1. Background

Scientific knowledge and application have become powerful factors in human life and the development of civilization. The scientific enterprise, with awesome effect, allows man to understand and manipulate nature, bringing much good, yet often violence and concern, to all aspects of his existence.

Scientific technologies affect the well being of man, as well as, the ecological balance of our planet. Consequently, there is paramount need to manage all the implications of science and its technologies on human affairs and global sustenance. Since science now generates, derives and services, what increasingly determines the prospects of nations, scientists have an obligation to pay attention not only to the ethics of the means, but also the ethics of the ends, of scientific endeavors (1).

Since there is little to be gained by slowing down the generation of knowledge, and perhaps, much to loose by curtailing the proper returns on investment in knowledge generation, the scientific discipline should be preserved. However, a distinction has to be made between scientific knowledge and its use. Whereas the generation of scientific knowledge is more private and is of less ethical concern, the application of scientific knowledge clearly has a public and ethical immediacy.

History has told us that contributions to the development of the scientific enterprise were made by many generations, cultures, continents and peoples. From the tacit observations of Africa and Asia to the rationality of the Greeks, Europe was able, during the Enlightenment, to deploy selections from Islam and Christianity, to give better definition to what today is referred to as science. There is therefore no doubt that any culture can command and nurture any aspect of science and technology (S&T). Indeed, science is truly the legacy of the entire human race. Only recently has any set of cultures taken on a dominant role in this fundamental of human preoccupation (2).

This disturbance has risen primarily because political and cultural movements over the Colonial period have served to disconnect large segments of the human family from the scientific expedition. Consequently, many societies, euphemistically called underdeveloped countries, were hooked on to the products of science without ever participating in their development, or production, and indeed, without understanding the scientific method which underpins many of them. Furthermore, the economics of this era created schisms within countries, by harboring the coexistence of a majority in poverty and a small minority in affluence, mainly based on the levels of access to the method and results of science. Some twenty percent (20%) of mankind live in harmful material excesses and the rest in debilitating want and neglect. This is a reflection of the contemporary global scene, in which a few countries are endowed with science and its products and consequently prosper, and the rest, at best, are passive consumers of a few of these products and struggle just to survive.

The restricted transfer of the fruits of science, from the science rich to the science poor, has created and fostered a situation where there is inequity in trade, economic returns and social stability, as well as, political positioning in the prevailing world order. This has given to exploitation, and ensuing poverty, dependency, insecurity and an attack on the cultural base of many countries. Social and military tension, and an open assault on the environmental integrity of the planet, have also accompanied this type of impeded transfer of S&T. This situation, clearly , is unsustainable and raises many ethical questions which, if left unanswered, bodes ill of the future of mankind.

This paper therefore, has the focus to describe the way S&T is practiced today and how the results of these endeavors are distributed. The idea is to examine the values underpinning the process and to speculate on the ultimate consequences emanating from the unquestioned embrace of contemporary norms, especially as they concern the less fortunate in the underdeveloped countries. From this perspective the role of ethics as a corrective expediency will be explored.

Two categories of problems emerge from the relationship between ethics and S&T. One relates to the actual functioning of S&T, and the other comprise problems stemming indirectly from S&T development and use. This paper deals with the second of these categories, specifically, the undue restriction in the flow of S&T knowledge from communities, which possess the knowledge, to others, which have a vital need for this information. It must however be recognized that it is difficult to separate these categories.

2. Definitions and Context

To better understand the subtleties of the various concepts introduced in this paper, they will be defined and placed in an operational context.

Science is the systematic study of nature and technology is the use of information about nature to do the bidding of man. Although both endeavors at the inchoate stage of science were separate, today science has a direct influence on technology and technology a reciprocal effect on science, so much so, that where one ends and the other begins is often indistinguishable. Because S&T are now strategic tools, large sums are spent on scientific research and technological development. So large in fact, that the underdeveloped, or the poor countries, cannot meaningfully participate in this global odyssey.

Socio-economic development is the conscious attempt to enable members of a society to reach higher social, political, spiritual, technological, economic and cultural levels. Although a few countries have been able to harness S&T for enhanced production efficiencies and consequent advanced material standards, a large portion of mankind still languishes in poverty and despair. There is no doubt that underdevelopment is one of the most flagrant evils in the modern world. Its sheer magnitude is a disgrace to humanity and a clear reminder of the dashed hopes and the misappropriation of the power of the inductive method (3). Science has therefore, not been innocent in this state of affairs, as it has been used to separate the haves from the have nots, and remanded power in certain dominant quarters to keep the underprivileged from becoming rivals. Literally, scientific civilization has enriched its promoters by worsening the situation of those ignorant of its underpinnings.

Ethics are moral principles which govern actions. In a sense ethics can be seen as the science of morality. Ethical values occupy a central place in human interaction, since they govern the norms of actions and therefore give final shape to patterns of motivation and behavior, as well as, the selection of principles and evaluation criteria on which objectives are based. Nevertheless, the basic imperatives on which ethics rest cannot be translated into concrete principles of actions. Ethical codes, therefore, are merely signposts to assist individuals in adopting ethical positions (4). Ethical principles must compel recognition on their own and thereby provide their own justification. They may be associated with religious conceptions, or derived from ideological constraints, or the products of simple popular myths. Ethics emerge from patterns of socialization. It, therefore, underlays justifying and re-defining norms, which govern patterns of conduct and their purpose.

