BRINGING SCIENCE TO THE PEOPLE

For years, the term Research and Development has been a major part of any conversation that seeks development, growth and positive impact. In any room where policy is discussed, it most certainly comes up. Ironically, very little resources are allocated to R&D all across board. In Europe, only 2% of GDP is allocated to R&D whiles in Africa, it receives only 0.5% allocation at best. We are beyond aware of the need for constant creative destruction as Joseph Schumpeter theorized that innovation and technological change will lead to the destruction of existing economic structures, such as industries, firms, and jobs making way for the establishment of better systems. A research by McKinsey showed that most top firms like Jeffrey Skilling’s Enron and Worldcom collapsed due to the lack of creative destruction. The research further posited that many top companies as we know it today will collapse in 10–15 years tops due to the lack of creative destruction. This creative destruction as we have come to understand however lends itself majorly to R&D. The question then poses: WHY THEN IS INVESTMENT IN R&D SO LITTLE?

There are several answers that can be generated here. One of the most sited answers is, perhaps it is because many innovations have failed to have the impact we expected them to have and our best explanation as to this have been loosely translated from the innovation diffusion theory of E.M. Rogers. The theme for the 2023 ELLS Conference Conference hosted at the University of Hohenheim was The Power of Science. It united 12 universities and individuals from countries around the world, spanning from Sweden to Australia, the event fostered connections among international students and researchers in science. Apparently, one of the shared concerns among scientists at the conference this year was the impact of R&D and from this concern was birthed the theme: Bringing Science to the people.

In the discussion of this theme was the question, how we can bring science to the people? From my little corner where I sat, I murmured to myself how this is an important question but is being asked without the other set of questions that must come with it. To elicit my point, it is understandable why we have relatively so little data on the impact of projects, plans, programs that attempt to implement innovations derived from research. Most of these projects or programs are designed and implemented executed without the option for Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation. To a greater degree, project managers say that the major hindrance or reason has been the political climate surrounding projects. We therefore are unable to ascertain the true measure of the impact of a project let alone to understand why there was such an impact. It therefore made the scientists in that room who were giving generic answers to the question above like planning awareness campaigns, podcasts, TV shows, more open days at universities and communities appear so “crazy” to me. I do not insinuate in any way that attempts to bring science to the people should therefore be disregarded. On the contrary, I strongly believe we should bring science to the people. In agriculture for example, research shows that when the rate of return to Extension services is raised to match the rate of return to R&D, there is a high positive impact on the farmer’s yield and has helped farmers in Asia to close their yield gaps. So what am I therefore saying and what is my objection here?

What I am saying here is that the scientists in this room should have paused for a minute to assess the importance of CONTEXT in answering this question as we know science is in simple terms the made or theorized concept, the observation and presentation of it to others and how it is used. By this context, when asked how we can bring science to the people, we can therefore ask these:

◦ What science?

◦ When we say people, which people do we refer to?

◦ How do we present this science to them? and

◦ Why must we present, bring or introduce it to them?

WHAT SCIENCE?

There are numerous fields of science. I realized over the years that whenever scientists of a specific discipline sit together in a room and are discussing science, they are usually unconsciously biased to focus on their fields as though they are the only sciences. So, a room full of life scientists speak with the ideas orbiting around issues endemic to their engineering, environmental, economic and agricultural concerns forgetting the social sciences which plays a fundamental role in the constructivism of most of these concerns in the first place. A medical scientist would obviously think about medical knowledge and all sciences directly connected to it but what about the other sciences of humanities like philosophy, history, ethics and religion which have and can play key roles in the institutionalization of medical sciences in the first place (Example, some African tribes would rather consult their bones and skulls to heal a child than take them to a hospital and as such refuse all medical innovations introduced to them). So again, when we talk about bringing science to the people, I ask, What science? Because if we understand that there are different fields of science out there and also that almost anything can be “scientified” or attuned to the scientific process, then we will understand that the context for the science we are trying to present to the people is important. Knowing what science is being presented should go directly into answering the next question which is:

WHEN WE SAY PEOPLE, WHICH PEOPLE DO WE REFER TO?

