Why We Have No Innovation: Science, Grants and the "Green Economy"

Today I attended the 4th Innovation Convention held at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (KazNU). The city akim (mayor), the Chairman of the Board of the National Agency for Technological Development (NATD), and a program manager from the UNDP–Global Environment Facility (GEF) program also took part. The event was devoted to innovative technologies in the green economy.

Now, on the event itself. A great many projects were presented, with grand names, and everywhere the key words were "innovative," "efficient" and "environmentally friendly." Unfortunately, these are only words, loud and empty ones. And let me say right away that the problem lies not in the projects themselves or their authors, but elsewhere.

First, practically all the projects are simply technology transfer from abroad, where the technologies have long ceased to be innovative. Second, efficiency should be measured in savings, yet not one of the projects would survive competition, so I cannot bring myself to call them efficient either. Perhaps there is something environmentally friendly about them, and that is all.

The reasons why our economy lacks innovation lie deep in our system of science and education, as well as in the programs that exist.

There are several objective reasons why innovation cannot develop here.

1. A lack of the basic knowledge that universities provide. Everyone has written about the quality of education, so there is no point in writing about it again.

2. A lack of critical mass in scientific research. Bear in mind that out of 1,000 scientific ideas, only one may take off, and for that one idea to appear, scientific ideas have to be generated in the first place. But for truly capable people to generate ideas, they must not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. Of course, some will object that only competition can produce effective ideas. Here we need to distinguish between science and innovative development. Science is the foundation of innovative technologies, and it is very problematic and difficult to commercialize. Science should be fully funded by the state, and if our best minds go into science (as in the USSR, where scientists were very well-off people), that will create a base for innovative development, which should then be financed by venture funds and various programs.

Unfortunately, as long as our doctors of science earn $1,000 a month, the best minds will not go into science, and we will come up with nothing new. The material base of scientific centers also needs to be developed. We also need to recognize that some applied sciences can never be commercial, yet society cannot develop without them.

3. A lack of effective state support programs. NATD was created, given money and the authority to award grants. Anyone who has seen or gone through the bureaucratic mechanism built there knows that not everyone will bother, and that raises the question of critical mass. NATD is approached mainly by small entrepreneurs with ideas of some kind. The average grant is around KZT 5–6 million. To get one, our wonder-working Kulibin (the self-taught inventor of Russian lore) must have financial, legal and technical training, because he has to assemble all the legal and financial documents, write a business plan and describe the project technically. All of this is indeed necessary, but to receive KZT 5 million, he has to spend at least KZT 1 million on preparation. Moreover, a project can be submitted only in Astana and only in person. So what about advanced technologies, electronic digital signatures and electronic data transmission systems? Why drive a poor innovator from Semey to Astana? At the very least, open a branch or representative office in every major city. Projects are reviewed by two independent experts, and a project is funded only if both give a positive opinion. I think this substantially cuts the number of potential projects.

It is very IMPORTANT to change the review process itself. At the project review stage, various legal and financial documents are entirely superfluous. Look at the project and give your opinion, and if it is positive, then send the entrepreneur off to collect all the various documents. He will gather and submit them gladly, because he already has an incentive; otherwise he is left with the uneasy feeling that he may or may not get the grant. This would increase the flow of projects, reduce bureaucracy and build critical mass.

In addition, NATD specialists should help the innovator fully in preparing documents. At present, it seems they look more at form than at substance. I think the picture will change significantly with the arrival of Sanzhar Izteleuov, and the Ministry for Investment and Development should help him in this.

Or take the development of the Alatau Innovative Technology Park. I once tried to find out how to get in: the website was down and nobody answered the phones, and when I finally got through, I was told everything was occupied and there were no places. So what about competition? How were projects selected there, and how does one get in if someone leaves? The technology park is not transparent at all, and it is extremely hard for an ordinary village "Kulibin" to get in.

Now, on the green economy. When I worked at a quasi-state company, we received an instruction to develop an energy efficiency and alternative energy program. Something had to be shown, so they bought street lamps powered by solar batteries. The payback period of the project was a hundred years (if, of course, such a lamp lasts 100 years). By itself, the green economy cannot be efficient for now. It can be environmentally friendly, it can be socially oriented, but it cannot be efficient. Therefore, the green economy can develop only through state programs or once society is more developed. As a society develops, private business grows more socially responsible, and when a private business becomes a socially oriented company, it begins to think about society and about environmental and similar programs. Unfortunately, in our way of thinking we are still at the stage of crude capitalism, and our business is not yet oriented toward social responsibility at all. When that will change is unclear; each case is individual.

Our government looks at global trends and tries to keep pace with the times, and so we love fashionable words and support whatever is in vogue. In my opinion, however, we should support what we at least have a scientific base for. For example, in Soviet times Kazakhstan had one of the most advanced scientific bases in agriculture. Our scientists played leading roles in the USSR; now all of this is dying, and science in this field is merely surviving. I would suggest, for instance, that journalists visit the Soviet-era research stations (Chaglinka, Shortandy and so on) and see what condition they are in. On the one hand, we engage in technology transfer (which is debatable, since anything competitive will come to Kazakhstan anyway, without the help of our innovators); on the other, we are killing off scientific centers. I hope this policy will be reconsidered.

It is sad to watch our innovators cloning technologies and trying to introduce them in Kazakhstan. I hope that by EXPO 2017 we will create at least something truly made in Kazakhstan.