New recipes

An Agricultural Revolution in the Making? – The System for Rice Intensification (SRI) gains support

An Agricultural Revolution in the Making? – The System for Rice Intensification (SRI) gains support



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

An alternative method for rice cultivation known as System for Rice Intensification (SRI) promises to increase yields, using less water, fewer herbicides, and fewer seeds. It is gaining supporters around the world.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


The 10-90 gap: what can we do?

Through the Platform for International Education (PIE), Dutch universities and applied universities (‘hogescholen’) aim to support and coordinate their activities directed at higher education in developing countries. Last Tuesday (June 22), the Platform organized the seminar “Knowledge for Development”. It was a step on the way towards a “new vision on knowledge capacity building in higher education for development.” The background paper of the seminar explains that the need for a new vision arises from the fact that the realities of knowledge and higher education are changing and that the old concepts of commitment to development are under pressure. Giving support to scattered projects is no longer seen as adequate.

The relevant changes in the world are mainly described in terms of increases. Globalization increases, and so does mobility, the development of global networks and partnerships, the demand for higher education in developing countries (which the paper describes as not just increasing, but exploding), the intensity of knowledge and innovation, IT and access to knowledge, commercialization of knowledge and education, competition between institutions of higher education, the tension between knowledge as an instrument and knowledge as Bildung. Increasingly, also, new innovations and new knowledge originate in and are aimed at developing countries. This is “bottom-of-the pyramid” innovation and if this trend continues, it may deeply change our views of innovation. As Luc Soete explains in International Research Partnerships on the move, the old idea that innovation is the outcome of new technology is losing its dominance. Innovation increasingly needs to be seen as the ability to re-use and recombine existing pieces of knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as “innovation without research”. Bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation also importantly involves social innovations, such as micro-credits.

Given the complex web of trends and changes, increases and (implicit)decreases, it may seem close to impossible to find the right leads and elements for a new vision on knowledge and development. But I think that, on the contrary, the core of what is needed is simple: it is to adopt a global policy perspective on knowledge, innovation and higher education. Knowledge-for-development will be integrated automatically in such a perspective. In other words, I think the AWT report I discussed earlier (# 26, 27, 28), which recommends such a global policy, points the way.

Regarding knowledge and innovation from a global perspective is radical as well as simple. It means that, on the overarching level, the gap between “we” and “they” (see # 3) vanishes, as any “we” is embedded in a global whole. Valorization takes a global instead of a national perspective. Yet the implication is not that self-interest disappears, but “only” that the interests of others are added. The crucial moral distinction is not between self-interest and other-interest, but between self-interest-combined-with-other-indifference and self-interest-combined-with-other-interest, as I argued earlier (# 27 & 29). Such “enlightened” self-interest amounts to the search for win-win policies that is advocated by the AWT report.

The AWT report had a prominent place in at least one of the workshops of the PIE-seminar, the one which concentrated on the theme of “key areas”. Concentrating international cooperation on key areas of Dutch expertise, in partnership with specialised institutions in developing countries, is a clear road to benefit for both sides, the AWT report recommends. The discussion illustrated that this recommendation comes with dilemmas. For example, such an approach threatens to leave out groups and institutions that want to support educational capacity building in a more general way. It was also feared that it leads to intractible difficulties in the appointment of key areas. Paul Diederen of AWT, (co-)author of the report, defended the key area approach, and a bottom-up approach to key areas, but also admitted that the AWT-frame leaves many questions open.

Many more difficult questions are inevitable in the elaboration of this approach. For example, finding themes and questions which are both challenging for researchers in developed countries and helpful for developing countries can be very hard. The Ghana-Dutch Health Program and Bart Knols’ evaluation of malaria research (see # 8 ) illustrate this difficulty.

But such difficulties do not affect the core of the shift that is needed to overcome the 10-90 gap in genomics. That core is not located on the level of genomics itself (see # 22, 24, 28). It consists of an overall policy shift to a globally oriented perspective on science and innovation.


Watch the video: Η βιομηχανική εποχή ελληνικοί υπότιτλοι (August 2022).