 

3. The Relationship Between Science, Technology and Ethics

Science and technology create new situations, which often call for new acts and principles of ethical formulations. These fundamental tools also force new values, many of which have new ethical significance, or place increased responsibility on scientists to supervise both the creation of knowledge and the actions which will follow. In this connection, it must be acknowledged that S&T is evolving so fast and in so many directions, that these factors move further and further away from the control of man, even though, they are the products of man.

This fact by itself demands an ethical approach to both the type of scientific results sought and how they are used. Since the acquisition of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, is the result of concerted activity and not unmitigated luck, man, its creator, has clear responsibilities. The mere fact of possessing operational, or logistical competence, confers on the possessor of that competence, a measure of social responsibility. Experts often face situations in which the goals of scientific research, or technological performance, are clearly not reconcilable with social goals and public opinion. They, therefore, have the obligation to find the ethically correct attitude to resolve these issues. Ethical queries concerning both the choice and methods in science have emerged with increasing frequency in the recent past, for example, questions involving the use of animals for research, population growth and ecological balance, and the manipulation of genes. In many cases, both the legal system and the ethical norms were not prepared for these types of decisions, and clearly, the concerned experts have to assume full responsibility, not only to clarify the issues, but also to engage the opinions of the wider society.

Accelerated scientific and technological changes, appearing in shorter and shorter time frames, and in multiple varieties and magnitudes, have raised a number of ethical problems and forced immediate judgements. These are projected to increase in rate and sorts. Ethical conclusions are therefore required not only in the type of science, its products and processes, but also in the manner in which these are shared, or not shared, with needy groups and the population at large. Science brings problems not only in the effects of its results on man and his environment, but also in the withholding of important information and knowledge, which carries serious implications for productivity, enterprise, hunger, disease, war and ecological damage. So the transfer of knowledge has to be seen not only in commercial quality and quantity terms, but also in its humanitarian results and morality.

It must be remembered that ethical reflection constitutes a unique field, in the sense that its principles cannot be deduced from propositions pertaining to other fields. However, inasmuch as ethical thinking is reflective thinking, a critical spirit, not too dissimilar from science is brought into play (5). The creation of ethical norms is analogous to that of the formulation of hypotheses and ethical reflection equivalent to the verification process. When there is judgement of its relevance and validity, ethical experience is being tested. A critical awareness approach to ethics will spark creativity, just as it does in science. There is therefore, no excuse for scientists to act indecisively in these matters.

4. The Global Technological Gap

Today science and its technologies are concentrated in a few countries, where it confers the capability for rapid economic development and manipulation, as well as, profound social change and incisive cultural shifts, leaving the rest of the world in a state of dependency and insufficiency in meeting the needs of their populations. Science and technology, as they are practiced today, create a cleavage not only within nations, but also among them. This is in contrast to science, which is exercised freely among scientists, where it helps to foster equality rather than inequality.

Despite the fact that the by-products of science and the new insights it brings to man’s relationship with nature and his gregarious behaviour, have produced conditions and knowledge sufficient to even out the material needs of humanity, science still remains a factor cultivating social and cultural inequality. As a matter of fact, science has served to widen the material gap between the rich and privileged and the poor and ignorant. Within countries affluence and excesses reside side by side with poverty and painful need. The result is growing distrust, suspicion, fear, disrespect and violence. The very goal of democracy becomes more distant each day, irrespective of the fact that more and more countries are holding sporadic high profile political general elections. The largest and most significant feature of this gap is manifested in a set of few rich, industrialized countries, with aging populations and significant military might, contrasted with a large majority of poor countries, with disillusioned people, who are young, angry and desperate. Surely a prescription for catastrophe, clearly a situation which calls for ethics and a new set of rules and values.

Unfortunately, many scientists reason that these problems are the result of socio-political constraints, which hinder the equal distribution of the fruits of science, and therefore of little concern to them. But scientific discoveries are themselves the result of this type of arrangement, which promotes advantages for a few, who are the immediate supporters of current work, with almost total neglect of the urgent requirements of the majority of mankind. The underdeveloped countries, because they have not become serious contributors to science, have little influence over its direction, and as such, progress in science leads further away from their needs and aspirations. Irrespective of all this, although we can argue for the polarization of science to permit excellence in results, it is difficult to justify the unequal distribution of the fruits of these endeavors, especially when it has such disastrous effects.

The rise of modern science has been associated with colonization and the emergence of capitalism. These two features have directed the flow of science. This has led to some disturbing consequences, where the non-renewable resources of the world, much of which reside in the poor countries, are being depleted at an accelerated rate by a few industrialized countries. For example, the USA has an energy consumption rate of some thousand-fold more than African countries. Also the underdeveloped countries produce four times more non-renewable materials than they consume, leaving them with less and less commodities to peddle for survival, while the middle men in the first world, reap large profits for the trade of these raw materials.

The rich countries control over ninety percent (90%) of world trade, over eighty percent (80%) of its manufactured goods and ninety-six percent (96%) of the knowledge created. They, therefore, have a strangling control over the rest of the world. Power consequently takes precedence over justice, and the world’s poor continue to increase in numbers, posing growing problems for social stability and environmental integrity. The so called free market was developed out of capitalistic imperialism leaving the monetary system is in the hands of just seven countries. Large transnational companies from these countries literally control technological development.

