 Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Ford School on Michael Barr, the Joan and Sandy Wilde Dean of this great institution. For those of you who are here, welcome physically. For those of you who are listening online, welcome virtually. Welcome to today's Policy Talks lecture, which is cosponsored by our Science, Technology, and Public Policy program. The Department of Chemistry, the University of Michigan's Office of Research, and the Center for South Asian Studies. Today's event is part of the Ford School's annual City Foundation lecture series, which enables the Ford School each year to bring some of the world's most prominent policy leaders and thinkers to our campus. We're honored to be joined today by Dr. T. Ramasamy, former Secretary of Science and Technology for India, who has traveled with us to be with us here today from Chennai. Dr. Ramasamy is a highly distinguished scientist with an incredible record of scholarship and leadership. STPP Director Shabita Parthasarathi will introduce him more fully in a moment, but let me take this opportunity to thank him for coming and for welcoming the many appointments and meetings he's had with students and faculty already and will over the coming days. We've packed a lot into his three-day visit, and I want to thank him for being so generous with his time. And now I'm very pleased to introduce my colleague Shabita, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Women's Studies and Director of the STPP program, one of our very dynamic and interdisciplinary centers here at the Ford School. Shabita, along with former U.M. President Jim Duderstadt, founded the STPP program in 2006. She is a widely cited expert on issues related to how we govern ethically and socially controversial science and technology policy issues. And she's particularly interested in how technological innovation and innovation systems can better achieve public interest and social justice goals. Shabita has done really interesting and important comparative work looking across national borders to provide broadly significant insights. Her latest book, Patent Politics, was published last spring by the University of Chicago Press. Previously, she published Building Genetic Medicine, Breast Cancer Technology, and the Comparative Politics of Healthcare from MIT Press. Findings from that first book influenced a major Supreme Court decision in 2013 that prohibited patents on isolated human genes. Shabita holds her BA in biology from the University of Chicago and a master's in PhD in science and technology studies from Cornell. Please join me in welcoming Shabita to the podium. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you, Michael, for that lovely introduction. It's my great pleasure to introduce Dr. Thirumalachari Ramasamy, who served the government of India as the Secretary for Science and Technology from May 2006 until 2014. He's currently a member of the advisory board on education and outreach for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons in The Hague. He's also an honorary professor at seven universities and institutes of national importance in India, including the prestigious Indian Institutes for Science, Education, and Research. Dr. Ramasamy holds bachelor's and master's degrees in technology from the University of Madras and a PhD in inorganic chemistry from the University of Leeds, which I should say my father also attended. He held postdoctoral fellowships and visiting positions in both the United States and UK, including Wayne State University in Detroit, before returning to India in the 1980s. He then joined India's Central Leather Research Institute as a senior scientist and eventually became its director. As Dean Barr said, Dr. Ramasamy is an accomplished scientist. He's contributed to more than 230 publications, published eight chapters in books, filed 41 patents, and developed 12 process know-hows. Furthermore, during his leadership, the Central Leather Research Institute emerged as a global leader in the field, generating the largest share of publications and patents related to leather research in the world. In 2006, Dr. Ramasamy became the Secretary of Science and Technology for the Government of India and held that position for eight years, a tenure that is quite rare and a demonstration of his excellence in the position. During his time as Secretary, India massively increased its research and development investments. Dr. Ramasamy was also instrumental in initiating 74 new programs, including efforts to increase and attract young people from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to study science, to bring women back into the science and engineering workforce after marriage and family leaves, and to inspire science and technology development both for and by poor and marginalized communities. He was instrumental in developing the 2013 Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Plan for the Government of India and he has served as the Indian co-chair for the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum as well as the US India Science and Technology Commission. Finally, Dr. Ramasamy has been particularly noted for his efforts to think creatively about science and technology policy in low resource settings, including research and development for public and social good with a pro-poor orientation to technology and affordability of innovation. He also makes a compelling case for marrying collaborative excellence with competitive excellence models and he will, I hope, discuss these themes in particular in his remarks today. Dr. Ramasamy's expertise and accomplishments have been widely recognized. He's the winner of more than 63 awards, including the 1993 Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Prize, which is India's highest recognition for scientists, and two of India's highest civilian honors for service, the Padma Sri for his contributions to science and engineering in 2001 and the Padma Bhushan in 2014 for his service to science. He is also an elected fellow of five academies of sciences, including the World Academy of Sciences in Trieste, Italy. Following Dr. Ramasamy's remarks, he'll take questions from the audience. Beginning around 4.40 p.m., staff will start collecting question cards. Postdoctoral fellow Caroline Walsh, together with Ford School student Jackson Voss, an STPP and chemistry student Rachel Wallace, will facilitate the question and answer session. And for those of you watching online, please post your questions via Twitter using the hashtag policy talks. So without further ado, please join me in welcoming Dr. Ramasamy. Thank you very much. I thank Shabita for that generous introduction of some Ramasamy that I do not know about. Thank you for those kind words. I thank the dean. I thank the Ford School for this opportunity to be here today to share with you my understanding of the role of science and technology innovation policy in developing countries. I also thank the department for choosing the topic for me. It was a suggestion that came from the department. Of course, as somebody who were to add small addition to this title, I added the word global perspective. But I was reminded of an anecdote in my early part of life. I did my PhD in University of Leeds, Zinglin, that was introduced to you earlier. And I had a colleague by the name of Julian Edward, who was an Englishman who had a different kind of tongue. He wanted some spicy Indian Ford. So he used to join me with my dinner on many occasions. So I used to cook Indian Ford in 7. After several occasions, one day he asked me, hey, where are you getting the groceries from? I said, well, let me say I was naive. I said from Morrison's. From Morrison's. I said, yes. So this is not authentic Indian food. This is an Indian's food. I believe my global perspective also is going to be a world view of an individual that happens to be Ramaswamy. I share with you today such a perspective on this science and technology in innovation space. And this talk would have four parts. The first part would talk about the perceived roles of