Dr. Arnoldo Ventura, Contributor

A child looks on as a woman holds up food in Giyani in the Northern Province, South Africa, in this August 26, 2004 file photo. In his new book 'Freedom Next Time', Australian-born journalist John Pilger argues that the harsh reality of life in black townships in South Africa is that poverty has increased and income disparities have widened since the end of white rule in 1994. He says social grants are too small to make much difference and many poor rural children do not qualify because they have no birth certificates. - REUTERS

Science has provided a vision of the universe and introduced new concepts of ourselves and our position in the scheme of things. There is no doubt that science has given greater understanding to old technologies as it has prompted the creation of new ones.

Science creates products ahead of markets, and it has recently produced artificial life and harnesses it for beneficial uses. The upshot of this is that science has created large industrial complexes as it triggers the rise of small enterprises and advances domestic services, along with bringing the poor closer to the operations of their societies.

All this is well known, but the social impacts of science have not been given the same attention as its influence in the economic arena. Today, I shall explore two of these spheres of beneficial social inducements, that of democracy and the eradication of poverty.

(a) Deepening democracy

I posit that science is an imperative for the strengthening and deepening of democracy. Many of the problems in established democracies spring from the lack of full participation of the majority of citizens. As a consequence, they felt helpless in ordering the affairs of their communities and have become cynical about the political decision making process.

Logically, in the modern world, informed democratic participation is impossible without confident scientific thinking and balanced technological assessment throughout society. The profusion of choices rendered by scientific technologies and the questions posed by science, demand the fundamental capability of scientific reasoning, if individuals are not to rely mainly on the opinion of others and on their own narrow emotions.

The flood of data and information, consequent on the spread of information and communication technologies (ICTS), has made this eventuality progressively more pertinent today, especially in countries struggling with both linguistics and scientific literacy. Essentially, a wider spectrum of citizens must become more cognitive and analytical, if democracy is to mature and realise its full potential.

So far, democracy has been inconsequential in relieving the growing numbers locked in poverty and desperation. This coupled with the unforgiving and often covert market mechanism and the acceleration of an insensitive one-sided globalisation, have aggravated instead of reduced poverty. Science and technology perhaps is the only force, which can provide the innovations and empirical data to begin the resolution of these issues of crushing poverty.

In a sense, science and its results must be seen as the conscience of society, as well as, the moral authority of democracy. So, science must not only demonstrate that poverty is unacceptable and in many ways too costly, if not too dangerous, but must also provide tangible ways to wipe this bane from the family of man.

Science depends on the principles of freedom of exploration and expression which are the bedrocks of democracy. Nevertheless, the egalitarian and normative effects of democracy run counter to the elitism on which scientific excellence thrives. Scientists must therefore find ways to educate civil society in the tenets of science and the cautiousness of its results, without being so tentative as not to inspire confidence. A science for the poor with a demonstration of its usefulness is badly needed. Once this is achieved the power of science will be revealed with telling consequences on development.

The question now is how to use Science & Technology (S&T) for the poor rather than just for the rich - a science for more human ends. For example ICTS can be deployed for better government and governance and building consensus for democracy, more technological choices for increased productivity in the informal and small scale sectors, and the development of new material technologies for affordable housing, and the use of alternative technologies for safer and more environmentally friendly energy and safer water supplies.

(b) Attainment of the Millennium Development Goal (MDGS)

The leaders of the world have finally accepted that poverty costs much more than they realise. The true cost is not yet calculated, and hopefully Jamaica will begin this measurement shortly, but there is no doubt it is a substantial drain on the rich, as well as, on the poor. Just consider the cost of prevention with cure in instances where poverty makes current matters worse, such as terrorism, deaths from disaster, faulty construction and the spread of diseases, and this fact will become evident. So the world's leaders have agreed on a set of eight goals and some 18 targets to be achieved by 2015.

It is abundantly clear from just examining these goals that none of them, such as exemplified by the reduction of hunger, child mortality, and tropical diseases, can be achieved without substantial S&T input. And it should also be clear that not all of the goals and the targets, such as primary education and environmental sustainability, can be met with existing levels of knowledge and S&T competence in the beneficiary countries. There is much work to be done by the local S&T communities to help to pose the right questions and seek the correct answers, by providing relevant technological solutions.

Moreover, the time frame of 2015 for the attainment of the MDGS suggests assertive technological partnerships and technology transfers. But no problem enmeshed in the complexity of poverty can be solved totally with outside expertise and knowledge alone. To extract the best from such collaborations, the poor, who are to benefit, must be made an active part of the definition and the meeting of targets, if poverty is first to be reduced, later to be eradicated and finally to be kept permanently at bay.

The rich countries must place more emphasis on poverty reduction as a moral principle and correct skewed expenditures, such as those being spent on bio-terrorism that are far greater than those donated to the control of the diseases of the poor.

So, more knowledge, better technology, and closer partnerships between the rich and the poor are vital to achieve a more balanced global existence. Domestic S&T communities have clear responsibilities in all of these areas.

Conclusion

From what I have said, it is obvious that the exponential spread of S&T are here for good or for evil, and are potent forces in both instances. To ignore S&T at the formal domestic levels does not mean that S&T will not have significant influences on societies both from the inside and the outside.

The logical conclusion then is that more S&T must be applied for gainful occupations and jobs, if there is to be a deflection from the temptation by the young to use S&T for anti-social purposes.

The message is clear from all quarters; greater local investments in S&T are a must for all societies, especially those with serious crime and domestic problems. If this is not done, those who impart knowledge and technologies for nefarious instead of constructive uses, will have the upper hand.

What is clear is that S&T will not remain inconsequential in any society. Furthermore, what is also true is that poverty will not remain untouched by S&T. Those who ignore the role that S&T can play in poverty do so at their own peril.