Moving USAID Forward

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

R. Shah's powerful editorial “Breakthroughs for development” (22 July, p. [385][1]) underscores the proud history of America's scientific and engineering contributions to development around the world. Many were privately funded and led; many were stimulated by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Yet USAID has drifted from its past strengths. Shah bluntly states that “budget cuts and shifting mandates pulled the agency's focus away from emphasizing science and technology.” He implicitly refers to blizzards of congressional earmarks and to USAID's deliberate and consistent de-emphasis on science over the past 30 years. Observers have repeatedly criticized these trends and recommended exactly what Shah now sees as a priority. For example, 20 years ago, in 1992, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government argued for a new strategy for USAID and advocated “critical roles for science and technology” ([ 1 ][2]). Just 5 years ago, in 2007, the Bipartisan Congressional-Presidential HELP Commission called for a new unit in USAID, similar to the creative projects of the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency, that would invest $50 million per year of “patient capital”—i.e., federal government funding for innovative long-range research (dubbed “patient” because it may not yield immediate results) ([ 2 ][3]). The reports sat on shelves. No administration took the initiative. Little changed, and the defects Shah cites became worse. One objection to vigorous U.S. science and technology cooperation is that developing countries such as China and India become competitors as they flourish with economic growth powered by science. However, such countries also become larger markets for U.S. exports and more capable partners in global goals, such as protecting public health. As the Congress weighs paths to prudent austerity in the overall federal budget, the scientific, medical, and engineering foundations of programs in foreign assistance are as important as such foundations are in defense. Let us move USAID out of its late-20th-century ruts and into the 21st century's frontiers. Shah deserves our help. 1. [↵][4] Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, “Partnerships for global development: The clearing horizon” (Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York, 1992). 2. [↵][5] 1. M. K. Bush, 2. C. Adelman, 3. L. Hindery , “Beyond assistance: The HELP commission report on foreign assistance reform” (HELP Commission Act PL 108-199, Washington, DC, 2007). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/385.short [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text