The Asian rim states have been able to use technology, aid funds and favourable geopolitical circumstances, to build economies which have overcome these inequities, but most of the rest of the underdeveloped world have not been able to do so, despite a number of efforts and painful adjustment manoeuvres. This was partly due to the fact that the knowledge systems of these countries were destroyed, leaving them after political independence, economically and technologically beholding to the metropolitan countries.

The present dogma is to leave transfer of technology to the attraction of foreign investment. However, although foreign investment has shown growth and globalization, the major movements are among the industrial connections. The capital which is attracted to the poor countries does so because of cheap labour and not because of technology transfer.

The knowledge gap is being further widened by the loss of brains to the first world, due to few career opportunities in the underdeveloped countries and the lore of higher salaries and better working conditions in the developed ones. When this haemorrhage of brains loss is tallied against total aid flows coming into underdeveloped countries in the 1980's, there was still an an estimated net loss of US$4 billion by the poor states (2). Furthermore, the detrimental consequences of the new socio-economic relations aided by scientific knowledge are yet to be fully quantified. Repercussions such as stagnation of productivity and progressive loss of markets in the poor countries, and the inability to provide the means for hope in many of their populations, with all that these entail for migration, illicit trade and drugs, continue apace, without full analysis. However, there is little doubt that the total cost to world trade and global harmony is colossal. The technological gap is therefore a great hindrance to both the underdeveloped, as well as the developed countries. It is also important to note that the market ideology, and other classical economic approaches, despite the rhetoric, have not closed the prosperity divide, and instead, have opened up a wider communication and credibility gap. New ideas, new visions and new actions are patently needed. In this connection, it must be remembered that presently science is a good producer, but a poor distributor, so these gaps will have to be closed by more ethics in the use of science and its technologies.

The new rules of liberalization policed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) will not only eliminate non-productive ventures in the poor countries, but will also significantly reduce the capacity for efficient ones to compete. If left to relative prices, the economically powerful will devour the weak. It is good to reflect on the fact that if the WTO was around in 1910, restricting reverse engineering and similar innovations, Japan would not be the dynamic country it is today.

5. Transfer of Technology An Old Problem

Accelerating the rate of economic growth is not simply a matter of capital formation, it also depends on the selection and application of the most appropriate technologies. The important role of technology in social and economic development of all countries is now fully recognized. Although the world is decidedly different from the era when the underdeveloped world demanded a code of conduct for the transfer of technology (6), technology still remains a vital and contentious factor for social development, as well as, achieving and sustaining economic competitiveness. Crucial to effective technological transfer is possessing a minimum of technological capability, which is costly and demanding of time and effort. Apart from physical inputs, such as new installations, various new skills, technical information and services, research abilities, interactions between firms, equipment suppliers and standards bodies, and the setting up of cooperative systems, with a formidable array of economic, institutional and legal requirements, all placed in an innovative and imaginative mix, are necessary. A tall order even for the well endowed states.

It is interesting to note that although since the early 1970's to today, there have been numerous cases of restrictive business practices, abuses of industrial property rights, over-pricing, direct and in-direct transfer costings, techniques to tie transfer of technology to various aspects of trade and investments, efforts to make it difficult to identify technological components, as well as, the clear recognition of the very weak bargaining position of entrepreneurs and Governments from the underdeveloped countries, proposals for the regulation of international technological trade were consistently and stoutly rejected. The major arguments advanced for this repudiation were that technology was ill-defined and too complicated, and as such, international transactions in this trade did not lend themselves to international regulations. And furthermore, technology being mostly private property, could not be subjected to international regulations anyhow. Furthermore, it was opined that any attempt to regulate international technology trade would affect negatively technological flows to the underdeveloped countries, because any regulation would scare technological sellers from entering into contracts with restrictive minded buyers in small, uncertain and under-developed markets (5).

Although these arguments could aptly be applied to trade in goods and services, today, there are international agreements in respect of commodity trade and the regulation of service transactions. Not only is this so, but intellectual property is now being brought under these regulatory umbrellas to suit the dictates of a few large suppliers of technology. Clearly these are double standards and smacks of unethical practices.

 

 

6. The Logic of Ethics in Technology Transfers

It is abundantly clear that a pure market approach will not rectify the technological situation in the poor countries, surely not in the time, nor in the direction, which are urgently necessary. And it is also clear that the overwhelming economic problems, colossal debt burdens and growing poverty, do not augur well for the poor countries to contemplate mounting a serious S&T recovery strategy on their own, to tackle their immediate problems. It should also be remembered that without environmentally friendly technologies and a serious assault on poverty, the underdeveloped countries will not be able to protect, or rehabilitate, the eco-systems, and will forever be a burden to the global environment. These facts are especially true of small states, which in the best of times, will not be in a position to create technological systems to meet even a modicum of their needs.

There is, consequently, an impeccable logic which mandates that the major technological suppliers and their host countries, should seriously consider allowing the underdeveloped countries easier access to vitally needed technology. This matter cannot be seen purely from an economic and competitive perspective. The fact that such changes will govern the fate of some eighty percent (80%) of mankind, should bring calculated self-interest to the fore, and consequently, move the minds of the rich to a higher level of rationality. It does not take much also to realize that expanded markets in the underdeveloped countries would do well for global economic prosperity. Over and above these considerations, is the fact that technology holds the key to the release of the creative energies of millions by eradicating hunger, preventable diseases and squalor.

