opening up internationally together, we actually can provide something even more important than pure science to the world—namely, demonstrate that together we can do very difficult things. Previously, we have mostly demonstrated this by way of war operations in big international collaborations, but here we can do it with more lasting value. Can we afford to continue losing more than half of all human capacity that would wish and be able to contribute important scientific achievements? Of course not. That is the basic motivation for all these endeavors.

OCR for page 97
106 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA Let me end with a quote that very appropriately is presented as an inscription on the Keck Building, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., where this meeting takes place: The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal what one recognized to be true. A. Einstein

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 107 27. Improving Data Access and Use for Sustainable Development in the South Daniel Schaffer Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, Italy I am speaking on behalf of TWAS, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World. I will explain what TWAS is, in brief, later in the presentation. At the outset, my talk will focus on both scientific information and scientific data. I will speak about key issues raised during this 2-day symposium, but with a TWAS twist and a particular focus on broad-based problems faced by scientists in the developing world who are seeking to access scientific information and scientific data. A world-class technical library can be found on the campus of the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, where TWAS is also located. When ICTP was created in the 1960s, the library was the centerpiece of the enterprise. Scientists from across the developing world would come to ICTP for the library, since it was unlikely they could get the information at institutions in their home countries. Of course, they would also come to participate in ICTP’s research and training activities. The library is still there, but scientists can now often access much of the library’s material from anywhere. The shift that has taken place at ICTP, I believe, is symbolic of the broad changes that have occurred in scientific information and data access across the world. My presentation will be framed by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. The members of the United Nations signed this declaration in 1947. To that end, there is a long-standing principled foundation to the quest for free and open access to information and data. As we all know, the number of scholarly and scientific publications are increasing at a rapid rate. It is estimated that there are 25,000 to 50,000 scholarly publications worldwide. Some 2.5 million scholarly articles are published each year. It is estimated that the output is doubling every 15 years. Scientific information is experiencing its greatest transformation since the advent of the printing press more than five centuries ago, and what is true of scientific information is equally true of scientific data. In 2010 it is estimated that the world generated 1,250 exabytes of data. If you placed that data inside a conventional compact disk (CD) and you stacked those CDs one atop another, the stack would rise 3.75 million kilometers, a distance equal to five times to the moon and back. We are generating additional information at such a rapid pace, this year alone we will be producing 1,800 exabytes of data. That means there would be several more stacks of CDs rising to incredible heights. Some of the problems in communications exist despite the enormous flow of information and data, and some exist because of the endless flow of information and data. For example, there are still some fundamental obstacles that stand in the way of the use, interpretation, and exchange of information and data. Many of these challenges have been mentioned over the course of the past day and a half. Some are universal. The data deluge itself presents an enormous data management problem. Security issues exist at both national and international levels. There are also privacy issues, particularly related to data on public health and medical research. What has not been mentioned extensively here is the reluctance to share data. As we all know, the international scientific community is based on competition and individual accomplishment. That often leads to reluctance on the part of scientists to share data. Some of the challenges are particular to the developing world. As we heard in the first session today, in poor countries, there is often poor Internet access, limited access to computers themselves, and low bandwidth. It is much less of a problem than it was 10 or even 5 years ago, but it still persists in parts of

