Science and Technology and national development

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)