Connect with us

Features

Science and Technology and national development

Published

on

Image courtesy UN Department Economic and Social Affairs

Science and Technology in human civilization and industrial revolution

by Emeritus Professor Ranjith Senaratne
Former Chairman, National Science Foundation

Homo erectus, which originated about two million years ago, discovered fire about one million years after their origin. However, it came into habitual use only about 400,000 years ago, which provided warmth, lighting and protection against wild animals and enabled the making of more advanced hunting tools and the preparation of healthy and nutritious food. The resulting improved nutrition promoted rapid brain development and Homo erectus gradually evolved into Homo sapiens around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. Hence, fire was a critical and decisive technology which enabled human evolution from the Stone Age (around 2.6 million years to around 3300 BC) to the Bronze Age (around 3300 BC to 1200 BC) and then to the Iron Age (around 1200 BC to 550 BC).

Humans have gone through four ages of civilization, namely the Hunter and Gatherer Age, Agriculture Age, Industrial Age and the present Information Age or Knowledge Worker Age. Technological advances have contributed to those transformations and there has been a phenomenal increase of efficiency and productivity when transforming from one Age to another. A new set of skills and new knowledge were required as earlier ones became obsolete with the progression from one Age to another. Different countries, different sectors within a country, different industries within a sector and different enterprises within an industry, could be at different levels on the continuum, depending on the type of technology used. When we look at the industrial revolution (IR), it has progressed from the 1st IR in the 18th century to the 4th IR in the 21st century. This shows the rapidity of technological advances and pace of innovation. Each IR brought significant changes to society, including workforce transformations, economic growth, and societal restructuring

The 1st IR marked the transition from a handicraft economy to a manufacturing economy characterized by mechanized production through the utilization of energy sources, such as coal and steam-power, and the emergence of factories, such as weaving mills and ironworks for mass production. The 2nd IR occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century and was marked by the use of electricity and the invention of the assembly line, both of which resulted in a significant increase in mass production. Henry Ford, for example, successfully used the assembly line in producing his automobile assembly facility. In addition, gas and oil also became important sources of energy during this era. In the 3rd IR, the emergence of electronics and automation technologies significantly impacted manufacturing and information processing, thereby paving the way for the development of computers and transistors. In addition, nuclear power also became an important source of energy. The 4th IR is the integration of cyber-physical systems, the internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), block chain, virtual reality and advanced robotics, blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. Now some are even talking about the Fifth Industrial Revolution which incorporates concepts such as “sustainability”, “human-centeredness”, and “concern for the environment”, thereby striking a right balance between robotization and humans and blending the power of smart, precise and accurate machinery with human creativity and ingenuity. However, some argue that it is a mere extension of the 4th IR.

However, we have to recognize that some of the problems we face today are due to unintended consequences of S&T. For example, the Green Revolution that was aimed at increasing food production in the world has unintentionally caused serious environmental issues and health hazards. Similarly, industrial developments in the 19th century have contributed to climate change which is now wreaking havoc in the world. Thus, when we apply science to address one problem, it can create a number of unintended consequences and complicated problems. This should be born in mind and sustainability science should be used when addressing real-world issues.

Technology and economic development: Lessons from other countries

According to the UNDP (1983), one quarter of humankind – some 1.1 billion people inhabiting two-fifths of the land area of the Earth controlled 80% of the world’s resources while 3.6 billion people inhabiting three-fifths of the globe controlled only 20% of the global resources. Therefore, Abdus Salam, founding President of The Third World Academy of Sciences, Trieste, Italy, in 1988, said that the globe is inhabited by two distinct types of economies, called developed and developing, which basically stemmed from their differing mastery and utilization of present-day science and technology

If we look at the export portfolio of Sri Lanka, garments (45%), tea (20%) and rubber (15%) collectively account for about 80% of the total exports of which the high-tech exports accounts for only about 1.5% as against 15% in India, 26% in Thailand, 36% in Korea, 43% in Vietnam and 56% in Singapore. Similarly, the digital economy of Sri Lanka contributes less than 5% to the national GDP as opposed to 13% in Thailand, 20% in India and over 20% in Malaysia. This shows the abysmally low level of adoption of technology in the manufacturing process in Sri Lanka, which is not hard to understand given the low level of funding for R&D; it is only around 0.1% of the GDP as against around 0.15% in Myanmar, 0.3% in Nepal, 0.8% in India, 1.2% in Thailand, 4% in Korea and 4.2% in Israel. Consequently, many local industries in Sri Lanka still operate at very low level, i.e. 2nd IR, thus lagging behind many countries even in Asia. This issue has already been highlighted by Dr. W.A. Wijewardena, former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, through the print media.