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 137 Boldrin, Michele, and David Levine, The case against intellectual property (2002) 92(2) The American Economic Review 209. Borgman, Christine L., Disciplinary Differences in e-Research: An Information Perspective (paper presented at the International Conference on e-Social Science 2005, Manchester, UK, 2005). Boyle, James, Foreword: The opposite of property? (2003) 66(1&2) Law & Contemporary Problems 13. Buckey, David J., Data Accuracy and Quality, available at (accessed February 15, 2011). Christian, Gideon Emcee, Building a Sustainable Framework for Open Access to Research Data Through Information and Communication Technologies (International Development Research Center [IDRC] Canada, 2009) 22. Christie, Andrew F., et al., Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education, Science and Training, 2003) 48. Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age, Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2009) 4, 40, 68. Committee on National Statistics, Issues and recommendations, in Stephen E. Fienberg, Margaret E. Martin, and Miron L. Straf (eds.), Sharing Research Data (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1985) 24, 25. Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation (2007) 1, available at (accessed February 28, 2010). Czarnitzki, Dirk, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Katrin Hussinger, Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research (2009) 38 Research Policy 33. David, Paul A., Can “open science” be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? (2004) 129 (March) Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 3. Easter, Michele M., Arlene M. Davis, and Gail E. Henderson, Confidentiality: More than a linkage file and a locked drawer (2004) 26(2) IRB: Ethics and Human Research 14. Ebber, Nicole, Creative Commons Licenses: New Ways of Granting and Utilizing Access to Information (paper presented at the 16th BOBCATSSS Symposium 2008 – Providing Access to Information for Everyone, Zadar, Croatia, January 28–30). Eipstein, Earl F., Gary J. Hunter, and Aggrey Agumya, Liability insurance and the use of geographical information (1998) 12(3) Int. J. Geographical Information Science 203, 210.

OCR for page 97
138 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA Elliot, Mark, Kingsley Purdam, and Duncan Smith, Confidential Data Access Using Grid Computing: An Outline of the Issues and Possible Solutions (paper presented at the International Conference on e- Social Science 2005, Manchester Conference Center, June 22–24, 2005). Fink, Anne Sofia, The role of the researcher in the qualitative research process. A potential barrier to archiving qualitative data (2000) 1(3) Forum: Qualitative Social Research, available at (accessed July 2, 2011). Fishbein, Estelle A., Ownership of research data (1991) 66(3) Academic Medicine 129. Fitzgerald, Anne, Sharing Environmental Data: The Role of an Information Policy Framework and Copyright Licensing (2009), available at (accessed June 20, 2011). Fitzgerald, Anne, Brian Fitzgerald, and Kylie Pappalardo, The future of data policy, in Tony Hey, Stewart Tansley, and Kristin Tolle (eds.), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery (Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, 2009) 201. Fitzgerald, Anne, Neale Hooper, and Brian Fitzgerald, Enabling open access to public sector information with Creative Commons licenses – The Australian experience, in Access to Public Sector Information : Law, Technology and Policy (Sydney University Press, 2010). Fitzgerald, Anne, and Kylie Pappalardo, Building the Infrastructure for Data Access and Reuse in Collaborative Research: An Analysis of the Legal Context (2007). Fitzgerald, Anne, Kylie Papalardo, and Anthony Austin, Legal implications surrounding data access, sharing and reuse, in Brian Fitzgerald (ed.), Legal Framework for e-Research (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2008) 161. Fitzgerald, Brian, Anne Fitzgerald, Professor Mark Perry, Scott Kiel-Chisholm, Erin Driscoll, Dilan Thampapillai, Jessica Coates, Creating a legal framework for copyright management of open access within the Australian academic and research sector, in Brian Fitzgerald (ed.), Legal Framework for e- Research (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2008) 283. Fry, Jenny, Ralph Schroeder, and Matthijs des Besten, Open science in e-Science: Contingency or policy? (2009) 65(1) Journal of Documentation 7. Glinos, Kostas, Report of the High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data: Riding the Wave: How Europe Can Gain From the Rising Tide of Scientific Data – A Vision for 2030 (European Commission, 2010). Godard, Beatrice, et al., Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: Informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective, (2003) 11(Suppl 2) European Journal of Human Genetics S91. Greenleaf, Graham, Unlocking IP to Stimulate Australian Innovation: An Issues Paper (University of New South Wales, 2008). Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies 2002, Guidelines III, para.1.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 139 Harnad, Stevan, Brazilian Bill to Mandate OA (2007), available at (accessed March 1, 2010). Hendrick, Terry Elizabeth, Justifications for and obstacles to data sharing, in Stephen E. Fienberg, Margaret E. Martin, and Miron L. Straf (eds.), Sharing Research Data (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1985) 135. Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom, Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: Information as a common-pool resource (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 112. Hey, Tony, and Anne E. Trefethen, Cyberinfrastructure for e-Science (2005) 308 Science Mag 818. Hey, Tony, Stewart Tansley, and Kristin Tolle (eds.), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery (Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, 2009). Hilgartner, Stephen, and Sherry I. Brandt-Rauf, Data access, ownership, and control: Toward empirical studies of access practices' (1994) 15 Science Communication 356. International Seminar on Open Access for Developing Countries, Salvador Declaration on Open Access: The Developing World Perspective (2005), available at (accessed February 26, 2010). Jia, Hawk, China Unveils Plans to Boost Scientific Data Sharing (2006), available at (accessed March 1, 2010). Kirsop, Barbara, and Leslie Chan, Transforming access to research literature for developing countries (2005) 31(4) Serials Review 247. Kuchma, Iryna, Berlin 4: International Conference on Open Access (2006) 24, available at (accessed March 1, 2010). Lunshof, Jeantine E., et al., From genetic privacy to open consent (2008) 9 Nature Reviews Genetics 407. Manyika, James, et al., Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity (McKinsey Global Institute, 2011) 11, 119. Moskovkin, V. M., Institutional policies for open access to the results of scientific research (2008) 35(6) Scientific and Technical Information Processing 269. National Research Council Committee on National Statistics, Improving Access to and Confidentiality of Research Data: Report of a Workshop (??National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000) 29, 32. Nelson, Michael L., Data-driven science: A new paradigm? (2009) 44(4) Educause 6. OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data – Data Quality Principle.