We can begin to look at this first categorically. The big three categories are by Gender or Sex, Age group, and Race. Other categorizations can be by social status, occupation and even by something as ambiguous as sexual orientation. I am sure you can already see where I am headed with this. Lets simply try to do a categorical mapping here assuming (ceteris paribus) that each category is susceptible to different influences. So lets say we want to introduce a simple mobile SMS for a Health campaign about effective ways to avoid malaria (the Science). Now imagine sending the same text message to a Man and a woman advising they sleep in treated mosquito nets. What would be degree of responsiveness by the two. A woman is more likely to respond accordingly to the given directives than a man. We could clearly see this at play during the COVID-19 pandemic. Take the same message and send it to a male and female but say both are 17 years of age. You would notice the degree of responsiveness to given instructions would not be significantly different. Take the same text message and pass unto a man and woman but of different social classes and different occupations. You can imagine the resulting responsiveness been yet again different. With this, we can understand that the science we are attempting to bring must be framed and wreathed specifically for the chosen category of people we have targeted.

HOW DO WE PRESENT THE SCIENCE TO THEM?

So now we know what science we want to bring and to which people. We must proceed to answer how to this transmission will be done. This can be as complicated as designing a new technology to something as simple as a policy or statement reframes that induce a behavioral nudge. From the analogy we cited above, a campaign message sent to an educated man in the urban city must not be the same sent to an uneducated man in a rural town and perhaps the means must not even be the same (not through mobile texts but maybe through a community center announcement). A policy telling farmers to use sustainable practices for farming will mean something to an urban farmer and may likely adopt the proposed practices (for reasons of available labor, capital means, available technology, technical expertise etc) but the rural farmer will most likely not understand this or may simply ignore the practices as the science is presented in a way that sounds unfavorable to them or even if is favorable, they feel wrongfully targeted since they do not have the means to execute such a policy. In recent years, people have looked farther from physical means of transmission to other intangible means. For example, Nudging has become an area of key interest to assessing how information or technology can be presented in a way that induces desired outcomes or impacts (must be ethically sound of course). There is the use of behavioral tactics like Framing, Cognitive Easing approaches and others. There is certainly some tools which can help us present our chosen science to our chosen people effectively and efficiently.

WHY WE MUST PRESENT, BRING OR INTRODUCE THE SCIENCE TO THE PEOPLE?

First, I might be tempted to say it is our moral and ethical responsibility as scientists to bring our knowledge, discoveries and solutions to the people. But do not let my Carl Jung inspired viewpoint be the deciding factor here as there are several factors that transcends beyond ethos. To list a few of these factors are;

• To inspire and cause a paradigm shift away from unsustainable activities, systems and models. As George Lackoff posited, discrediting a model without presenting an alternative that works only ends up reinforcing the model instead.
• To give the said people a greater odds at maximally utilizing opportunities or at managing challenges and risks.
• To level the playing field for growth across board for all people and not just for some “privileged few”.- Mind you, I have nothing against competitive advantages nor Meritocracy but I believe when we have the chance to equip others as we are cognitively or capacity-wise, it is our moral responsibility to do so.
• To rediscover the social sense of belonging and communityship and triggering the commitment instincts of people to play their roles in building a functional society.
• To conscientize the people how they are being “oppressed “ and or are being “oppressors”- Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire explains this point more
• To build the capacity and beings of the selected people so they can move from the critical deprivation zone- Inspired by Amartya Sen’s work. Critical Deprivation Zone can be understood from Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics.
• To create a communication Sphere where knowledge and Ideas exchange are globalized and equally accessible- Inspired by the work of Habermas
• To help the selected people understand that pushing for sustainability in their respective fields of interest would mean moving away from the classic metaphors we live by and that we may even have to be growth agnostic at certain points.

There are a lot more that can be discussed but I am more than sure the point I sought to make has been made. I am without doubt open to other perspectives and ideas concerning this question of how science can be brought to the people. Perhaps these ideas can help you plan a more effective and efficient approach for any future R&D project you become a part of or probably not. Regardless, I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Until then, enjoy the read!