It surely is counter-productive to hold the majority of mankind to ransom simply because a confluence of historic circumstances has given the Western world a technological advantage at this juncture. It must be remembered that history has shown us that the poles of progress appear fortuitously and shifts according to forces which are yet to be fully understood. Therefore, it is to the benefit of the entire human race that we preserve cultures with the same vigor as we conserve the planets biodiversity and competitiveness. What culture will have the seeds for survival after current social arrangements have run their course, is debatable, and what set of values may allow for survival, is yet to be determined. It is logical and ethical therefore to give support to all those willing to help themselves, and who, due to historical circumstances today find themselves at a technological disadvantage. All the sciences that can ever be, surely have not been discovered, and successful scientific endeavors are not unique to any race or culture, so the more scientists and the more varieties of approach there are, the better it is for the future.

Ethically, scientists cannot stand idly by and allow their work to contribute to the alienation of such large segments of the human race. Scientists must become more involved in the application of the knowledge opened up by their efforts. Each time science widens its scope of application, it raises new ethical questions, as well as, provides the insights to tackle these problems. Unfortunately, only the material aspects of scientific work grabs the spotlight, and science either is vilified or glorified, as if it is not a human function , which can be tailored by human action.

The transfer of technology has not been faithful to the humanistic promises of S&T, and it is about time that this question be fully ventilated and examined for serious resolution. The market of technology has to be tempered by Government intervention, or multilateral approaches, to ensure that the technological capacity of the poor countries is substantially improved, so that they can fend for themselves, and become true and equal partners in global trade and development.

Global ethical sentiments must be sufficiently expressed to prevent children dying needlessly from hunger and disease, and to stem the misery which some must endure just for survival. The economy of the world is large enough to accommodate the few billion dollars necessary to launch an attack on poverty and to purchase the knowledge to prevent this scourge from re-appearing. And the developed world can more than spare a few of their S&T workers to tackle the basic needs of millions which are in dire traits.

It should also not be surprising that there has been no abatement in the small wars, which have been a feature of the post cold war period. The vengeance heaped on others because of misplaced religious beliefs, ethnic biases and distrust, is clearly a consequence of the groveling for scarce resources, which in truth and in fact, are not really scarce, but simply badly distributed.

With the proper transfer of technology and capable absorptive capacity to build on these transfers, the material problems of mankind have a good chance of being resolved. The young populations of the underdeveloped countries will surely be required to generate the knowledge and provide the energy to grapple with the problems of humanity which will arise in the next century. Deny them the tools and imprison them in anger and distrust is to jeopardize the future of all.

New ethical principles are now needed to ensure the proper sharing of the knowledge which has accumulated since the dawn of science. The world cannot afford to cling to the old values which have driven a propensity to sequester the scientific fruits of mankind in the closets of a few, who are growing older and who are unable to face up to their mistakes. There are no ethical arguments to support the commandeering of excesses in the midst of large scale need.

 

 

 

7. Conclusion

The evidence presented speaks loudly for more ethics and moral principles in the transfer of technology. Surely these are needed to curb the plethora of contemporary restrictive and exorbitant practices. Clearly, the targeted countries need to do much more to improve their information and negotiating skills, but this will take significantly longer if present patterns of transfer prevail.

Science and scientists can do much to help in both quarters. A bond between the practice and distribution of science in the rich and poor countries could launch a new era in development by facilitating genuine technological transfers.

There are a number of cases in which the owners of technology will insist on their proprietary rights to the detriment of suffering millions. In these cases multilateral institutions, or conglomerate of poor countries, could acquire the rights and dispense the technologies at affordable rates to those in need. This sort of investment will pay several times over and foster the time when these manoeuvres will no longer be necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. References

 

(1) Dubos, R. 1970, Reason Awake Science for Man

Columbia University Press, New York. page 114

(2) Price, D. 1979, Obstacles to scientific equality.

cp. VII in Science and the factors of inequality .

Reasons of the past and hopes for the future, ed.

Charles Moraze. UNESCO, Paris, page 249.

(3) Bernal, J.D. The Social Function of Science,

Macmillian, New York, 1939.

(4) Ladriere, J. 1977. The challenge presented to cultures by

Science and Technology. UNESCO, Paris, page 100-116

(5) Op. cit. 2, page 18

(6) Wionczek, M.S. -1984. Technology Transfer:

What do the Developing Countries Want? In Technology

Policy and Development. A Third World perspective. ed.