OCR for page 97
140 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA Open Access to Knowledge (OAK) Law Project: Legal Protocols for Copyright Management: Facilitating Open Access to Research at the National and International Levels, available at (accessed January 11, 2010) 58. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Declaration on Access to Research Data From Public Funding (2004), available at (accessed February 25, 2010). Panel on Data Access for Research Purposes, Expanding Access to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Opportunities (National Research Council, 2005) 3, 4. Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, Open access and (German) copyright, in Open Access: Opportunities and Challenges – A Handbook (UNESCO, 2008) 50. Philips, Jennifer L., Information liability: The possible chilling effect of tort claims against producers of geographic information systems data (1999) 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 749. Privacy Protection Study Commission (USA), Personal Privacy in an Information Society: The Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission (1977). Privacy, Wikipedia, available at (accessed June 29, 2010). Rabow, Ingegerd, Open access in Sweden: Recent development (2008) (1) Sciecom Info, available at (accessed March 1, 2010). Rajan, Mira T. Sundara, Moral Rights and Copyright Harmonization: Prospects for an International Moral Right? (2002) (paper presented at the 17th BILETA Annual Conference), available at http://www.bileta.ac.uk/02papers/sundarajan.html. Rambo, Neil, E-science and biomedical libraries (2009) 97(3) J Med Libr Assoc 160. Reichman, Jerome H., and Tracy Lewis, Using liability rules to stimulate local innovation in developing countries: Application to traditional knowledge, in Keith Eugene Maskus and Jerome H. Reichman (eds.), International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 340. Research Councils UK, Open Access to Research Outputs: Final Report to RCUK (2008) 21, available at (accessed March 11, 2010). Rigamonti, Cyrill P., Deconstructing moral rights (2006) 47(2) Harvard International Law Journal 360. Rose, Carol M., Romans, roads, and romantic creators: Traditions of public property in the information age (2003) 66 Law & Contemporary Problems 90. Royal Society (United Kingdom), Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (2003) 21, available at (accessed February 26, 2010)