Japan was devastated in 1945 during the 2nd World War, but emerged as the second largest technological powerhouse in the world by 1965. Today Japan with only 0.25% land area and 1.5% of the population in the world has become the fourth strongest economy on this planet and is second only to the USA, China and Germany. Israel, with an annual precipitation of about 400 mm, produces the highest milk yield in the world, i.e. over 30 litres/cow/day whereas Sri Lanka, blessed with an annual rainfall ranging from 1750 to over 2500 mm, still produces only 2-4 litres/cow/day. Another such example is the Netherlands, which is only about 60% of the size of Sri Lanka, but is the third largest exporter of agricultural produce in the world, whereas Sri Lanka, with a year-round favourable climate for agriculture, imports food commodities to the value of about $ 2 billion annually. Needless to add that the countries referred to above have a strong S&T base. While several factors, including incoherent and inconsistent national policies, adhocism and short-termism in Sri Lanka, have contributed to it, low investment in R&D in the past has been a major contributory factor.

Against this background, it is heartening to see that the new government has recognized the overriding importance of S&T for national development and has formulated a comprehensive Science and Technology Policy Framework, titled “Quantum Leap,” including several strategic interventions for public consultation. Moreover, the government has reestablished the Ministry of Science and Technology and has pledged to substantially increase the allocation for R&D in the 2025 Budget. If the interventions proposed in the policy framework are successfully implemented, it would afford a huge boost to the national economy, enabling it to come out of the present economic morass and move along an upward trajectory of economic growth. As public comments are sought on the proposed policy framework and strategies identified, I wish to share some of my thoughts in the hope that they may prove useful in formulating policies with actionable interventions as per the framework developed.

Prioritization of the strategic sectors and high-impact interventions

Here, it will be useful briefly to present how some countries set about in formulating such a policy document. South Korea, in its strategic plan for science and technology from 2025 to 2030, identified 12 national strategic technologies and established a strategy road map for each technology. This ambitious initiative involves a significant investment, i.e. over $19 billion aimed at fostering those 12 strategic technologies essential for economic security and competitiveness of the country. (https://www.msit.go.kr/eng/bbs/view.do?sCode=eng&mId=4&mPid=2&pageIndex=&bbsSeqNo=42&nttSeqNo=746&searchOpt=ALL&searchTxt=). The UK government recently unveiled its Science and Technology Framework, aiming to position the country as a global leader in science and technology by 2030. This framework is a key initiative of the newly formed Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and outlines 10 strategic actions to foster innovation, enhance public and private R&D investments, and leverage the UK’s existing strengths in critical technologies (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-science-and-technology-framework).

The Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), coming under the Department of Science & Technology in India, having taken into account the economic situation, geo-politics and technological advances in the world, has formulated Technology Vision 2035, presenting a fresh perspective on technology imperatives for India. It is a consultative document meant to inspire all the stakeholders and capture the collective aspirations and expectations of the people and the ambitions of the youth of India. A blend of bottom-up and top-down approach was used in the design of this visionary exercise. In addition, people across the spectrum were consulted in multiple ways to anchor the vision, notably through regional brainstorming meetings, thematic interactive sessions with students, faculty and technocrats, open online surveys, etc. Moreover, a large number of experts were consulted to get deeper technology insights and perspectives, at different stages of exercise and the feedback and inputs from those interventions were studied in detail and synthesized to evolve the technology vision for the country. Based on in-depth analyses and discussions during the scoping phase of the exercise, 12 strategic sectors, namely Education, Medical Sciences and Healthcare, Food and Agriculture, Water, Energy, Environment, Habitat, Transportation, Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Materials and Information & Communication Technology (ICT) were identified (https://www.indiascienceandtechnology.gov.in/sites/default/files/file-uploads/roadmaps/1527503991_Technology_vision%202035.pdf).