Ghosh P.K., Greenwood Press, London, page 95-201

(7) Op. cit. 4, page 112 ETHICS IN THE TRANSFER OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

 

 

AN IMPERATIVE

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF POOR COUNTRIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BY

ARNOLDO VENTURA

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

KINGSTON, JAMAICA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR

THE SCIENCE, ETHICS AND SOCIETY SYMPOSIUM

WORLD FEDERATION OF SCIENTIFIC WORKERS

UNESCO, PARIS

SEPTEMBER 1996

ETHICS IN THE TRANSFER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AN

IMPERATIVE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF POOR COUNTRIES

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

ITEMS PAGE

1. BACKGROUND 1

 

2. DEFINITIONS AND CONTEXT 3

 

3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, 5

TECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS

4. THE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL GAP 6

 

5. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AN OLD PROBLEM 10

 

6. THE LOGIC OF ETHICS IN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS 12

 

7. CONCLUSION 15

 

8. REFERENCES 16

 

 

 

 

 

(i)

ETHICS IN THE TRANSFER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

AN IMPERATIVE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF POOR COUNTRIES

 

2. Background

Scientific knowledge and application have become powerful factors in human life and the development of civilization. The scientific enterprise, with awesome effect, allows man to understand and manipulate nature, bringing much good, yet often violence and concern, to all aspects of his existence.

Scientific technologies affect the well being of man, as well as, the ecological balance of our planet. Consequently, there is paramount need to manage all the implications of science and its technologies on human affairs and global sustenance. Since science now generates, derives and services, what increasingly determines the prospects of nations, scientists have an obligation to pay attention not only to the ethics of the means, but also the ethics of the ends, of scientific endeavors (1).

Since there is little to be gained by slowing down the generation of knowledge, and perhaps, much to loose by curtailing the proper returns on investment in knowledge generation, the scientific discipline should be preserved. However, a distinction has to be made between scientific knowledge and its use. Whereas the generation of scientific knowledge is more private and is of less ethical concern, the application of scientific knowledge clearly has a public and ethical immediacy.

History has told us that contributions to the development of the scientific enterprise were made by many generations, cultures, continents and peoples. From the tacit observations of Africa and Asia to the rationality of the Greeks, Europe was able, during the Enlightenment, to deploy selections from Islam and Christianity, to give better definition to what today is referred to as science. There is therefore no doubt that any culture can command and nurture any aspect of science and technology (S&T). Indeed, science is truly the legacy of the entire human race. Only recently has any set of cultures taken on a dominant role in this fundamental of human preoccupation (2).

This disturbance has risen primarily because political and cultural movements over the Colonial period have served to disconnect large segments of the human family from the scientific expedition. Consequently, many societies, euphemistically called underdeveloped countries, were hooked on to the products of science without ever participating in their development, or production, and indeed, without understanding the scientific method which underpins many of them. Furthermore, the economics of this era created schisms within countries, by harboring the coexistence of a majority in poverty and a small minority in affluence, mainly based on the levels of access to the method and results of science. Some twenty percent (20%) of mankind live in harmful material excesses and the rest in debilitating want and neglect. This is a reflection of the contemporary global scene, in which a few countries are endowed with science and its products and consequently prosper, and the rest, at best, are passive consumers of a few of these products and struggle just to survive.

The restricted transfer of the fruits of science, from the science rich to the science poor, has created and fostered a situation where there is inequity in trade, economic returns and social stability, as well as, political positioning in the prevailing world order. This has given to exploitation, and ensuing poverty, dependency, insecurity and an attack on the cultural base of many countries. Social and military tension, and an open assault on the environmental integrity of the planet, have also accompanied this type of impeded transfer of S&T. This situation, clearly , is unsustainable and raises many ethical questions which, if left unanswered, bodes ill of the future of mankind.

This paper therefore, has the focus to describe the way S&T is practiced today and how the results of these endeavors are distributed. The idea is to examine the values underpinning the process and to speculate on the ultimate consequences emanating from the unquestioned embrace of contemporary norms, especially as they concern the less fortunate in the underdeveloped countries. From this perspective the role of ethics as a corrective expediency will be explored.

Two categories of problems emerge from the relationship between ethics and S&T. One relates to the actual functioning of S&T, and the other comprise problems stemming indirectly from S&T development and use. This paper deals with the second of these categories, specifically, the undue restriction in the flow of S&T knowledge from communities, which possess the knowledge, to others, which have a vital need for this information. It must however be recognized that it is difficult to separate these categories.

2. Definitions and Context

To better understand the subtleties of the various concepts introduced in this paper, they will be defined and placed in an operational context.

Science is the systematic study of nature and technology is the use of information about nature to do the bidding of man. Although both endeavors at the inchoate stage of science were separate, today science has a direct influence on technology and technology a reciprocal effect on science, so much so, that where one ends and the other begins is often indistinguishable. Because S&T are now strategic tools, large sums are spent on scientific research and technological development. So large in fact, that the underdeveloped, or the poor countries, cannot meaningfully participate in this global odyssey.

Socio-economic development is the conscious attempt to enable members of a society to reach higher social, political, spiritual, technological, economic and cultural levels. Although a few countries have been able to harness S&T for enhanced production efficiencies and consequent advanced material standards, a large portion of mankind still languishes in poverty and despair. There is no doubt that underdevelopment is one of the most flagrant evils in the modern world. Its sheer magnitude is a disgrace to humanity and a clear reminder of the dashed hopes and the misappropriation of the power of the inductive method (3). Science has therefore, not been innocent in this state of affairs, as it has been used to separate the haves from the have nots, and remanded power in certain dominant quarters to keep the underprivileged from becoming rivals. Literally, scientific civilization has enriched its promoters by worsening the situation of those ignorant of its underpinnings.

