This discussion will address some basic principles in
defining a research agenda that are specially relevant to national
organizations that have an Operational/Applied Research focus.
The meaning of applied in the context of this discussion is
the problem oriented approach which involves the integration of all
disciplines required to answer a research question. It is as pointless to
exclude the basic sciences from applied research as is to exclude the social
sciences in research destined to improve the nutrition of populations groups
around the world. Integrated approaches means more than just multidisciplinary
research.
Nutritional and food problems in the community represent
the interaction of multiple factors which may be grouped in the traditional
nature vs nurture paradigm, presently stated as genetic and environmental
factors. Most present problems in developing countries have an environmental
component but as basic health and sanitation improve and dietary quality
problems are resolved the genetic components underlying nutritional problems
become more evident. In many urban centers in the developing world obesity is
becoming an increasingly prevalent problem, it affects mainly the low
socioeconomic groups, and in many cases it is coupled to stunted linear growth
in early life. As an example the present epidemiologic characterisation of
stunting and obesity should consider the genetic variables as well as the
dietary, socioeconomic and cultural determinants.
Who benefits from the research: parternship not servitude
Institutions around the world, specially in developing
countries are sometimes inclined to adopt their research agenda based on
government or donor defined research priorities, although this may seem
advantageous in the short run it is unwise unless these priorities fit with
the institutional development process within the context of national and
regional needs. The process should include active negotiation between donor
interest, institutional needs and investigator creative thinking. The
institution should always consider what are the benefits to the country, to
the institution and to the local investigators derived from the research
process as well as considering benefits from the expected results. It is not
sufficient to receive generous funding, the costs involved for the
institutions include more than direct supplies and space, they include human
resource allocation, equipment utilization and maintenance and most of all
time dedication of local staff, usually overstretched by existing work burden.
In many cases research support will serve mainly the collaborating national
institution from the donor country, in other cases, there will be little or
nothing left behind locally after the project is completed. Projected
publication of reports or scientific papers in the international literature
are not sufficient to warrant embarking on a research project that will tie up
local human resources in an inquiry of little or no local relevance. Only if
the local institution and investigator benefits are clearly delineated the
support of a donor should be accepted. If this is not clear it is best not
accept funds, rather than be involved in a situation that benefits mostly the
donor.
Who defines the research agenda: a negotiated process.
The process needs to include not only the people who will
be conducting the research but also people who are familiar with present a
projected nutrition and food problems in the country or region of interest.
Firstly, there are some questions that have global interest either because of
their relevance as international nutrition problems or because some aspects of
the research provide a basic understanding of a problem that will have
widespread application and thus are universally of interest. A research agenda
should include setting priorities based on actual and projected country needs,
thus planners and policy makers need to be involved in defining these
priorities. In any case, research topics should leave room for individual
investigators to orient the research approaches, there is much to be gained by
allowing creativity to flourish. Creative thinkers in many cases will provide
innovative solutions that would have not been surmised following traditional
approaches. Freedom to question and criticize are of essence in a research
setting. Sometimes it may appear difficult to balance relevance with
individual .creativity but under no circumstances investigators should be
forced to take a given topic, encouragement, facilitation of institutional
resources should be the incentive to undertake research on priority problems.
The process should include active negotiation between
donnor interest, institutional needs and investigators creative thinking. This
process needs a careful assessment of costs and benefits to the country. In
examining this issue the costs for the country in terms of using its limited
human and institutional resources to serve a project need to be considered.
How much is too much: do not spread too thinly
Applied research institutions should define priorities and
be selective in the number of research questions that they address at any
given time. If the institution is spread too thinly little will be derived
from the research effort. It is clear that service to the country’s
operational research -needs should be satisfied but not beyond the
institutional capacity to address them seriously. It is better to do well a
few projects than to attempt to cover it all and fail in the process.
Rigorousness in experimental design is crucial not only for laboratory studies
but just as important in community based social research. Invested time and
effort will be wasted unless this principles are upheld.
Invest in the future: training human resources takes time
It is important to plan ahead, when defining the projected
research needs, since the human resources to address the projected needs will
need to be trained, this takes time. Thus, there should always be a component
of the research agenda that prepares the institution to address the coming
problems. Basic science and disciplinary training is needed to prepare for the
future, the ability to move from one set of question to the next requires
formative components. This will allow individuals to retool and redefine their
research questions. International networking, meetings and conferences provide
unique opportunities for junior staff to interact with other centers that are
further along the applied research path. External advisory bodies to review
and propose recommendations are helpful in evaluating the relevance of
research efforts in a given institution. This process should provide foresight
to local policy makers and planners into what will be needed in the future. An
institution should always invest some of its resources in the future, the
balance between today’s relevance and future needs should be carefully
sought. Institutions that are not capable of redefining their mission and
adapting it to the changing socioeconomic and epidemiological profile of their
country or region of influence will not maintain their leadership position.
The demands of institutional leadership include anticipating future demands
and being prepared to address them.