The policy framework recently developed in Sri Lanka has identified six broad areas which encompass over 25 sectors involving over 100 wide ranging interventions. As their implementation exerts a formidable strain on the available limited resources, including financial and technical, it is of the utmost importance to reflect and deliberate deeply on them with the participation of all the key stakeholders (including S&T and R&D institutions, industry and community) and conduct the necessary surveys and investigations where applicable. These will prove important in order to identify a few high-impact strategic interventions (low hanging fruits) that could yield tangible results in the near term without losing sight of the medium- and long-term national interests and needs.

Allocation of funds for the strategic high-impact technologies and interventions identified

A vision by itself would not serve any purpose unless appropriate actions are outlined and acted upon to realize the large objectives. In this connection, construction of a road map and allocation of the requisite funds, particularly on a short- and medium-term basis, and ensuring their availability are of prime importance. This will develop confidence and credibility among the stakeholders including the private sector and scientific community and motivate them to commit themselves to the high-priority concerns as per the road map. As S&T interventions demand a wide range of inputs from home and abroad, building and maintaining a robust and resilient supply chain is also of crucial importance. Many plans in the past have failed as commitment has been only in word, but not in deed. In our country, according to past experience, R&D became the first casualty in the event of a crisis since governments were generally more concerned with populist measures and vote-grabbing interventions. However, in many developed economies, R&D rarely becomes a casualty and on the contrary, they even provide enhanced funding for R&D in order, for example, to tackle such crises as the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, unwavering commitment to strategic R&D with firm conviction is a prerequisite to drive economic growth and competitiveness of the country.

Providing tax incentives to the private sector for investment in R&D and innovation

Global spending on R&D has now reached a record high of almost US$ 3 trillion in 2023. Asian countries (including China, Japan, India and South Korea) now account for more than 40% of all global R&D investments, with the US and European investment accounting for less than 30% and slightly more than 20%, respectively. Governments worldwide increasingly rely on tax incentives to promote private R&D and innovation investment. In the early 1980s, the contribution of the public sector to R&D in the USA was comparable to that of the private sector. However, in the 2020s, the private sector has contributed 75% of the R&D investment while the public sector only 25%. For instance, the total funding on R&D in the USA in 2021was US$ 806 billion of which US$ 602 billion was from the private sector. France has implemented the Research Tax Credit which is one of the most generous R&D tax relief schemes in Europe, making it attractive for businesses to invest in innovation. Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands have also introduced similar schemes to promote private investment on R&D.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

RuGoesWild: Taking science into the wild — and into the hearts of Sri Lankans

Published

on

Visiting Komodo

At a time when misinformation spreads so easily—especially online—there’s a need for scientists to step in and bring accurate, evidence-based knowledge to the public. This is exactly what Dr. Ruchira Somaweera is doing with RuGoesWild, a YouTube channel that brings the world of field biology to Sri Lankan audiences in Sinhala.

“One of my biggest motivations is to inspire the next generation,” says Dr. Somaweera. “I want young Sri Lankans to not only appreciate the amazing biodiversity we have here, but also to learn about how species are studied, protected, and understood in other parts of the world. By showing what’s happening elsewhere—from research in remote caves to marine conservation projects—I hope to broaden horizons and spark curiosity.”

Unlike many travel and wildlife channels that prioritise entertainment, RuGoesWild focuses on real science. “What sets RuGoesWild apart is its focus on wildlife field research, not tourism or sensationalised adventures,” he explains. “While many travel channels showcase nature in other parts of the world, few dig into the science behind it—and almost none do so in Sinhala. That’s the niche I aim to fill.”

Excerpts of the Interview

Q: Was there a specific moment or discovery in the field that deeply impacted you?