the STI policy, of course, in the developing country framework, but along the knowledge, national prosperity access. And one of the second parts will talk about the general policy directions and the dilemmas of the developing world in formulating the STI policy. The part three will try to make a case for that collaborative excellence that Shobita talked about for the building strategic alliances and partnerships between among the developed and the developing economies to look at the technology needs of poorer nations in the world. And the part four will present a case study in a policy perspective and present a general summary of this world view of this individual called Ramaswamy. And if you look at this science and technology and innovation system, primarily it is a knowledge triangle where the science is world over relates to an advanced knowledge. Innovation on leadership in a usable knowledge and technology gainful and useful knowledge. Primarily, all of us would agree that science as we see as an advanced knowledge is skill scholarship driven world over. Innovation in the current perspective of the world view is in a competition and technology is primarily knowledge market driven. When the nations have already reached a certain level of prosperity and distributed among the people, then those nations could focus on developing science technology innovation system where the knowledge itself becomes premium on which investors are the focus on the knowledge triangle. But for those nations where the creation of knowledge itself is a perspective in a developed process is one kind. In the developing country perspective, we need to go back and ask, how does that creation of knowledge lead to creation of jobs, creation of value, creation of wealth as well, and then contribute to the national prosperity. Therefore, how do we connect the knowledge in the national prosperity access in the SCA framework becomes an important aspect of developing economies of the world. Having said this, I think it is appropriate to go back and see how the science being global and scholarship driven would have a policy which aims at clearly the globally competitive positions for the nations and the people who pursue science primarily relying on scholarship as an input. The technology on the other hand is contextual. It is related to the stage at which the society is standing today in terms of requirements. And it is, as I said before, being market driven. One could ask the question, a technology policy would aim at access to globally competitive technologies through various market mechanisms through which these nations can access them and propel them. Innovation, as we see today, is competition driven. And in the case of economies which have reached a certain level of economic prosperity and national prosperity, it will mounts on the global competitiveness being number X in the process. But in the developing country framework, we need to really look at balance between the competitiveness and also the kinds of differing priorities for the development processes as a whole because there are still gaps in the national prosperity space that need to be linked. And that's the kind of questions that I like to highlight today. If you want to look at the triangle of science technology and innovation and superimpose it over the global space of developed and developing economies, there will be different needs for depending upon the state of development. The small countries which are already developed will have to focus attention on the STI policy to remain competitive on a market space. When the domestic market is small, they have to really look at it in global markets. Therefore, they have to be continuously leapfrogging upon themselves to be able to remain competitive. The large developed countries with a large domestic market, they had to invest into STI to remain advanced because many times in this global perspective, you have to run fast to stay. Otherwise, you will probably somebody who is overtaking. They remain advanced. There is a position as well. And there are large economies, large sized countries, but still in the developing economy. In their case, how to spread the developmental choices to people? It is not about developing infrastructure. It's a question of how do you develop development choices to people becomes the key issue. The inclusiveness becomes an important dimension of such economies as well. There are small economies in the developing phase of life and they constantly have to catch up with the world. Therefore, the science, technology, innovation policies in a global dynamics are driven by two opposing elements, I must say. There was a developmental agenda while the science is common to all of them, the scholarship activity, that technology which is related to the developmental processes for a developing country become crucial. And the countries which have a certain level of national prosperity and economic space, they need to look at this X axis of global dynamics and stay afoot in the innovation space. And having said this, the developmental needs of science, technology, innovation policy of a developing country, it needs to go in a certain axis because the developing countries need them more than even the developed countries have, because the needs of, unfull, unmet needs are quite large. But the resource availability for the developing economies to invest into HTI are not probably matching with the needs that they have. If we look at the dimension of the two axes, they probably oppose. One, in terms of the needs, the developing countries need more, but the resources they have to invest is small, whereas the developed countries have the larger needs. Having said these, the kinds of differing priorities of nation states and all of the economies, the high income group countries, which is number 35 today and 43 in number today, they focus on technology leadership. And their focus is essentially how to connect the high technology trade, how to connect this technology to get a global share of the high technology trade. On the other hand, the upper middle income group countries and some small economies, they need to work on the global competitiveness and leadership in marketplace. And if you look at the innovation leaders in indices in the world, the top 10 economies, eight of small economies, you would see Finland, Israel, the countries which are smaller economies, where the domestic market size is small, and they need to connect their innovation space to be ahead in the global market. And therefore leadership in marketplace becomes a crucial issue. On the other hand, the low middle income group countries and developing countries belong to the low income countries. I think their focus is not about leadership, it's about technologies for development, the unmet needs of development. And their crucial element of affordability and social inclusion becomes the key driving force of the science and technology innovation policy in such environments. And if you look at the technology itself, I would say there's a dichotomous role for technology. Prior to the industrial revolution, the world was not divided as developed and developing. But after the post-industrial revolution, the world has come to be divided as developed and developing based on the ability to access technologies for intensive production. Now, in that sense, it is a divider. But if you look at the 20th century from the previous centuries, what differentiated technology? The way people live today is strongly influenced by the access to technology. But in a cultural space like my own Indian cultural space, for example, technology also played the role of a social lever and bridging social inequities that prevailed. Therefore, the dichotomous role that I present to technology as a global divider and a social leveler also makes technology a crucial element, and therefore, the STI policy of governments become defundamental. And I talked about the policy dilemmas of the developing world. And if you look at the policy dilemmas of the developing world, that the resources