What does science want from its government?
Dr Hayat Sindi, Keynote Speech
Jean Monnet Conference 2016
This talk considers the science and policy dialogue, to unite
visions of scientists and policymakers, and seeking the
BEST path to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)1,
through carefully driving science and the scientists that fuel
it.
Part of this problem was solved with the painting of the 2030
agenda for the SDGs, and the realization that science,
technology and innovation will always be at its heart. Here
government is stating what it wants from science, i.e. the
best technologies from the best scientists for completing the
SDGs.
In response, the scientist may ask “What does science want
from its government?” The answer "funds" may only be the
start of the dialogue.
What can we learn from history to improve dialogue, and
boost science? Policy and science WERE closer in the past,
with evidence of better mixing between relevant people in
the Golden Age from the 8th century AD.
The Sustainable Development Goals are a UN Initiative. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
officially known as Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a set of
seventeen aspirational "Global Goals" with 169 targets between them.
1
I believe a key question now is whether you can be two
people at the same time? I believe you can: a policy-maker
with a scientist's hat, or a scientist with a policymakers hat.
We have to start breaking barriers. Breaking boxes. We
need to be flexible thinkers. We CAN get the round peg
through the square hole. Think about it.
Also keep in mind not only official academic scientists have
great scientific thoughts. Remember, Einstein was a patent
clerk. So giving our thoughts room to breathe with both hats,
supporting good dialogue.
We also observe history has seen science work. Remarkably
so. It has transformed our world for the common good; our
smartphones computers our GPS, cars, boats, planes,
trains, and our life-saving medical technology, demonstrating
the AMAZING power of science.
But how do we increase the capacity of the scientific engine,
and succeed in a fast enough time, against the toughest
global challenges facing our world?
My intuition, and it
comes from relaxing barriers and boxes, is that we can
bootstrap the scientific engine. It just takes a different way of
looking at things. That vision starts with looking for scientists
to do the work. Where are they? In the universities we have
the scientist, the academic, the publications.
End of story? No.
I believe there are other scientists in the community that can
help us too. These could be youth scientists who've chosen
to earn more money and become lawyers; female scientists
who are science literate, but can find no suitable job; retired
scientists, who have all the time and are passionate about
science; exceptional scientists, who write poorly and do not
secure funds; the isolated scientist, driven by curiosity and
love for science. And of course the inventor, who lives to
discover something new. All of this indigenous knowledge is
helpful to us! To make the output of all these scientists
meaningful.
We have to give the policymaker something tangible. They
want to hear scientists translate science into everyday
language, plan exactly what they are going to do, so we rest
assured they will get there. So I think scientists with good
plans, will satisfy the policymakers. And policy makers with
good help, will satisfy the scientist, and provide a good start.
But I think we all know it will be incredibly challenging to get
this right. Hence the United Nations is working hard to
develop the best dialogue. Right now with dialogue and
understanding, scientists are working away with policy
makers towards a unified vision.
The SDG’s are a clear target to aim for, seen by
policymakers and scientists. I think these SDGs are
fantastic. A triumph of communication!
Things aren’t perfect though. There are still gaps for policy
makers and scientists to fill, like extra precision on the SDG
target itself; and what technology is realistic to get us to the
SDG?
I think the indigenous knowledge will help us a lot. And as I
mentioned, even in the developed world, there is indigenous
knowledge hidden in scientists within the community.
Talented passionate people that love science, but don’t have
the career titles. So I’m hopeful of great things.
To reach the SDGs, I want to drive the scientific engine
better, based on my journey as a scientist, across east and
west. This started when I first saw how science worked when
I was a young girl. I was 5 years old, I had a little cat called
Ginger and a small broken chair which I converted into a
small cave. I made it my own little world. I loved learning and
exploring space, the moon, the future. And my father would
teach me anything I wanted. I became fascinated about the
fact that science could make the difference between life and
death. And I admired the scientists and scholars of the past.
They were my heroes.... I even tried to dress like them!
My heroes were Ibn Sina, Al-Khawarizmi. They helped
define the modern scientific method; scientific scholars good
at UNITING science to policy and people's needs. So
science could be steered. However today, history indicates
we don’t have the scientific compass aligned to people's
needs. So one REPAIR I’d like to do with science is to make
sure it is REALLY in TOUCH with people and community
needs - and MORE OUT OF THE BOX.
One critical concept to do this is innovation, especially social
innovation. I would say Social Innovation has helped me to
see a clear vision of a complex world. Social Innovation is
about building the strategies, concepts and ideas that
strengthen civil society, which then satisfies social needs
such as working conditions, education, community and
health, rather than temporary needs stimulated by the
today’s media.