“There have been countless unforgettable moments in my 20-year career—catching my first King cobra, discovering deep-diving sea snakes, and many more,” Dr. Somaweera reflects. “But the most special moment was publishing a scientific paper with my 10-year-old son Rehan, making him one of the youngest authors of an international peer-reviewed paper. We discovered a unique interaction between octopi and some fish called ‘nuclear-forager following’. As both a dad and a scientist, that was an incredibly meaningful achievement.”

Saltwater crocodiles in Sundarbans in Bangladesh, the world’s largest mangrove

Q: Field biology often means long hours in challenging environments. What motivates you to keep going?

“Absolutely—field biology can be physically exhausting, mentally draining, and often dangerous,” he admits. “I’ve spent weeks working in some of the most remote parts of Australia where you can only access through a helicopter, and in the humid jungles of Borneo where insects are insane. But despite all that, what keeps me going is a deep sense of wonder and purpose. Some of the most rewarding moments come when you least expect them—a rare animal sighting, a new behavioural observation, or even just watching the sun rise over a pristine habitat.”

Q: How do you balance scientific rigour with making your work engaging and understandable?

“That balance is something I’m constantly navigating,” he says. “As a scientist, I’m trained to be precise and data-driven. But if we want the public to care about science, we have to make it accessible and relatable. I focus on the ‘why’ and ‘wow’—why something matters, and what makes it fascinating. Whether it’s a snake that glides between trees, a turtle that breathes through its backside, or a sea snake that hunts with a grouper, I try to bring out the quirky, mind-blowing parts that spark curiosity.”

Q: What are the biggest misconceptions about reptiles or field biology in Sri Lanka?

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that most reptiles—especially snakes—are dangerous and aggressive,” Dr. Somaweera explains. “In reality, the vast majority of snakes are non-venomous, and even the venomous ones won’t bite unless they feel threatened. Sadly, fear and myth often lead to unnecessary killing. With RuGoesWild, one of my goals is to change these perceptions—to show that reptiles are not monsters, but marvels of evolution.”

Q: What are the most pressing conservation issues in Sri Lanka today?

“Habitat loss is huge,” he emphasizes. “Natural areas are being cleared for housing, farming, and industry, which displaces wildlife. As people and animals get pushed into the same spaces, clashes happen—especially with elephants and monkeys. Pollution, overfishing, and invasive species also contribute to biodiversity loss.”

Manta Rays

Q: What role do local communities play in conservation, and how can scientists better collaborate with them?

“Local communities are absolutely vital,” he stresses. “They’re often the first to notice changes, and they carry traditional knowledge. Conservation only works when people feel involved and benefit from it. We need to move beyond lectures and surveys to real partnerships—sharing findings, involving locals in fieldwork, and even ensuring conservation makes economic sense to them through things like eco-tourism.”

Q: What’s missing in the way biology is taught in Sri Lanka?

“It’s still very exam-focused,” Dr. Somaweera says. “Students are taught to memorize facts rather than explore how the natural world works. We need to shift to real-world engagement. Imagine a student in Anuradhapura learning about ecosystems by observing a tank or a garden lizard, not just reading a diagram.”

Q: How important is it to communicate science in local languages?

“Hugely important,” he says. “Science in Sri Lanka often happens in English, which leaves many people out. But when I speak in Sinhala—whether in schools, villages, or online—the response is amazing. People connect, ask questions, and share their own observations. That’s why RuGoesWild is in Sinhala—it’s about making science belong to everyone.”

‘Crocodile work’ in northern Australia.

Q: What advice would you give to young Sri Lankans interested in field biology?

“Start now!” he urges. “You don’t need a degree to start observing nature. Volunteer, write, connect with mentors. And once you do pursue science professionally, remember that communication matters—get your work out there, build networks, and stay curious. Passion is what will carry you through the challenges.”

Q: Do you think YouTube and social media can shape public perception—or even influence policy?

“Absolutely,” he says. “These platforms give scientists a direct line to the public. When enough people care—about elephants, snakes, forests—that awareness builds momentum. Policymakers listen when the public demands change. Social media isn’t just outreach—it’s advocacy.”

by Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Benjy’s vision materalises … into Inner Vision

Published

on

Inner Vision: Only keyboardist to be finalised

Bassist Benjy Ranabahu is overjoyed as his version of having his own band (for the second time) is gradually taking shape.