they have is fairly small, as I said before. Now, how much they invest in science and technology innovation as a percentage of GDP? That's a crucial issue. How much we invest? And we don't look at the gross expenditure and research and development. I have developed the world as an expenditure, but look at the gross investment of research and development for the meeting the developmental needs. They have much seen them. How to prioritize among the two verticals, science, technology and innovation, and how much our investments, total investments, will break the pie into science, technology, innovation space? How to motivate business to invest into R&D? How to balance between the risks and benefits of innovation? How to connect technology to the developmental agenda and the priority of the nation and their own citizens? And of course, how to maximize the social and public good of R&D while partnering the private sector? Because today, science and technology can deliver R&D products with public good, social good, strategy good, and of course, private good. And the private sector would like to invest where R&D priorities will deliver the private good at the end of their investment period. Therefore, how to balance them? So in terms of general policy directions of the developing world, I would like to, I see that there are primarily five elements of the HTA systems, increase investments, and emphasize on innovations, expand the R&D base, connect the science to developmental agenda, and of course, the balancing act that they will have to do the inclusion and competitiveness. And if you look at the changing geography of research intensity of the 21st century, the 190 countries in the world could be grouped as high income, upper middle income, low middle income, and low income group nations. The 35 low middle income, low income group countries, and the 55 low middle income group countries. And if you look at the post 2000, essentially 21st century profiles, you can see that low income, middle income group, and upper middle income group countries are investing significantly such that the share of the high income group country in the overall global investments is coming down. You look at that more figurative ways. You can look at the sense the red is a high income group country share dropped down by some 80% to something like a 60%. Because that's indicating to you that even the upper middle income, low middle income group countries see a need to invest into STI because they will lose the developmental opportunities. And that's a good thing, good news that happens. And if you go back and look at the UNESCO's Global Science Report of the 2015, there is some good news that at the time of industrial revolution, the world became divided in some sense in terms of technology divides between developed and developing. On the other hand, this trend could be interpreted as therefore that shrinking divides in the innovation space. But even the country's relatively smaller income base are investing into innovations and technology. And that's the kind of a bold print message that is emerging from this process. When you look at these investments, I think any STI policy framework will have to be based on evidence. So when you build an evidence-based STI investments as a public policy, we look at the kind of increasing density of full-time equivalents of R&D professionals to serve the national citizens of the country and also to gain in some sense unserved underserved markets of the world. Because the people who are in the developing country framework share common with the unserved underserved markets of the world. And therefore, how do we increase the density of scientists to meet them as well. And there are developed the appropriate output indicators to connect the SR&D outputs to the developmental agenda. Because the developmental agenda is contextual. Whereas STI indicators which are global may not have the developmental context in which that is positioned. If published number of papers, published impact factors and so on are patents you take. They do not necessarily connect to the developmental agenda of this context. Therefore, how do we connect them? That is of course, I have told you that it is globally people use a global gross expenditure on R&D, GRD. I think you have to look at that's an investment rather than an expenditure in the gross investment into R&D in the developing country framework. And then co-investments, how much the private sector, how much the public sector will come into play, especially for those nations which have a large public and social good yet unmet. Their unmet needs of the public and social goods have to be built into the developing country's structure. And then the question of delivery of various R&D goods are present here. When you talk about this balancing between the public policies for technology in developing economies, we must remember the profit motives of the private sector are natural. And then there is this difference needs of nations again as very important commitments. Therefore, the profit motives and this national defense requirements are driving STA investments into various countries, both in the perspective of the governments and in the perspective of the private sector for gaining market leadership and of course, the strategic project. Therefore, the private good and strategy goods of R&D are driven by the profit motives and the defense needs of various governments. Then we hope that some of that goods will percolate, trickle down into social good activities as well, social good benefits as well. So, how do we balance between the social and the private good of R&D is a very challenging process, especially if we take a healthcare sector. We have to remember that there are people with the low affordability and how do we build the STA framework where the healthcare as a business, healthcare as a service are balanced in the policy framework. And there is a developmental economics kind of fundamental. When we talk about the policy paradigms, there is always a struggle between the leapfrog innovation, the incremental innovation. There are countries which for example, small economies which have to really rely on the global market, they have to necessarily invest into the leapfrog innovation so that they will be better than the one-upmanship becomes important. And therefore, the process of innovation and then the protection of that intellectual property and the kind of benefits that will get up become important. Therefore, they focus on cooperative excellence and first mover advantages for research-related IPRs. There are also incremental and frugal innovations for public and social good. And incremental innovation does not mean it is weak. Coca-Cola is an excellent example of the world on incremental innovation over a period of time. Therefore, they will have to look at the alternative models, alternative grammars of increasing the size and there can be collaborative excellence and the social inclusion as priorities. Now, when the social inclusion is a purpose of innovation, then we have to be careful. The process of innovation is as important as a purpose of innovation and vice-versa. And the dimensionality of challenges in developing countries, as seen from the perspective of policy bodies, are deliberately used a word in democracies because in democracies, civil society is quite strong. So, you have to build your policy framework in the context of the civil society's participation. And I'd like to really highlight the balancing between the innovations for global competitiveness and national inclusiveness. Whereas the competitiveness, really, if you look at it in terms of the spread of the grammar of the competitiveness, it's a differentiating mindset and it's a market advantage. It has to be inventor and investor focused and that we return on for investors, short lifespan, value maximization, where speed in a competitiveness is a USP. And there's a first mover advantage that is critical and small economies tend to excel in this process. On the other hand, for the larger