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 141 Salokannel, Marjut, Global Public Goods and Private Rights: Scientific Research and Intellectual Property Rights (2003) 11, available at (accessed October 12, 2010). Sampat, Bhaven N., Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole (2006) 35 Research Policy 784. Samuelson, Pamela, Mapping the digital public domain: Threats and opportunities (2003) 66(1 and 2) Law & Contemporary Problems 170. Schaffer, Daniel, Free Data has Great Value, But Challenges Remain (2011), available at (accessed June 28, 2011). Schroder, Peter, Towards International Guidelines for Access to Research Data From Public Funding (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2004). Science and Technology Committee, Science and Technology – Tenth Report (U.K. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, 2004). Shulenburger, David, Scholarly communications is not toxic waste: Lessons learned (prepared for the Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities Conference, Max Planck Society, Harnack Haus, Berlin, October 2003) 4, available at (accessed October 9, 2010). Schwartz, Charles A., Reassessing prospects for the open access movement (2005) (November) College & Research Libraries 491. Seifert, Jeffrey W., CRS Report for Congress: Data Mining and Homeland Security: An Overview (Congressional Research Service, 2007) CRS-22. Story, Ian, Intellectual property and computer software: A battle of competing use and access visions for countries of the south (2004) 12; Software, available at (accessed May 27, 2010). Suber, Peter, Pakistani Journals to be Available for Worldwide Electronic Access through Online Portal (2007), available at (accessed March 1, 2010). ——, Spain is Funding OA Repositories (2007), available at (accessed March 1, 2010). Suzor, Nicolas, Transformative Use of Copyright Material (Master’s thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2006). Swan, Alma, Open access and the progress of science (2007) 95(May-June) American Scientist 200.

OCR for page 97
142 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA Thursby, Jerry G., Richard Jensen, and Marie G. Thursby, Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities (2001) 26 Journal of Technology Transfer 59. Treaty on Access to Knowledge (2005), available at (accessed March 10, 2010). Trosow, Samuel E., Copyright Protection for Federally Funded Research: Necessary Incentive or Double Subsidy? (2003) 18, available at (accessed September 12, 2010). Uhlir, Paul, and Peter Schroder, Open data for global science, in Brian Fitzgerald (ed.), Legal Framework for e-Research (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2008) 188, 209, 216–217. UNESCO, Kronberg Declaration on the Future of Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing (2007), available at (accessed February 26, 2007). Unsworth, John, et al., Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences (2006) 29, 30. Wang, Linda, Use of images for commercial purposes: Copyright issues under Malaysian laws, in Barbara Hoffman (ed.), Exploiting Images and Image Collections in the New Media: Gold Mine or Legal Minefield? (Kluwer Law International, London, 1999) 86. Woods, Stephanie, Creative Commons – A useful development in the New Zealand copyright sphere? (2008) 14 Canterbury Law Review 38.