When asked as to how the name Inner Vision cropped up, Benjy said that they were thinking of various names, and suggestions were made.

“Since we have a kind of a vision for music lovers, we decided to go with Inner Vision, and I guarantee that Inner Vision is going to be a band with a difference,” said Benjy.

In fact, he has already got a lineup, comprising musicians with years of experience in the music scene.

Benjy says he has now only to finalise the keyboardist, continue rehearsing, get their Inner Vision act together, and then boom into action.

“Various names have been suggested, where the keyboard section is concerned, and very soon we will pick the right guy to make our vision a reality.”

Inner Vision will line-up as follows…

Anton Fernando

Benjy Ranabahu:
Ready to give music
lovers a new vision

(Lead guitar/vocals): Having performed with several bands in the past, including The Gypsies, he has many years of experience and has also done the needful in Japan, Singapore, Dubai, the Maldives, Zambia, Korea, New Zealand, and the Middle East.

Lelum Ratnayake

(Drums/vocals): The son of the legendary Victor Ratnayake, Lelum has toured Italy, Norway, Japan, Australia, Zambia, Kuwait and Oman as a drummer and percussionist.

Viraj Cooray

(Guitar/vocals): Another musician with years of experience, having performed with several of our leading outfits. He says he is a musician with a boundless passion for creating unforgettable experiences, through music.

Nish Peiris

Nish Peiris: Extremely talented

(Female vocals): She began taking singing, seriously, nearly five years ago, when her mother, having heard her sing occasionally at home and loved her voice, got her involved in classes with Ayesha Sinhawansa. Her mom also made her join the Angel Chorus. “I had no idea I could sing until I joined Angle Chorus, which was the initial step in my career before I followed my passion.” Nish then joined Soul Sounds Academy, guided by Soundarie David. She is currently doing a degree in fashion marketing.

And … with Benjy Ranabahu at the helm, playing bass, Inner Vision is set to light up the entertainment scene – end May-early June, 2025.

Continue Reading

Features

Can Sri Lanka’s premature deindustrialisation be reversed?

Published

on

As politicians and economists continue to proclaim that the Sri Lankan economy has achieved ‘stability’ since the 2022 economic crisis, the country’s manufacturing sector seems to have not got the memo.

A few salient points need to be made in this context.

First, Sri Lankan manufacturing output has been experiencing a secular stagnation that predates external shocks, such as the pandemic and the Easter Attacks. According to national accounts data from UNIDO, manufacturing output in dollar terms has basically flatlined since 2012. Without a manufacturing engine at its core, it is no surprise that Sri Lanka has seen some of the lowest rates of economic growth during this period. (See graph)

Second, factory capacity utilisation still remains below pre-pandemic levels. Total capacity utilisation stood at 62% in 2024, compared to 81% in 2019. For wearing apparel, the country’s main manufactured export, capacity utilisation was at a meagre 58% in 2024, compared to 83% in 2019. Given the uncertainty Trump’s tariffs have cast on global trade, combined with the diminished consumer sentiment across the Global North, it is hard to imagine capacity utilisation recovering to pre-pandemic levels in the near future.

Third, new investment in manufacturing has been muted. From 2019 to 2024, only 26% of realised foreign investments in Board of Investment enterprises were in manufacturing. This indicates that foreign capital does not view the country as a desirable location for manufacturing investment. It also reflects a global trend – according to UNCTAD, 81% of new foreign investment projects, between 2020 and 2023, were in services.

Taken together, these features paint an alarming picture of the state of Sri Lankan manufacturing and prospects for longer-term growth.

What makes manufacturing so special?

A critical reader may ask at this point, “So what? Why is manufacturing so special?”

