MPs warn of “serious weaknesses” in DFID science
A leading committee of MPs has warned that there are “serious weaknesses” within the Department for International Development’s (DFID) approach to science and technology.
The Science and Technology Committee claims that this “failure to fully value and make use of scientific research” is leading to “poorer quality” decision making.
MPs claim that the DFID suffers from a “fundamental lack of scientific culture and a failure to appreciate the central role of science and research in international development”.
This, they say, is particularly worrying as they argue that a scientific approach to policy, capacity building and evaluation is the only way to make progress on the Millennium Development Goals.
Chair of the Committee, Ian Gibson, said: “We’ve taken a long hard look at DFID and there’s no escaping the fact that DFID’s use of science and research has not been up to scratch.
“We’re great supporters of lots of the work that DFID does and Hilary Benn has had a positive attitude to some of the criticisms we’ve made. But the size of the task in hand mustn’t be underestimated – science and research in DFID have been treated like minority sports. This must change. The UK’s strategy for tackling poverty in the developing world should be based on hard evidence and science and technology should be at the heart of our approach.”
Specifically, the report recommends that the DFID should commit “significant extra funding” for capability building of science and research systems in developing countries, and should use next year’s G8 and EU presidency to push for an international science capacity building exercise.
It also warns that the lack of focus on science may be damaging the UK’s own science research base in developmental science, and calls on the Government to “urgently take responsibility for improving the status of development sciences research in the UK” and to establish a Development Sciences Research Board.
The MPs though do acknowledge that the DFID has taken steps to improve the use of science since the inquiry began, and welcome the “long overdue appointment” of a Chief Scientific Advisor. However, they fear that the DFID may have “underestimated the challenge of rectifying the clear deficiencies in its approach to science”.