populations like us, we have to go back and look at inclusiveness as an integral part of the CI framework and there any inclusiveness integrating mindset. It is not about the market advantage, it's about availability to users. It is not about inventor focus, it's about people focused. It's not written to investors, written to society. And there are short lifespans as we see placed by long gestation times. And value maximization has to be balanced by input optimization. And here goodness is USP and it is not a first mover advantage. The last male connectivity is important and there is a relevant to large populations. Therefore, STI policy framework will have to integrate this competitiveness inclusiveness agenda into the framework very cleverly. See, evidence gathering for public policy system is not trivial. I have been in this policy framework in India for a while. And I know the kind of challenges that exist, especially in collecting evidence for policies. Generally, the output to outcome relationships are not easy in a sensitive framework. That is, you give the input today and the outcomes, outputs happen later. And converting the output into outcome and then the social benefit is a larger time gap issue. There's a huge time gap between the investments and the returns the society will eventually realize. And how do you pre-suppose when you develop the STI policy framework? What sense of time you build? Sense of immediate time, sense of intermediate time and sense of infinite time. And how do you build the policy framework in those processes that's not a real challenge in developmental economies? I mean, talk about the again evidence gathering. Most of the STI output indicators on global models do not necessarily fit into the developmental context or framework. Therefore, how do you build inclusive innovation and technology outcomes references context into the indicators? So the evidence gathering for STI policy in developmental economies need really close revisit. It's a very complex slide. I won't spend too much time here. This is to confuse my government at that time when I was in the government to tell that the R&D idea eventually comes a social outcome. And there's a long gestation time, don't ask my scientists to produce outcomes in short spans of time. Therefore, I'm not having to confuse you at the moment. But I would like to only paraphrase the outcome sensing is a non-trivial process. It's a time lag process. And there's a task of evidence-based policy building. Therefore, it becomes to that extent difficult because the global STI indicators are really input-output based and not developmental outcome linked. Very rarely, the STI output indicators that global models imply are created societal outcomes. It is all about what scientists do, what investors do, but not what will benefit in the process. And that to the extent I leave it at that stage because I have no desire to confuse you with that slide. When you look at this in terms of the policy challenges opportunities for the system, especially in context like the one I come from, where science technology, science research and innovation in my context is taking place in vertical spaces. And there is very little of integration in them. And that is further complicated by cultural factors of the country. There are pluralism. There is asymmetries between deployment and development. Therefore, given those challenges of asymmetries, cultural factors and pluralism, there's a big problem of integration. So how the policy that we develop in such environment have to provide a basis to get a mindset changes in the science research and innovation space to interconnect them. Where they've taken vertical spaces, there is nothing to integrate them. And policy could provide that. And also, if you're in a country like mine where the creating wealth out of knowledge is a crime in my society. Therefore, it is counter to the innovation model. Saraswati and Lakshmi have to fight with each other. And given that context, how do you exceed a cultural change? And therefore, we have to talk about an international collaboration with societies where this cultural dilemma does not exist. Therefore, we talk about a seeding cultural changes, a seed integration by collaboration itself, bringing a cultural value change. It's not easy. Cultures change very slowly. Now, in a society like mine, but the civil society is very strong, the regulatory environment and managing regulations in democracies, I know US regulations is very well. And there is a multi layers, stakeholder participation. There's a consensus building. And there is a promulgation of laws, new laws for regulation and implementation structures. And there's always a balance between the man's way of doing and the nature's way of doing. Nature follows the evolutionary path. And man wants revolutionary changes in short spans of time. And the governments in civil societies that civil society is very strong are handicapped. We have a big government in strong civil society, life is miserable. If you have, therefore, the regulation parts are time consuming in that system. And when you talk about the high technology led parts for developing economies, I think how do we uprise the risk? How do we increase the cost and benefits? How do you have social, how do you balance the social inclusion and the exclusion in access and availability and balancing between the collaboration and competition is an issue? And good news is if you look at the present development processes last few years, the developing countries in Asia are emerging as a major investor into R&D with a 20% share into the global investments into research and development, where Japan, China and South Korea adopt a global resource intensive model for R&D with manufacturing as focus for R&D. India adopts a resource-optimized path and where our service economy is supporting the path for R&D, not the manufacturing process. The developing countries in South America are focusing on the core strength of the core strength in terms of agriculture as a main state. Now the question here is, is the developed world also facing a sustainability challenge? This is a question in terms of the SDA models. I would like to make a case today that for strategic partnerships through policy perspectives, among the SDA systems of developing and developed economies, and is that feasible? Is that required? And if you go back and look at the global intensity of nations, they are measured only in primary two forms. What's the gross expenditure on R&D as a present day of GDP? And what's the number of full-time equivalent R&D professionals per million population? Now the global benchmarks are that you invest about 2% of your GDP and 1200 R&D professionals per million population. Many developing countries, including India, do not match both norms on account of low-resource setting. Now having said the low-resource setting, I would like to present to you this is a database of the NASCAR database we got from the World Bank data. And these are the top 10 nations with respect to overall investments. And in the top 10, and I don't consider Europe in India as a nation, it is a group. And this is the data which are more recent. And you will see among the top 10 investors, there are six high-income group countries, three upper-middle-income group countries, one lone low-middle-income group country, which is India. We have the sixth largest investor. You see the sixth largest investor, you go back and see as a percentage of the GDP is 0.85%. It's a little more than 0.85, because I know the number a little better than what I do, what this data will show. But I had to present the data as given to me. It is close to 1%, but little less than 1%. But if you look at the expenditure per capita, it's a very small number. You may say, look, India is not investing enough. But you look back and see this number of gross expenditure R&D as a ratio on the full-time equivalent on this column. It is expressed in thousands of dollars per year, and the United States is $30,200. And there is this, let me say, low-middle-income