Ethics are moral principles which govern actions. In a sense ethics can be seen as the science of morality. Ethical values occupy a central place in human interaction, since they govern the norms of actions and therefore give final shape to patterns of motivation and behavior, as well as, the selection of principles and evaluation criteria on which objectives are based. Nevertheless, the basic imperatives on which ethics rest cannot be translated into concrete principles of actions. Ethical codes, therefore, are merely signposts to assist individuals in adopting ethical positions (4). Ethical principles must compel recognition on their own and thereby provide their own justification. They may be associated with religious conceptions, or derived from ideological constraints, or the products of simple popular myths. Ethics emerge from patterns of socialization. It, therefore, underlays justifying and re-defining norms, which govern patterns of conduct and their purpose.

Science and technology create new situations, which often call for new acts and principles of ethical formulations. These fundamental tools also force new values, many of which have new ethical significance, or place increased responsibility on scientists to supervise both the creation of knowledge and the actions which will follow. In this connection, it must be acknowledged that S&T is evolving so fast and in so many directions, that these factors move further and further away from the control of man, even though, they are the products of man.

This fact by itself demands an ethical approach to both the type of scientific results sought and how they are used. Since the acquisition of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, is the result of concerted activity and not unmitigated luck, man, its creator, has clear responsibilities. The mere fact of possessing operational, or logistical competence, confers on the possessor of that competence, a measure of social responsibility. Experts often face situations in which the goals of scientific research, or technological performance, are clearly not reconcilable with social goals and public opinion. They, therefore, have the obligation to find the ethically correct attitude to resolve these issues. Ethical queries concerning both the choice and methods in science have emerged with increasing frequency in the recent past, for example, questions involving the use of animals for research, population growth and ecological balance, and the manipulation of genes. In many cases, both the legal system and the ethical norms were not prepared for these types of decisions, and clearly, the concerned experts have to assume full responsibility, not only to clarify the issues, but also to engage the opinions of the wider society.

Accelerated scientific and technological changes, appearing in shorter and shorter time frames, and in multiple varieties and magnitudes, have raised a number of ethical problems and forced immediate judgements. These are projected to increase in rate and sorts. Ethical conclusions are therefore required not only in the type of science, its products and processes, but also in the manner in which these are shared, or not shared, with needy groups and the population at large. Science brings problems not only in the effects of its results on man and his environment, but also in the withholding of important information and knowledge, which carries serious implications for productivity, enterprise, hunger, disease, war and ecological damage. So the transfer of knowledge has to be seen not only in commercial quality and quantity terms, but also in its humanitarian results and morality.

It must be remembered that ethical reflection constitutes a unique field, in the sense that its principles cannot be deduced from propositions pertaining to other fields. However, inasmuch as ethical thinking is reflective thinking, a critical spirit, not too dissimilar from science is brought into play (5). The creation of ethical norms is analogous to that of the formulation of hypotheses and ethical reflection equivalent to the verification process. When there is judgement of its relevance and validity, ethical experience is being tested. A critical awareness approach to ethics will spark creativity, just as it does in science. There is therefore, no excuse for scientists to act indecisively in these matters.

4. The Global Technological Gap

Today science and its technologies are concentrated in a few countries, where it confers the capability for rapid economic development and manipulation, as well as, profound social change and incisive cultural shifts, leaving the rest of the world in a state of dependency and insufficiency in meeting the needs of their populations. Science and technology, as they are practiced today, create a cleavage not only within nations, but also among them. This is in contrast to science, which is exercised freely among scientists, where it helps to foster equality rather than inequality.

Despite the fact that the by-products of science and the new insights it brings to man’s relationship with nature and his gregarious behaviour, have produced conditions and knowledge sufficient to even out the material needs of humanity, science still remains a factor cultivating social and cultural inequality. As a matter of fact, science has served to widen the material gap between the rich and privileged and the poor and ignorant. Within countries affluence and excesses reside side by side with poverty and painful need. The result is growing distrust, suspicion, fear, disrespect and violence. The very goal of democracy becomes more distant each day, irrespective of the fact that more and more countries are holding sporadic high profile political general elections. The largest and most significant feature of this gap is manifested in a set of few rich, industrialized countries, with aging populations and significant military might, contrasted with a large majority of poor countries, with disillusioned people, who are young, angry and desperate. Surely a prescription for catastrophe, clearly a situation which calls for ethics and a new set of rules and values.

Unfortunately, many scientists reason that these problems are the result of socio-political constraints, which hinder the equal distribution of the fruits of science, and therefore of little concern to them. But scientific discoveries are themselves the result of this type of arrangement, which promotes advantages for a few, who are the immediate supporters of current work, with almost total neglect of the urgent requirements of the majority of mankind. The underdeveloped countries, because they have not become serious contributors to science, have little influence over its direction, and as such, progress in science leads further away from their needs and aspirations. Irrespective of all this, although we can argue for the polarization of science to permit excellence in results, it is difficult to justify the unequal distribution of the fruits of these endeavors, especially when it has such disastrous effects.

The rise of modern science has been associated with colonization and the emergence of capitalism. These two features have directed the flow of science. This has led to some disturbing consequences, where the non-renewable resources of the world, much of which reside in the poor countries, are being depleted at an accelerated rate by a few industrialized countries. For example, the USA has an energy consumption rate of some thousand-fold more than African countries. Also the underdeveloped countries produce four times more non-renewable materials than they consume, leaving them with less and less commodities to peddle for survival, while the middle men in the first world, reap large profits for the trade of these raw materials.