The first way of boosting science, is to spot a science
solution that fits an SDG. Harvard had one: it was an
inexpensive paper technology for Diagnostics - a social
innovation to help manage HiV and TB in in the developing
world. As a scientist I had no idea how to get this idea, with
my team, out of the lab into the hands of people. My boss
advised me to go to Harvard Business School to understand
the commercial part, and how to write a business plan for the
company. There was a language to learn for converting an
idea in the lab to a product.
I then went outside the scientific community, outside my
comfort zone, to translate my ideas into the real world. I
searched
for
the
right
community
for
support
and
encouragement .When I left Harvard I felt the full potential of
social innovation was still not being achieved. Students were
still
fixed
on
their
careers,
getting
tenure,
making
publications. I remember asking them to step out the
technical box, and step into the world of people. MORE heart
& mind, ‘thinking’ together, working together.
So that
science works directly to satisfy human needs, compassion,
happiness, health - AT ALL TIMES. This IS the SCIENTIST
OUT OF THE BOX… not just curiosity driven, staring at one
lonely apple, but on the table, seeing the big picture of all
ingredients of planet earth
The second way to make science better is throw away false
limitations. For example, Lord Kelvin said with confidence:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now”, and:
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." History will keeps correcting
closed minds. I’m convinced we can get FAR MORE mileage
from science. But this type of change wouldn’t happen
overnight.
I now had to work to become a social innovator. And I
started the I2institute, an institute for imagination and
Ingenuity for youth in the Middle East. I had been
IMAGINING details of this institute for the last 12 years!
Collecting ideas, ENGAGING with so many individuals,
being truly inspired and continually ENERGISED by
everyone involved, with one, BIG GOAL IN mind: to create
an ECOSYSTEM of entrepreneurship and social innovation
for scientists, technologists and engineers in the Middle East
and beyond. So they can have the OPPORTUNITY TO
FULFILL THEIR POTENTIAL. For themselves and their
societies. To have the opportunity to make NEW companies,
make NEW markets and to MAKE a difference.
We need to teach them, where to look. And how to channel
their hope. To create New Ideas, New Solutions, New
Opportunities. Anything they can imagine: a hospital, grass
in the desert, mining minerals on the moon, new life for the
elderly, a cure for cancer or the best restaurant in the world.
Whatever idea they try to bring to earth, whatever dream
they try to bring into being, this is what we do in i2, using
inspiration - and of course you don’t need to be a scientist to
have a great impact.
I ALSO believe WE, the scientific community, need to
INTEGRATE with the changing WORLD, not ONLY the
laboratory white coat part. Because for US to be affected, we
don't have to be a change agent. Rather, WE can decide to
be ADVISOR or a MENTOR because OUR collective
knowledge can produce a HUGE positive change.
In i2 we have GREAT international scientific and nonscientific mentors who give guidance, support and INSPIRE
entrepreneurs in a lonely and exciting journey - because to
embark on the journey, INSPIRATION is essential. Consider
the many smart people with different fields are in great
universities. How many of them are truly changing the
world?
I believe some of the seeds to achieving the SDGs are: to
cultivate scientists that are OPEN to infinite possibilities, and
to engage them with the work of the COMMUNITY.
And, importantly, make a link to the POLICY-MAKER
When I was chosen to the Shura in Saudi, which is similar to
a parliamentary cabinet, the
BARRIER for the majority of people was the IDEA of a
government type of scientist position. They said I SHOULD
NOT be there. It's true, it’s not the REAL environment for a
scientist, BUT I wanted that. Why? Because I will have a
VOICE, to guide the future of science for the NEXT
GENERATION. And for me it is worth it, because It is
DIFFICULT to find scientists to translate the importance of
science to decision-making where the REAL changes begin!!
And also empowering women scientists…
And this is which bring us to my third way: to engage women
to drive the engine better. Today, women hit a CAREER
WALL, unable to pursue their career dreams in science. I
believe this is not an isolated problem, and is happening to
varying degrees around the world, in Europe and the
Americas and in the Middle East. So women are not only
losing out by a HUGE margin, SO IS SOCIETY! Thus,
science and society are OUT OF BALANCE, without the
injection of women’s creativity and vision.
To help repair that we need to take action to increase
women’s role in science by making these careers more
attractive! To make them resonate. A key is to emphasise
the human benefits to our graduate students in science,. to
sell people stories - not wondrous dry technologies. We also
need to add mechanisms to support more women leaders.
To point the DIRECTION of science. As this can increase
GDP!! This is a WIN for society, and a WIN for women’s
potential.
Teaching the journey of science to young girls, through role
models and other teaching schemes is also crucial. In
particular – FAMILY – and how it is part of a living
sustainable world.
So a simple step stands out: get women to LEAD the
DIRECTION OF science – as women scientists did creating
side airbags, so that this direction resonates with other
young women. This will bring more women into THE
POWER OF SCIENCE, into business and roles of
INFLUENCE.