group country, a developing country, which is present investments is $33,000, $2,000 less on purchase per parity terms. Therefore, a country like India cannot afford to get 2% because our number per scientist is already large. And if we have to increase that 2%, I must double the number of scientists, as simple as that. And scientists do not come in tap water, but anyway, we don't get tap water also. But this is a long-term process, and how do you develop an economy? Therefore, this question of investments has to be seen in slightly a different context. If you go back and look at this sustainability of the model of resource intensity, granted, because of the technology being very important, a lever in power equations of the world, today, if you look at the data, you will see that the manufacturing grew at 20%, but R&D investment went by 30% on a global space. So people wanting to invest. And today, because of wanting to be competitive, there's a competitive excellence and multiplicity of investments. Each nation is making investments in the same segment. And with the increasing cost of these R&D inputs, create a high cost. They price themselves as the unaffordable for more than 65% of the population. And sustainability of resource intensity models, I think we need to examine more critically. I have 40 nations in this. And all Americas are shown in the blue. Asia's are shown in the green. And the Europe nations are shown in the brown. And the size of the bubble is the size of the total gross investments. And you will recognize in this, I have separated them in four quadrants, those nations which invest less than 2% of GDP and less than 4,000 scientists per million population belong to this group of low resource setting. And those nations which invest less than 2%, but more than 4,000 scientists per million population, if the intensity. Those nations which invest more than 2%, much more than 2%, but less than 4,000 scientists have really resource intensity. This is the lone country Israel. Now there are nations here which is intensity both on resource and FDA. Now those countries which invest so much here would find it very difficult to produce R&D outputs that can be meant to be serviced by people in this group. Low resource setting because their affordability levels are outpriced. Now if you take this overall 14 nations systems and take this 4,000 population, 4,000 scientist per million population, a 275,000 dollar annual investment per FDA and then calculate for the serving the global population 7.5 billion. What would be the total investments of the world on purchase power parity terms, 8.25 trillion dollar per year, which is larger than the GDP size of several nations in the world, but four. Therefore, we need to ask the question, can these 19 nations belong to the low income and low income group? Country can never afford these kinds of investments. And technologies to serve these markets need to be matched to the price and envelope of these countries and they have to have two conditions. One is affordability of the technology and the second is how the technologies can be implemented, capital to back the technologies. Also it's important because therefore there is an alternative policy framework that may be needed for developing countries with the developmental ambitions and resource constraints and low resource setting. Now I done a short analysis of the nations in four quadrants and I will not go into all the four quadrants and you will meet my attention to low resource setting and resource safety intensive models. If you look at these in terms of strength, the low resource setting gives you affordability and meeting the needs of all. The threat, the weaknesses, weak base and weak leadership and opportunity for them is resource optimization and the threat for development by pass. If they don't invest, the development will bypass them. Look at this safety intensive model, the strength is value maximization, weaknesses affordability for meeting the needs of all. The opportunity leadership and then threat enable it to serve the poor markets. The question here is can we connect the two, can we really bring the two together and countries ability to value maximize and value maximize and resource optimize can become ideal allies in strategic alliances that you talk about and countries the large domestic markets like ourselves could bother market access for innovation access like for example Israel which has a small model of a domestic size. So this will call from migration from competitive excellence to collaborative excellence as an alternative model. On account of the non-sustainability of the current resource models, I think it may be worthwhile to look at alternative design develop, alternative model for developing affordable innovations for people centric priorities of countries in the stage of development. I think we need to build affordability with look at collaborative excellence and strategic alliances as an alternate path. I like to present the case study of a policy perspective of developing country where the only developing country I know well is my own therefore I will use mine and a possible ally for the alternate resource optimized model for serving the global good. And you look at this India's policy space evolutionary process. India is the first developing country which in 1958 articulated the principle like a scientific policy resolution which has read out is a one and three quarter page universal document you're going to change the full stop or a comma from it. It's a beautiful drafted by Homi Baba and Pandit Nero. It laid the foundation for science and scientific tempo. 25 years later his own daughter realized that in the world of technology if you don't build a self-reliance you're out. Therefore she went and proposed a technology policy statement in 1983 focused on technological self-reliance and reverse engineering. Then we realized in 1980s we were one of the top developing countries in science space. In 2003 we became nth player in the among the developing countries and we moved away and so in 2003 first time there's an ambition for science has evolved increase the gross expenditure R and D for increasing output was articulated. Since then we increased the expenditure into R and D by 10 times that's the number we've increased in the last 10 years. So in 2013 for the science technology innovation policy where I had a handle it's a aspiration for nation where we talk about science research innovation system because they're taking particularly vertical spaces integrate them for a high technology network for India and abbreviated as Shristi and that's a Shristi in Sanskrit means creation. On the India's share of total investments of the 90 low income group and low middle income group and our share is 89 percent today that's our total share. So many states in this group cannot afford to meet the global benchmarks of 2 percent gross expenditure and and 1200 million population no nation in the world is able to get 2 percent unless they had 1200 million 1200 scientists per million population India has a number of 160. Therefore 160 to 1200 is a long haul. The India's is today the largest largest investor and vice they emerge as one among the top six knowledge powers in science as per the stated science policy in terms of publications we have become the fifth in the world we are 15th rank we are today fifth in the world in terms of patent we are 27th we become seventh in the world. India enjoys advantages of developed R&D institutional infrastructure like IITs national laboratories and and our virtue is low expertise cost we we respect our scientists but we don't pay them therefore we keep them not them not poor the ratio of we take the salary of a researcher or a professor as a as a number of times of per capita GDP is 20.6 times. So 21 Indians are paying for one professor in India so they deliver values this is a long story I will not talk about this we used to it's a we have a very strong civil society at the time when we had this policy developed we had to balance between relatively