The rich countries control over ninety percent (90%) of world trade, over eighty percent (80%) of its manufactured goods and ninety-six percent (96%) of the knowledge created. They, therefore, have a strangling control over the rest of the world. Power consequently takes precedence over justice, and the world’s poor continue to increase in numbers, posing growing problems for social stability and environmental integrity. The so called free market was developed out of capitalistic imperialism leaving the monetary system is in the hands of just seven countries. Large transnational companies from these countries literally control technological development.

The Asian rim states have been able to use technology, aid funds and favourable geopolitical circumstances, to build economies which have overcome these inequities, but most of the rest of the underdeveloped world have not been able to do so, despite a number of efforts and painful adjustment manoeuvres. This was partly due to the fact that the knowledge systems of these countries were destroyed, leaving them after political independence, economically and technologically beholding to the metropolitan countries.

The present dogma is to leave transfer of technology to the attraction of foreign investment. However, although foreign investment has shown growth and globalization, the major movements are among the industrial connections. The capital which is attracted to the poor countries does so because of cheap labour and not because of technology transfer.

The knowledge gap is being further widened by the loss of brains to the first world, due to few career opportunities in the underdeveloped countries and the lore of higher salaries and better working conditions in the developed ones. When this haemorrhage of brains loss is tallied against total aid flows coming into underdeveloped countries in the 1980's, there was still an an estimated net loss of US$4 billion by the poor states (2). Furthermore, the detrimental consequences of the new socio-economic relations aided by scientific knowledge are yet to be fully quantified. Repercussions such as stagnation of productivity and progressive loss of markets in the poor countries, and the inability to provide the means for hope in many of their populations, with all that these entail for migration, illicit trade and drugs, continue apace, without full analysis. However, there is little doubt that the total cost to world trade and global harmony is colossal. The technological gap is therefore a great hindrance to both the underdeveloped, as well as the developed countries. It is also important to note that the market ideology, and other classical economic approaches, despite the rhetoric, have not closed the prosperity divide, and instead, have opened up a wider communication and credibility gap. New ideas, new visions and new actions are patently needed. In this connection, it must be remembered that presently science is a good producer, but a poor distributor, so these gaps will have to be closed by more ethics in the use of science and its technologies.

The new rules of liberalization policed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) will not only eliminate non-productive ventures in the poor countries, but will also significantly reduce the capacity for efficient ones to compete. If left to relative prices, the economically powerful will devour the weak. It is good to reflect on the fact that if the WTO was around in 1910, restricting reverse engineering and similar innovations, Japan would not be the dynamic country it is today.

5. Transfer of Technology An Old Problem

Accelerating the rate of economic growth is not simply a matter of capital formation, it also depends on the selection and application of the most appropriate technologies. The important role of technology in social and economic development of all countries is now fully recognized. Although the world is decidedly different from the era when the underdeveloped world demanded a code of conduct for the transfer of technology (6), technology still remains a vital and contentious factor for social development, as well as, achieving and sustaining economic competitiveness. Crucial to effective technological transfer is possessing a minimum of technological capability, which is costly and demanding of time and effort. Apart from physical inputs, such as new installations, various new skills, technical information and services, research abilities, interactions between firms, equipment suppliers and standards bodies, and the setting up of cooperative systems, with a formidable array of economic, institutional and legal requirements, all placed in an innovative and imaginative mix, are necessary. A tall order even for the well endowed states.

It is interesting to note that although since the early 1970's to today, there have been numerous cases of restrictive business practices, abuses of industrial property rights, over-pricing, direct and in-direct transfer costings, techniques to tie transfer of technology to various aspects of trade and investments, efforts to make it difficult to identify technological components, as well as, the clear recognition of the very weak bargaining position of entrepreneurs and Governments from the underdeveloped countries, proposals for the regulation of international technological trade were consistently and stoutly rejected. The major arguments advanced for this repudiation were that technology was ill-defined and too complicated, and as such, international transactions in this trade did not lend themselves to international regulations. And furthermore, technology being mostly private property, could not be subjected to international regulations anyhow. Furthermore, it was opined that any attempt to regulate international technology trade would affect negatively technological flows to the underdeveloped countries, because any regulation would scare technological sellers from entering into contracts with restrictive minded buyers in small, uncertain and under-developed markets (5).

Although these arguments could aptly be applied to trade in goods and services, today, there are international agreements in respect of commodity trade and the regulation of service transactions. Not only is this so, but intellectual property is now being brought under these regulatory umbrellas to suit the dictates of a few large suppliers of technology. Clearly these are double standards and smacks of unethical practices.

6. The Logic of Ethics in Technology Transfers

It is abundantly clear that a pure market approach will not rectify the technological situation in the poor countries, surely not in the time, nor in the direction, which are urgently necessary. And it is also clear that the overwhelming economic problems, colossal debt burdens and growing poverty, do not augur well for the poor countries to contemplate mounting a serious S&T recovery strategy on their own, to tackle their immediate problems. It should also be remembered that without environmentally friendly technologies and a serious assault on poverty, the underdeveloped countries will not be able to protect, or rehabilitate, the eco-systems, and will forever be a burden to the global environment. These facts are especially true of small states, which in the best of times, will not be in a position to create technological systems to meet even a modicum of their needs.