The fourth way to help science is to get involved with
international policy. Through the UN/SAB, UNESCO, the
MALAYSIA Scientific Advisory Board, and by being a
member of the ten member group formed in January this
year, I can connect to many scientific projects this way. The
main focus is harnessing STI for the 2030 agenda and the
17 SDGs, by facilitating interaction and matchmaking around
the world. Presently, we're working on the STI forum to bring
together all stakeholders, and we are preparing the online
platform for global discussion of STI.
Policy needs detailed work, as does science. But science is
always there, alongside us: with our SAB policy briefing on
climate change , food security and health, indigenous and
local knowledge for solving SDGs, and a roadmap for
Technology Facilitation Mechanism. What I love is how the
policy side really shines a light on science and human
needs. Every scientist, I’m convinced, will work longer,
harder and faster once they know these connections.
The Delphi study through SAB; was all about consulting
scientists on the risk the planet faces, a great question put in
place by the UN secretary general. Because highlighting
these problems has put us closer to solutions. To do this
practically, the scientists contributing to the multistage Delphi
study shortlisted several project targets including the
following:
1.
Develop a Strategy Against Infectious Agents
2.
One Ocean, Building a “Blue Economy” Sustainably
3.
Invest in Basic Science
4.
Providing Drinkable Water for All
5.
Establish Community-based Monitoring of Sustainable
Development Goals
6.
Disaster Prediction
7.
Emissions Free Technology: Changing the Fossil Fuel
Paradigm
Personally I like the one ocean concept for bringing people
together, and the emissions free technology. More outputs
will come.
Now we should turn our attention to the scientist, and ask
ourselves: What does the scientist want?
It's easy to miss. I expect the following demands would be
reported to government, and I see these as solutions to help
them work better on science:
1.
No more than 10 to 15% of scientist time on fund
raising activities. Nowadays, scientists ARE spending a
huge amount of time to secure their own funding and
get little time to do science.
2.
Freedom to follow scientific instincts. What scientists do
now has become linked to commercial products and
commercial timescales. They can’t take new backroads,
because they have to follow developmental work and
not genuine research work.
3
Support for curiosity led research. Satisfying curiosity
normally leads to big discoveries. However we have a
problem here: sponsors and policy-makers will not
support curiosity alone.
4.
Flexible research plans to support families. This is
really about having sufficient money for the scientist's
family to function. Given scientist's value, the scientists
want to know why their salary is so poor.
We have the isolated scientists too. These are people of no
institutional link, and yet through the web and other
knowledge sources can access ideas and componentry at
much lower rates, can construct surprising technologies from
home. For example, I’ve come across radio hams doing
NMR from home!
We have many many clever people who are not part of
institutions who can help the science machine. So there is
talent not being counted or measured. But to solve SDG
problems we may need to think laterally. Perhaps we need
more ways of escaping from the conventional, so we’re not
trapped by the theory
I’d be interested to know what academics in the audience
think about whether theory should lead experiment or
experiment should lead theory.
In general those who believe things will not change
noticeably and most things have been discovered, will
expect theory to lead. Those who think the world is far from
understood will choose experiments to lead their eyes.
Again, linking these ideas to make a better world is a
challenge. Often we can only look back and join the dots.
There is probably no universal recipe for discovery, but it
probably relates to how we do science
So in conclusion, I think we’re at least starting to think
differently about science. For example, I looked through the
EU Charter and saw how technology could help many of the
directives:
1.
Peace and science - bringing state of the art shields
that spot missiles, and destroy before harm can be
done
2.
Security and science - adding face recognition
technologies that keep our borders and streets safe
3.
Prosperity and science - using special materials that
multiply value, for example in computer chips
and finally:
4.
democracy and science – mind-blowing mathematical
insights that allow real-time translation of languages, so
people can talk to each other, wherever they are from.
The same aligning may start to happen as we get more input
from the SAB science forum; as we plot paths to solve the
SDGs; as we build scientific knowledge bases; as we nurture
the science policy interface and cultivate the UN’s on-line
platform. But we still need to build bridges to the community,
local knowledge within different fields, bridges that foster
unexpected output, that use resources off the radar.
I personally think social innovation, linking science with
society, is very powerful for achieving the SDGs and grand
challenges as quickly as possible.
Another related wall is scientists and academics locked
away in labs. They need to spend 2 to 5% of their time
connecting with the community. For example they may find
talented youths that need encouragement. They could be the
source of Nobel Prize material, which often come from
people in their early twenties - the time when genius is most
likely revealed.
In Saudi we think of the youth as the new oil, and for good
reason.
So in answer to the main question of this talk, what does
science want from government?
I think acceptance that science has an AMAZING track
record for creating values. And recognition that government
funding for long-term scientific projects is going to be
essential. In my view, commercial operations match less
well, as they need fruit on shorter timescales.
Overall, with the policy - science linkage dancing before us,
with the amazing connected energy of stakeholders waking
our world, I think our lives can only get more sustainable!