weak government in some civil society therefore we adopted a bottom-up approach where the bottom-up approach the participle civil society was done in 2013 policies very long exercise I will not go into the details but that draft document was put on the on the web and public consultation was done and this drafting itself was done by a science communicator so that will reach people up and and I told you the single policy goal is to science research innovation system for science technology path for India and it integrate the science processes and is a way forward and at this point of time I like to highlight to you that ACI output generated low investments could reach many people and I'm going to show you a small video and I uh the that this video is about somebody who has Jaipur foot it is a foot which costs 28 dollars per foot and in a comparative economy is the it's cost 20 000 dollars per foot and I'm going to show you the benefit that this 28 dollar uh foot gives to this individual was lost his foot and this video we have downplayed the uh voice here because I'm going to show one one other video the language of which I do not know some of you might know therefore I'm careful that I avoid the words uh this is someone who has lost the foot and he has undergone the the replacement with this orthotics here is the person who is going who says that he runs a kilometer for four minutes and 30 seconds I don't think I can do that even when I'm running away from my responsibilities and here's a man and I like to also show you this lady lost the leg in an accident she's an actress and she was a dancer before and it was really uh let me say highly frustrating that dancer lost the leg and her willpower was sufficient enough that she fitted herself to the Jaipur foot and dances the way she does and is dancing is a lot more intricate process but it's not easy even with two legs maybe with a third leg you might and uh this individual has uh demonstrated two things the power of the prugal innovation the power that it provides the quality of life of these two people and this was created at this low cost and when we talk about these frugal innovations it is not about the expenditures about the value it brings to people and we have something called national innovation uh foundation in India supported by the minister of science and technology and this foundation were recorded in one year 175,000 grassroots innovations have created that relative no cost to the country therefore there is a possibility to link these to the formula innovations in summary they're changing their geographies of scl landscape today have been mapped and I think I made a case that the non-sustainability of this high resource setting in 4,000 scientists per million population and the 2% GDP components can become very difficult because it costs the world a lot the policy, the dilemmas and challenges of the developing economies uh connecting it to the development processes was I hope articulated here and I think I in case a case has been paid for strategic partnership among the developed and developing economies and I think a case study of HTI policy of India is presented in the framework of for affordable innovations for serving the unserved underserved markets of the world that's a plenty and I never use this word bottom of the economic pyramid because there is a economic model the hierarchies we build in the economic scales I use the word base of the economic pyramid because no no pyramid can stand on its vertex it has to be on the base and the larger number of people belong to that category so today when I summarize it HTI policies are developing countries in my opinion if there is an individual perspective I must say the world view of Ramasamy is that it should make socially economic sense of investments and become a science policy for people not the people policy for science and we also talk about public policy I think we have to look at a science policy for people it should enable faster and sustainable inclusive growth of the nation and I think open up space for strategic partnerships among the developed world and global good for sustainable global growth by serving also the needs of the unserved underserved markets of the world people say world is flat could science policy serve to make it even it is one thing to be flat it sends it to be evil and on this I like to finish every lecture of mine is a vision mad baghanti it says economics that had the model being of an individual of a nation or immoral and sinful therefore I would like to talk about the technologies for the proper world thank you very much we're going to introduce ourselves very quickly and then start the question section thank you sir for your presentation I think I can speak for everybody that we really appreciate you coming to talk to us my name is Jackson boss I am a master of public policy student here at the Ford school and also in the science technology and public policy program hi I'm Rachel Wallace I am a fifth year PhD candidate in chemistry and also in the STPP program here so I'll start with the first question we so we got questions from the crowd here and we're just going to kind of help set this up so the first question we have is that some some may criticize these this approach to science and technology focus by governments especially in developing nations I guess the question is how would you respond to critics who say that countries like India and other developing economies should be focusing more on investments to cut hunger malnutrition or poverty rather than investing in in science and technology and the one example they give in particular here is the India Mars mission the Mars mission so why why should why are investments like that important when there are other problems that may seem more urgent you would like to answer every question or we can take a group of questions and answer them together I think we'll answer the questions one at a time one on the drain okay the question that is being asked about India easy for me to answer the share is when there are poorer people in the country why should we invest into Mars mission and why do you look at those kinds of investments it's a question that is in front fundamentally the I think we need to segregate these issues if that Mars mission had not taken place will the poverty be alleviated in the process it's a question that you need to ask this question frankly that if you really be at the poverty in the countries of old what would be the investment scope of investments and related to this what's the percentage investments we made in Mars now let me tell you in terms of number it is less than a percentage or even fraction of a percentage therefore the Mars mission for the country did not cost even a fraction of a percentage led to what we require in addressing the alleviation the poverty issues therefore it is not to be seen by just by not going through will it is not the one is the cause of the other as far as science technology innovation policy is concerned I think we need to go back and if you address the poverty issue we require science and technology innovation space we can't skip that because agriculture economy is very important and when you talk about the poverty the poverty is related to the income levels it's not that we're not producing enough agricultural products it's not that we don't produce products in the country it is ability to procure purchase is an issue and basically the science and technology innovation policy needs to address much larger issues developmental countries developmental economics than only the issues of science alone that's why I talked about relating the process and I believe truly believe the Mars mission was not at the expense of our focus on addressing the questions of poverty and monetization it's on now okay cool thank you um so I'm gonna ask the next question um India has a hot climate as you know um and its cities are growing very fast um and so like other cities they are suffering more from climate change than perhaps the country's side is um and so this is starting