Political economists have long analysed the transformative nature of manufacturing and its unique ability to drive economic growth, generate technical innovation, and provide positive spillovers to other sectors. In the 1960s, Keynesian economist Nicholas Kaldor posited his famous three ‘growth laws, which argued for the ‘special place’ of manufacturing in economic development. More recently, research by UNIDO has found that 64% of growth episodes in the last 50 years were fuelled by the rapid development of the manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing profits provide the basis on which modern services thrive. London and New York could not have emerged as financial centres without the profits generated by industrial firms in Manchester and Detroit, respectively. Complex and high-end services, ranging from banking and insurance to legal advisory to logistics and transport, rely on institutional clients in industrial sectors. Meanwhile, consumer-facing services, such as retail and hospitality, depend on the middle-class wage base that an industrial economy provides.

Similarly, technologies generated in the manufacturing process can have massive impacts on raising the productivity of other sectors, such as agriculture and services. Indeed, in most OECD countries, manufacturing-oriented private firms are the biggest contributors to R&D spending – in the United States, 57% of business enterprise R&D spending is done by manufacturing firms; in China it is 80%.

It has become increasingly clear to both scholars and policymakers that national possession of industrial capacity is needed to retain advantages in higher value-added capabilities, such as design. This is because some of the most critical aspects of innovation are the ‘process innovations’ that are endemic to the production process itself. R&D cannot always be done in the comfort of an isolated lab, and even when it can, there are positive spillovers to having geographic proximity between scientists, skilled workers, and industrialists.

Produce or perish?

Sri Lanka exhibits the telltale signs of ‘premature deindustrialisation’. The term refers to the trend of underdeveloped countries experiencing a decline in manufacturing at levels of income much lower than what was experienced by countries that managed to break into high-income status.

Premature deindustrialisation afflicts a range of middle-income countries, including India, Brazil, and South Africa. It is generally associated with the inability of domestic manufacturing firms to diversify their activities, climb up the value chain, and compete internationally. Major bottlenecks include the lack of patient capital and skilled personnel to technologically upgrade and the difficulties of overcoming the market power of incumbents.

Reversing the trend of premature deindustrialisation requires selective industrial policy. This means direct intervention in the national division of labour in order to divert resources towards strategic sectors with positive spillovers. Good industrial policy requires a carrot-and-stick approach. Strategic manufacturing sectors must be made profitable, but incentives need to be conditional and based on strict performance criteria. Industrial can choose winners, but it has to be willing to let go of losers.

During the era of neoliberal globalisation, the importance of manufacturing was underplayed (or perhaps deliberately hidden). To some extent, knowledge of its importance was lost to policymakers. Karl Marx may have predicted this when, in Volume 2 of Das Kapital, he wrote that “All nations with a capitalist mode of production are, therefore, seized periodically by a feverish attempt to make money without the intervention of the process of production.”

Since the long depression brought about by the 2008 financial crisis, emphasis on manufacturing is making a comeback. This is most evident in the US ruling class’s panic over China’s rapid industrialisation, which has shifted the centre of gravity of the world economy towards Asia and threatened unipolar dominance by the US. In the Sri Lankan context, however, emphasis on manufacturing remains muted, especially among establishment academics and policy advisors who remain fixated on services.

Interestingly, between the Gotabaya Rajapaksa-led SLPP and the Anura Kumara Dissanayake-led NPP, there is continuity in terms of the emphasis on the slogan of a ‘production economy’ (nishpadana arthiakaya in Sinhala). Perhaps more populist than strictly academic, the continued resonance of the slogan reflects a deep-seated societal anxiety about Sri Lanka’s ability to survive as a sovereign entity in a world characterised by rapid technological change and the centralisation of capital.

Nationalist writer Kumaratunga Munidasa once said that “a country that does not innovate will not rise”. Amid the economic crises of the 1970s, former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike popularised a pithier exhortation: “produce or perish”. Aside from their economic benefits, manufacturing capabilities are the pride of a nation, as they demonstrate skill and scientific knowledge, a command over nature, and the ability to mobilise and coordinate people towards the construction of modern wonders. In short, it is hard to speak of real sovereignty without modern industry.

(Shiran Illanperuma is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and a co-Editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought. He is also a co-Convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com).

By Shiran Illanperuma

Continue Reading

Trending