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 143 33. DISCUSSION BY THE WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANT: My question is addressed to Mr. Schaffer, but I invite everybody on the panel to comment and express their point of view. About a year ago, I read a publication of science metrics, which measures the level of scientific activity in the world, and there were comparisons of different countries. China and Turkey, which you mentioned, show a really high level of scientific activity, but what struck me more was Iran and the huge spike in scientific activities there, especially related to fundamental and natural sciences. Basically, I invite you to comment on this trend related to data-sharing policies and the global nature of data-sharing policies, open data to scientific and research information, and maybe facilitating a dialogue. I am not sure if there are any partnerships between your organizations and Islamic countries apart from Egypt, which was mentioned. I would appreciate your views. MR. SCHAFFER: I will speak on behalf of the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) and others can join. The roots of TWAS and its identity lie in its efforts to build scientific capacity. Much of the work of TWAS over the course of its existence has been devoted to investments and partnerships for capacity building. Most of that has been in training and research. As the capacity of various countries improved, we have moved increasingly toward South-South cooperation. In some areas, we see some lead countries, for example, China in Asia, South Africa in Africa, and Brazil in South America. Our hope is that we can develop South-South cooperation networks, not just in publication output but also in projects that have impact on the ground, and do that by allowing the advancing countries in the South to take the lead in South-South partnerships. One of the critical questions or issues that TWAS is examining is whether countries like China, Brazil, and India will find greater reason to ally with the United States and Europe than with other countries in the developing world. It is that kind of dynamic that is now in play for scientific projects. DR. RUMBLE: I would like to add that if you look at the demographics of the northern African countries all the way into Pakistan, the percentage of people who are under 25 and even under 15 is really startling compared to societies such as ours. I think organizations like TWAS and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have a unique opportunity to affect the young generation through science. There is tremendous opportunity for this generation to get turned on to science and see what it can do for them individually, as well as for the institutions that they cherish and their countries. I certainly hope that catches on. MR. SCHAFFER: There are limits to what organizations like TWAS and UNESCO can do. Some of the discussion this morning was about politics. There are political issues that go beyond science education and training. Still, we can argue that, in some ways, the investments in science can set the stage. Education can set the stage for political change. DR. GRIFFIN: I sponsored three workshops on building a digital library in the Middle East region. One was in 2006 at the New Alexandria Library; one in Rabat, Morocco, in 2007; and another one here in Washington, D.C., on January 24 and 25, 2011. We need to keep in mind when we are talking about individual countries in different parts of the world that there are shared cultural identities that go across national and political boundaries. The general approaches, feelings, and values regarding the way in which they receive the world and the way in which they receive the world through the scientific method is somewhat different in each of these cultures. Therefore, more communication mechanisms need to be established as an intermediate step to what we might be trying to get in the long term. PARTICIPANT: I wanted to get to that issue of incentives that were raised in a couple of talks. It is an important issue, especially because many organizations have been talking about scientific publications and open-access publications. Some of you may remember that maybe a decade or so ago, people were encouraged to do interdisciplinary work, but many people who published in interdisciplinary journals did

OCR for page 97
144 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA not get tenure and they did not get promoted. People did not like it. I have not heard too much discussion about how to change the incentive structures so that we do not have these problems with young people. DR. GUSTAFSSON: Traditionally we have had the habit of saying that when writing a paper or proposal, you should be able to put your work into a more general framework. It is still disciplinary and is still only related to science itself, but it has a context. I think we can say that any scientist who is worth supporting should be able to put his or her work into a more general framework related to the world today. It is hard to make it an absolute condition, but I think it could be a standard approach. I think research-funding agencies could put more emphasis on these things. PARTICIPANT: I would like to thank Bengt Gustafsson for his opening remarks emphasizing the importance of free travel, communication, and collaboration as an element of international science. The American Physical Society (APS) has been very active in this regard. The APS has an Office of International Affairs and runs the Forum on International Physics, which follows up on international issues. I would like to share with you one experience I had as chair of the forum in 2007. You may remember that in 2007 the American Chemical Society (ACS) decided on its own that it had to expel all Iranian members. They misinterpreted some of the sanctions rules, which in fact specifically allow the exchange of open scientific literature among members around the world without being subject to sanctions, but nevertheless they expelled them. The APS, especially the Forum on International Physics, took major action and wrote many letters protesting this. As a result, the ACS backed down and reinstated the Iranians. The interesting thing is that shortly after this event, the University and College Union of the United Kingdom decided to institute a boycott against Israeli academics. We took action against that as well. I took the opportunity to inform many colleagues and friends I had in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East of what was going on. I said if you have any comments or thoughts about this, why not write to the University and College Union and tell them what you think. I will read to you two messages that came from friends in the Middle East. The first one was from Egypt and said, “I regard the collective punishment of Israeli scientists to be unfair. In spite of the collective punishment practice by the Israeli government against Palestinians, scientists should not be punished just because of their nationality.” The second note was even more dramatic, from a very prominent Iranian scientist, president of the Iranian Physical Society and deputy minister of science in Iran, who said, “Let me express my sincere opposition to the boycott of Israeli academics that is being considered by the University and College Union. As a scientist living in the Middle East, I appreciate the move of your organization to express its unhappiness about the restrictions being made by Israeli forces on Palestinian students and academics. However, the decision made by your organization is violating the same principles that you are trying to defend. It is hard to accept that the Israeli academics are proponents of such restrictions.” These examples show that as we engage in collaborations and communications with our colleagues abroad, we become aware of incidents like this (human rights violations, academic freedom violations), and we can take action using our connections abroad to influence it. DR. GUSTAFSSON: I certainly agree. I think you will also agree that this experience shows that this kind of activity is necessary, but persistence is also needed. In other words, a continuous effort must be made here. There is another point I also want to stress. We can hear other people claiming that this defense of universality is just in the scientific self-interest. I think that is not right, because we all believe that the efforts made would give more reward back to society. DR. KAHN: It is not just about data. Data are the progeny of scientific activity, and it is everything that goes into that. Something that strikes me as obvious that has hardly been spoken about is the continuing divide between the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences, which is as important for data and progress of sciences. That is one observation. The other one, which has not really come up in the