to make the cities more and more um or less less and less inhabitable um and so uh to what extent do efforts to address this intersect with STI policy in practice okay uh it's said India is a hot country Tagore once said that different centuries coexist in India at the same time so India also has the coldest regions of the world I like to correct that sentence India's hot country uh India is a hot country cold country complex country uh but the question that you're asking just now about urbanization urbanization is a threat for the world at large and the question how does STI policy address that question that's I would paraphrase it only STI policy if you have a technology which requires a large capital and access to capital access to market access infrastructure are very determinant factors that will promote urbanization if you have technologies which are downsized to be able to be met in the small size economies of villages and rural terms then you're talking about moving the development to uh small play people rather than moving people towards development so the STI policy of India talks about keeping the technologies backing capital capital required back technologies to be minimized to be lowered such that you move the people you don't move the people development move the technology to people so that's our approach and then in the fourth industrial revolution that the world talks about today you are able to use the digital framework to deliver technologies to even places which are for the way and look at agriculture agriculture is one sector which cannot move to cities because it will land and uh water and those kind of stamp land is immobile asset so agriculture economy has to be rooted still in total places therefore we want to use through a CA framework these technologies to farmers in villages and that's the concept so our next question I think is relevant not just to India actually but has to do with pharmaceutical IP law so we have a question yeah so we have a question that about whether India and other developing countries should resist the pressure to implement stronger enforcement of western IP law international IP law when it comes to serving the public good and pharmaceuticals in particular okay this is a two politically sensitive question and that too is asked is asked in a in the land where this will be hot contested so I'll give a more diplomatic answer if you may say so and I make it generic rather than a specific process I use the word investor inventor focused okay now if you want to be competitive you require investor inventor focus IP loss of the country it invests significantly into R&D would be natural to say that their investments are returned and therefore the IP laws will be in the directions in which we will raise a bar now when it concerns a human life when it concerns a human health care okay we need to ask a question a little bit differently let us take this nation openly 18.5 trillion dollars economy what's the percentage of health care costs 16 percent maybe up up so you are looking at take that 18 percent of the 18 it gives you size of the health care cost which is larger than the GDP sizes of at least 190 nations okay so you need to ask this question internally if the health care costs are to be so large what percentage of it contribution has come from this kind of a large investment based activities now developing countries like ourselves I talk about India primarily chose a specific idea of any innovation that moves up greening of patents for example should be focused on people benefit to people rather than investor inventor alone therefore people centric rather than investor inventor centric policy was required in India at the time in which it was imposed the context will change with time so in 70s when this was done by Mrs. Gandhi for India they had a huge problem of all kinds of things now today India has become one of the nations from which the health care cost is minimized not only for the for us for the rest of the world as well there is a video called fire and blood and the fire and blood is about how many lives of Africans are saved because of the anti that AIDS problem therefore I think the developing economies will have to look at not the geography but the citizens interest people's interest so I think there's not a moral issue but there is a developmental issue I think I'll probably stop it that level so this question comes to us from Twitter and it's pretty general from broad but what are the highest impact actions that US science policy and or other larger S&T communities could do to better serve developing countries in the global poor if I know the answer would be a very wise man which I'm not I would go back and say as a suggestion that there are technologies for let me say market and trade that's an issue that I will not for the moment open up there are technologies for development technologies for human welfare and that is a slightly different segment there in those segments I think countries like United States which invest significantly into R&D today with a very high capital cost would find it hard to serve countries in Africa countries in some other developing part of the world and here is a wonderful wonderful S&T system which is solving the problems of the rich you have to solve the problems of the poor as well even you don't country sometimes the question therefore is can you look at the country like a low resources like our own which has infrastructure which has people but it doesn't have so much of people in resource because we have 160 per million population we can never go to 2200 in few years the question here can you partner and that partnership model talks about value ability to resource optimize and your strength of value maximization and see whether that strategic alliance would provide technologies which are poor so when talking about north south so triangular collaboration not north south where ultimately the products of this work should not say with the boundaries of the two partners but go to a third country which cannot afford invest at all into this and that's an opportunity that I think India like country or the US like nation perhaps consider kind of I think related but a little bit different here in the United States in particular a lot of our science technology policy has been driven by military investment I think this next question relating to that is to what extent is development of what weapon technology a temptation to developing nations and I guess what is your take on letting letting military development be the driving force in s and s and science technology policy this is a very tricky question and especially I I have to go back in there fundamentally nations invest into defense out of a threat perception okay suddenly the US in the present world cannot suffer from the threat perception as much as some of us in developing economies would have therefore the logic of investment into the defense related research is related to the threat perceptions of the respective governments however large percentage of the defense driven research has a trickling down effects on social good as well and quite a lot of them therefore one need not say that R&D is only given to this vertical of private R&D code private code and the defense guard fundamentally fundamentally the perceptions of HCI policies of different countries of the global systems seem to vary sometimes even from the reality it turns out that there was a study done on the HCI policies of six economies in the world and at that time India was also one of the studies one of the economies studied and it was done by a very important country and I know what that country's perception about the HCI policy of India were saying that our defense investments were large that was because they look at this defense development research R&D was salary budget which is fairly large outfit and therefore thing of defense investments are large but as somebody who was part of the perspective of developing the HCI at that point of time I differed with that particular let me say assessment if