Some time ago I wrote about Serbian progress in achieving Millennium Development Goals (Milenijumski razvojni ciljevi u Srbiji). In reviewing what was done to reach the Goal 8 it was written: Increased access to modern technologies would certainly affect decreasing the gap between Serbian economy and those of developed countries. Intensifying the state investment into science, education, research and development would certainly contribute to the goal too.
Bad news is that Serbian investment in research and development is among the lowest in Europe.
Good news is that its Ministry of Science and Technological Development recently came up with the Strategy for the period 2010-2015.
In the presentation of that strategy, it has been stated:
- Serbian science, despite improvements over the past few years, is still on an unsustainable path.
- Investing in science and technology is, for Serbia, the only way to create a sustainable economy and society.
- Serbia does not have natural, but only human, resources to base its development on.
- To become relevant in science and technology and become an innovative country, Serbia needs to focus on a few national priorities.
Serbian seven national R&D priorities:
- Biomedicine and human health
- New materials and nanosciences
- Environment protection and climate change
- Agriculture and food
- Energy and energy efficiency
- Information and communication technologies
- Improvement of public policy making processes and affirmation of national identity
Discussing these seven priorities, it is also said that even the most developed countries have defined a limited set of national priorities:
Great Britain: Energy, ะต-Sciences, Genomics/Proteomics, Stem Cell Research, Brain research, Rural economy and land usage
France: Life sciences, biotech and health, Energy, Safety, Socio-economic studies and humanities, Environmental protection, Earth and space exploration
USA: Advanced defense systems, Health protection, Agriculture, Energy, Space exploration and exploitation, Basic research
EU: Health, Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and biotechnologies, Information and communication technologies, Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new manufacturing technologies, Energy, Environmental protection and climate change, Transport and aeronautics, Socio-economic and humanistic studies, Space, Safety
China: Energy, Water and Mineral Resources, Environmental protection, Agriculture, Manufacturing technologies, Transport, Information technologies, Health, Urban planning, Public safety
Japan: Life sciences, Information and communication technologies, Environment protection, Nanotechnologies and material science
Secondary priorities: Energy, Manufacturing technologies, Social Infrastructure.
What do you think of these priority lists? To me, they look like more or less balanced inventory of what specific countries (or the whole of EU) are and do at present, and what they want to be and work on in the near future. That applies to Serbian case as well.
Photo: Istrazivacka stanica Petnica (Research Science Center Petnica)
I agree with you. I think it is a balanced inventory of what they do now. Regarding Serbia’s entire history, quite interesting I found this: “Improvement of public policy making processes and ‘affirmation of national identity’”. I’d love to hear more from you about Serbian national identity, whose discussion might still be taut and heated.
Thanks for this, Larisa.
when developed countries will fulfil the national priorities how will they look like… your post make me thinking: if the knowledge is the key to fulfilment our ending the process of development…
“- Serbia does not have natural, but only human, resources to base its development on.” I think you should be glad about that. Think about countries with huge natural resources. How often are they well developed? The abundance of natural resources rather ties down countries in under development, I think.
@Luan: That’s very interesting to me too, I mean the part with national identity and its affirmation through science. How would that be done, I am wondering? But it’s an indication that there is some problem perceived. In very brief I’d say that this identity is in process of transition, just as other spheres of life
@Iwona: If developed countries would do all that should be done, then they would be perfect, but as we all know, that never happens…:)Improving knowledge would help a lot, to all
@Daniel: Then what about Norway, for example?:) I get your point, but I guess it’s better to have than not to have, but to use it wisely
Yes, I know that there is no 100% correlation. Abject poverty is also not bad, but generally I think that sparse resources is good for the organisation of society. The case of Norway is intersting - it is true that they have a lot of oil, and also that they were poor (compared to Sweden) until the oil as exploited in the 60’s. But the Norwegian democracy was very vivid long before that…
I see that R&D in Serbia is among the lowest in Europe… however, I think that more in general Europe should invest more in these sectors if it wants to maintain its competitivity.. but it’s simple for politicians to reduce it because of electoral reasons than thinking in the long term and invest more in these sectors..
I think it’s a good start, worth evaluating on in the future.