There is, consequently, an impeccable logic which mandates that the major technological suppliers and their host countries, should seriously consider allowing the underdeveloped countries easier access to vitally needed technology. This matter cannot be seen purely from an economic and competitive perspective. The fact that such changes will govern the fate of some eighty percent (80%) of mankind, should bring calculated self-interest to the fore, and consequently, move the minds of the rich to a higher level of rationality. It does not take much also to realize that expanded markets in the underdeveloped countries would do well for global economic prosperity. Over and above these considerations, is the fact that technology holds the key to the release of the creative energies of millions by eradicating hunger, preventable diseases and squalor.

It surely is counter-productive to hold the majority of mankind to ransom simply because a confluence of historic circumstances has given the Western world a technological advantage at this juncture. It must be remembered that history has shown us that the poles of progress appear fortuitously and shifts according to forces which are yet to be fully understood. Therefore, it is to the benefit of the entire human race that we preserve cultures with the same vigor as we conserve the planets biodiversity and competitiveness. What culture will have the seeds for survival after current social arrangements have run their course, is debatable, and what set of values may allow for survival, is yet to be determined. It is logical and ethical therefore to give support to all those willing to help themselves, and who, due to historical circumstances today find themselves at a technological disadvantage. All the sciences that can ever be, surely have not been discovered, and successful scientific endeavors are not unique to any race or culture, so the more scientists and the more varieties of approach there are, the better it is for the future.

Ethically, scientists cannot stand idly by and allow their work to contribute to the alienation of such large segments of the human race. Scientists must become more involved in the application of the knowledge opened up by their efforts. Each time science widens its scope of application, it raises new ethical questions, as well as, provides the insights to tackle these problems. Unfortunately, only the material aspects of scientific work grabs the spotlight, and science either is vilified or glorified, as if it is not a human function , which can be tailored by human action.

The transfer of technology has not been faithful to the humanistic promises of S&T, and it is about time that this question be fully ventilated and examined for serious resolution. The market of technology has to be tempered by Government intervention, or multilateral approaches, to ensure that the technological capacity of the poor countries is substantially improved, so that they can fend for themselves, and become true and equal partners in global trade and development.

Global ethical sentiments must be sufficiently expressed to prevent children dying needlessly from hunger and disease, and to stem the misery which some must endure just for survival. The economy of the world is large enough to accommodate the few billion dollars necessary to launch an attack on poverty and to purchase the knowledge to prevent this scourge from re-appearing. And the developed world can more than spare a few of their S&T workers to tackle the basic needs of millions which are in dire traits.

It should also not be surprising that there has been no abatement in the small wars, which have been a feature of the post cold war period. The vengeance heaped on others because of misplaced religious beliefs, ethnic biases and distrust, is clearly a consequence of the groveling for scarce resources, which in truth and in fact, are not really scarce, but simply badly distributed.

With the proper transfer of technology and capable absorptive capacity to build on these transfers, the material problems of mankind have a good chance of being resolved. The young populations of the underdeveloped countries will surely be required to generate the knowledge and provide the energy to grapple with the problems of humanity which will arise in the next century. Deny them the tools and imprison them in anger and distrust is to jeopardize the future of all.

New ethical principles are now needed to ensure the proper sharing of the knowledge which has accumulated since the dawn of science. The world cannot afford to cling to the old values which have driven a propensity to sequester the scientific fruits of mankind in the closets of a few, who are growing older and who are unable to face up to their mistakes. There are no ethical arguments to support the commandeering of excesses in the midst of large scale need.

7. Conclusion

The evidence presented speaks loudly for more ethics and moral principles in the transfer of technology. Surely these are needed to curb the plethora of contemporary restrictive and exorbitant practices. Clearly, the targeted countries need to do much more to improve their information and negotiating skills, but this will take significantly longer if present patterns of transfer prevail.

Science and scientists can do much to help in both quarters. A bond between the practice and distribution of science in the rich and poor countries could launch a new era in development by facilitating genuine technological transfers.

There are a number of cases in which the owners of technology will insist on their proprietary rights to the detriment of suffering millions. In these cases multilateral institutions, or conglomerate of poor countries, could acquire the rights and dispense the technologies at affordable rates to those in need. This sort of investment will pay several times over and foster the time when these manoeuvres will no longer be necessary.

8. References

(1) Dubos, R. 1970, Reason Awake Science for Man

Columbia University Press, New York. page 114

(2) Price, D. 1979, Obstacles to scientific equality.

cp. VII in Science and the factors of inequality .

Reasons of the past and hopes for the future, ed.

Charles Moraze. UNESCO, Paris, page 249.

(3) Bernal, J.D. The Social Function of Science,

Macmillian, New York, 1939.

(4) Ladriere, J. 1977. The challenge presented to cultures by

Science and Technology. UNESCO, Paris, page 100-116

(5) Op. cit. 2, page 18

(6) Wionczek, M.S. -1984. Technology Transfer:

What do the Developing Countries Want? In Technology

Policy and Development. A Third World perspective. ed.

Ghosh P.K., Greenwood Press, London, page 95-201

(7) Op. cit. 4, page 112