OCR for page 97
PART FIVE: HOW TO IMPROVE DATA ACCESS AND USE 145 discussions very much, is that when we talk about scientific collaboration in the global context, it tends to be North-South rather than South-South. It is a continuing tragedy and very easy to establish. You simply go to a Web of Science94 and do your analysis and you will see. The point I am making is that the South tends to collaborate first with the North rather than with the South. Changing that is certainly one of the most important challenges we have ahead of us. DR. INYANG: Yes. I think this is one of the toughest things to change in Africa. This is precisely why I mentioned it in my presentation. There will not be movement away from that circumstance and there will not be South-South collaboration unless there is a continental-level institution to promote and facilitate South-South in Africa. For example, if we have solicitations that say we would like a university from South Africa to collaborate with a university in Senegal, it is very difficult to get that to happen, because there are many constraints like language, university systems, and so on. Also, most of the universities do not have the structure that is common in the United States. This is a big issue, and the proposed African science foundation would help in this area. Moreover, most international agencies do not have a formal research solicitation program that is specifically targeting African scientists. UNESCO is trying. Sometimes they have an African-wide research solicitation, but that pales in comparison to the enormity of issues and problems that Africa needs to confront. The aid given by the European Union and the U.S. Agency for International Development and others should at least have considered the creation of such an entity, because unless there is an entity like that, most of the people who have Ph.D.’s in Africa do not really have a place to go. Some of them migrate into government agencies, where the requirements that they use their intellect to do things are secondary to political patronage. PARTICIPANT: We just heard a series of approaches from different sectors of the scientific community. What I would like everybody to comment on is whether they feel that the funding and the commitment of the people who could provide funding is there, or whether these are wonderful programs, wonderful approaches, and wonderful ideas, but we are so lacking in funding that progress is going to be significantly hindered. MR. SCHAFFER: Actually, I did not mention in the presentation that TWAS has been very fortunate, because it has had base funding provided by the Italian government with very little oversight of direction. Italy basically has given TWAS core funding since its inception and has allowed it the freedom to do what it thought needed to be done to accomplish or advance its goals. Being freed from looking for core funding has enabled TWAS to take risks, explore different avenues and different opportunities knowing that its core funding and its core staff would be financially protected. I think that has made a huge difference, and it is an example in a sense of North-South cooperation at a reasonable level of effectiveness. A major part of the reason, I think, has been the funding, and then the freedom to move on the part of the organization that has received the funding. DR. GRIFFIN: I can only speak from the experience of the digital libraries initiatives. We found that some of the most valuable long-term outcomes were those associated with process rather than simply individual basic research grants. For example, we fund working groups that develop positions on issues relevant to information management. I think that the next development that is going to have a significant effect on the way in which we think about scientific endeavor are new document-publication models. When the publication model changes from papers to actively formatted documents, when we have links to datasets and other publications, when other people can use the same dataset and see if they can replicate our experiments, we are going to have an altogether different perspective on how we do science collectively. DR. INYANG: I think one of the things that can be done is to create continental support systems, because 94 Available at http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/

OCR for page 97
146 THE CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA while South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, and perhaps Nigeria can have the support systems to help themselves, there are many other countries that are just too poor to support themselves. They do not necessarily see investment in science as something important.

OCR for page 97
APPENDIXES 147