Distinguished colleagues, scientists, researchers, representatives of the academic communities,
Ladies and gentlemen,
During the last 3 decades, it is undeniable that the progress in science and technology has created a powerful wave of global change. Information technology is advancing so much that the vision of borderlesss world is now reality. The current stage of biotechnology development means that we can manipulate genetic codes of living organisms to the extent that real applications in medicine and industry are now commonplace. This advancement clearly sets the present age apart from our past evolution. Within this new age, the development of science and technology has become a catalyst in international competition. Measures are put in place in all countries to accelerate their process of science and technology development because it is now generally accepted that science and technology are the leading factors of production - exceeding traditional assets, such as land and labor in their significance.
Unfortunately, the advance of science and technology is not without costs. The over-optimistic perception of science and technology has now suffered a severe setback. Several areas of scientific progress, such as atomic power, fossil fuel, large-scale agriculture and genetic engineering now generate genuine fears for wars, environmental degradation and the dominance of multinational corporations in the production of foodstuff. In addition, the benefits of scientific and technological advance do not seem to equally reach all quarters of human beings. Can the scientific community afford to continue its rapid pace of development - with the underlying drive from an insatiable appetite for wealth and conquest over the nature - without taking into consideration the suffering of fellow human beings? Does the law of the strongest apply to the process of knowledge creation and application? I personally believe that the vast majority of humanity can all contribute to science and technology development, and it is their fundamental right to reap the fruits of scientific and technological advance. Any exclusion is unethical. After all, science and technology development is truly a foundation of great social change, and there is nothing more unethical than to bar people from their struggle to change for a better live.
However, the problem remains the general public's distrust for scientists and policy makers. As a result, many governments and scientific institutions are now putting in place programmes on public understanding of science and technology. It is generally believed that the more people understand the nature of science, the more they would find it acceptable. Nevertheless, it must be accepted that science and technology still can, and do, produce unintended consequences. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for governments and all quarters of scientific community to go beyond mere dialogue with people. We must start to build a concrete framework to both support and, in some way, guide the development of science and technology. We need this kind of framework to ensure that scientists and policy makers consult the public, and their decisions are taken openly, eventhough this difficult and uncomfortable measure may come with a high cost.
Let me share with you a little about the experience of Thailand. For some time, the Thai Government has been putting the reform of our research structure and science and technology system at the top of its list of priority. This reform movement is built upon the 4 pillars of science and technology development, namely: research and development, science and technology manpower development, technology transfer and science and technology infrastructure (including policy systems). In addition, the advance of science and technology in Thailand is guided along the development trajectories based upon our indigenous strengths - biotechnology, agriculture, electronics and computers, health, etc.. We are investing for our brighter future by modernising our research and development facilities, improving our laboratory and testing services, offering more science scholarships to students nationwide and removing management barriers. In other words, we are aiming to achieve twin goals: firstly, we are making our country a better place to work for people embracing scientific and technological careers, and secondly, we are distributing the fruits of scientific and technological advance to all sectors of our society. More importantly, our ultimate interests are not in better economic statistics, but rather in bringing about the wellbeing of all Thai citizens.
To achieve these goals, the Thai Governments are pursuing 2 pararell approaches of actions: firstly, applying more public control over science and technology and, secondly, encouraging scientists to reach out to the public. Both approaches are the extention of the principle of good governance, implemented so effectively in our government organisations, to all public scientific and technological institutions. One of the most important aspects of the first approach is the practice of result-based management. This means that the public-funded scientific and technological bodies have to adopt management contracts with the government. As a result, they are bound by the contracts to simplify their work processes. Their plans of actions must be based on public needs and national agenda. In addition, their performance is closely monitored by the government. Despite costs and problems incurred to the scientific and technological institutions, good governance is an effective means to ensure that the public, the government and the Thai scientific community can maximise greatest benefits from firm and constant cooperation between the 3 parties.
The second approach opens the scientific community to the general public. Public committees on several aspects of science and technology, such as biotechnology, have been set up to incorporate industrialists, representatives of NGOs as well as experts in many disciplines other than science and technology into the process of decision making. In this regard, advice is drawn from a wide variety of sources to capture the full diversity of thought and opinion. This kind of transparency also ensures that the public has access to the findings and advice of scientists as early as possible.
The Thai scientific community has been registering progress in cutting-edge research and state-of-the-art technology, such as in plant genome and disease prevention, and we are pursuing even bolder objectives, such as nanotechnology, satellite technology and alternative forms of energy. However, we will never lose sight of those previously excluded from the wealth of scientific and technological knowledge, within and outside our country. In this respect, we believe that all countries should pay attention to the treatment given to science and technology in the context of international negotiations. Liberalisation of access to knowledge and its benefit is an absolute necessity. We must put all of our efforts towards the facilitation of science and technology development in less technological advanced corners of the world.
My biggest concern is that the fair distribution of
benefits from recent advance in science and technology is being hampered by the current intellectual property regime. It seems that the international trade rules on intellectual property do not take into account the interests of developing countries. Efforts to promote developing countries access to much needed new technologies have always been countered by sanctions from those countries that hold proprietary rights. In the future, some trade agreements will be revised to accommodate the even more restrictive level of protection. Do they really want to close the access to knowledge and abandon the tradition of addressing scientific knowledge as public goods for the service of mankind? Because the current practices still assure competitive advantage for wealthy nations, and because developing countries will unlikely be able to catch up with their level of research support, I call for your actions to defend the principle of ethic and good governance in international trade and the transfer of technology. All of us in the scientific community must not allow wealthy countries and their large corporations to subject knowledge and human creativity under their economic interests.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is my vision of the future in which all will be more prosperous, without the need to harm the nature, or force some people into poverty. We all have our views on the issue of good governance. I have already expressed mine. It is now your turn to contribute to this much needed area of debate.
Thank you.