I may use what assessment but they are very clever that the people who did this they said my department was focused on rural technology so they tried to silence me as well fundamentally the defense reinvestments into R&D by different states are very strongly related to the defense threat perception you cannot avoid it that's I said here private sector focuses on profit and national governments on their third perception okay they call it strategy so if I take my own country the our investments in the atomic energy research could be argued upon but I'll also tell you the benefit of that investment we are now India is one of the few countries in the world which has a fast bidder reactor working and India is one of the few countries in the world worked on the close in the nuclear field cycle very early and we have a thorium-based reactor working and if a thorium-based reactor actually goes into stream we would have solved energy problem for India for thousands of years because enough thorium therefore the spin-off also has been seen I'll stop it so we have a question here that is somewhat of a change of pace but I we think it's really interesting how our current technologies particularly this person was asking about bitcoins how do those create challenges technology policy development in India specifically with consideration of jobs and anti-corruption job and corruption okay there are two different subjects yeah okay I hope job and corruption don't go as a unit it's not good for any nation in the world and I will also give you a scientist interpretation of corruption in an economic space so I don't want moral perception but I think scientific perception as the jobs centers are concerned let me tell you between the year 2000 and 2014 I have data and this is not you see HCI policy is a trigger it is not a cost or a contributor to job creation we must be careful the the it's a dog which wag wags a tail tail cannot wag the dog and HCI policy is to me is a tail you cannot wag the dog employment is a much bigger outfit but in 2000 and 2014 there was a period of ten nine years where the employment growth was higher than the population growth and that is a result of several factors not just science technology innovation policy HCI policy that we have built has a specific element of three things job creation and I mentioned to you before the knowledge triangle to the connectively wealth creation and job creation under also parities gender parities because we have a nation with nearly equal strength of two sexes but in the economic processes it is imbalanced and therefore we need to see that how do we get returns also from the investments made into women into a parity process and therefore the policy talks about three of them specifically in the process and I talk about the corruption and I certainly have not science science technology policy doesn't talk about the corruption because we are free of it but the corruption today in my opinion this is personal opinion as I said before corruption is a result of three things if there is if the demand supply gap is mismatched is a ferment for corruption if the access to supply is controlled by the access to power is the next stage of corruption if the delivery of supply delivery system of supply is very small compared to this group to be serviced then the supply system the delivery system gets a premium supply so the rate of supply becomes an issue therefore what India has done in spite of all the big claims about corruption in the media in India let me tell you very frankly the percentage of population which participate in corruption one way or the other give or take at my childhood time was 90 percent today is reduced the reason it is reduced is because the technology becomes a great tune in relieving the pressure on the delivery system so that when I was young I could not board a train without paying some money somewhere I could not perhaps perhaps I get a ticket in the cinema theater for paying a premium today all that is digital technology delivered therefore that has addressed but the demand supply gap is still the bridging problem therefore the way to address this corruption we should not look at it as a moral issue we should look at corruption as an economic issue we look at economic corruption as an economic issue increase the demand supply the need for corruption is gone make the whole process decision making transparent power to access the power is gone I will tell you finish in one sentence the enjoyment of power is in its abuse therefore we should not allow the enjoyment of power thank you we're almost done we got a couple more questions we're going to try to fit in really quick but so this one is the question about the Jaipur foot did I say that correctly Jaipur is not an outcome of India's STI policy but what is the government of India doing to encourage or amplify or invest in frugal innovations I have not claimed it's a part of India's innovation policy not said that Jaipur foot is not I think it is India's output not Indian government's output and let us be honest that countries developed by the by the effort of citizens not by the in spite of the government sometimes therefore Jaipur foot is a result of an individual innovation I think the most frugal innovation takes place outside the government framework that's that's true of any place in the world not just India the question that is asked what is Indian government do to support them so I'll paraphrase only to that element I told you before that national innovation foundation is a truly an autonomous body not controlled by the government but funded fully by the government very rarely you find the situation where the government can't give money and not control is not controlled national innovation foundation registers 175,000 grasp with innovations in one year that's the number now what we have done national innovation foundation framework help these frugal innovators that the several of them belong to audit them acquires a certain patent rights for them and eventually enterprises to leverage them and share that the benefits to the grass within a beta and this is fully funded by the government but we have another one this is structured arrangement we have something called power of ideas which my department my former department used to do I sometimes use over for my department but I don't belong there anymore this is problem aging I suppose identity is problem now what happens is we have the in the instead of management Amarabad the government of India to the department of science and technology and economic times we entered into a partnership what we do we give a call open call those are them who have ideas who want to have innovations which need to be elaborated and supported we give them a call and Indian numbers are mind-boggling always we keep the call open a 16,000 20,000 proposals will come that's a number then we have set up something like a 800 invest experts who will assess them and see which one is do open and we shortlist them for a process and when you come to through 200 300 innovations in the instead of management Amarabad provide these innovators a business plan for taking it to the next stage and then invite the angel investors into this process and they make pitch presentation to presentation to these people and this helped by I am Amarabad and the economic times which is a newspaper which gives a pro bono advertisement as a fairly low cost no cost process and the government of India through my firm and department provides a seat capital of one or half two million rupees to really develop this into a product and on the average through this power of ideas scheme we are able to convert this 200 300 ideas which come out into 100 150 startup companies in a period of time and we also help them to acquire IPRs and detect them in the process this some activities of the government of India these are still small drop in the ocean absolutely well thank you so much doctor we appreciate your time I invite everybody to join us at the reception let's give a big round of applause thank you very much