Scientific Diasporas

I n Canada, as in other industrialized countries, a high percentage of foreign-born residents are from the developing world (1). Some of these migrants are highly skilled scientists and engineers who constitute a “brain drain” from their countries of origin (COs), but also represent a scientific diaspora with enormous potential. Scientific diasporas have been defined as “self-organized communities of expatriate scientists and engineers working to develop their home country or region, mainly in science, technology, and education” (2). Unfortunately, many of these diaspora networks depend on a few champions for sustainability, and there has been evidence of Web site inactivity (3) and ineffectiveness (4, 5). We believe scientific diasporas may represent part of the solution to the often crippling economic and social effects of emigration on the developing world (5). However, systematic, qualitative research into the needs and perceptions of the diasporas themselves regarding assisting their COs is lacking. Such information is essential to success of any future policies aimed at engaging them. Using previously described qualitative research methods (6–8), we studied life science researchers and entrepreneurs during 2005 in three Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal) that represent strong science hubs. Participants in academic research centers and biotechnology companies were recruited by posting a study notice in which they were asked to identify themselves as originating from developing countries and to share their views about or experiences with contributing to development and innovation in their COs. Anonymity of participants has been maintained, as information on the national origin of individuals at the workplace is considered confidential. This method addressed concerns about potential harms of stigmatization that scientists from developing countries might face as a result of being identified by origin. Sixty participants were included, of whom 48 were from academia and 12 from the biotechnology industry. Participants were asked openended semistructured questions during faceto-face interviews. Questions focused on three areas: linkages to the CO, barriers experienced or expected when forming linkages to the CO, and interest in participating in science and technology (S&T) capacity-building through an organized mechanism. As might be expected, given the self-selection of participants, the general sentiment expressed by study participants was that of a feeling of moral responsibility or need to “give back” to their CO. Despite observing country-specific differences in the level of trust held by study participants toward their CO’s government, about two-thirds of all participants felt positively about working directly with the scientific communities that would benefit from their contributions. Among the 60 participants, there was very little systematic S&T interaction with their COs. The participants could be divided into three broad categories: interested and/or concerned, leaders, and those who had experienced networks. Forty-one individuals fell into the category of interested and/or concerned, of whom 25 had a strong desire to “help” but were not aware of any ready vehicles through which to offer assistance. When we asked why they had not initiated formal linkages, participants listed reasons such as lack of time, financial barriers, lack of infrastructure in their CO, or they said that no one, including their CO, had asked for their contributions. Some scientists said they were at a disadvantage because they were still in the process of building their careers in Canada. In one scientist’s words “I do not have the freedom (to initiate linkages) because I am not a principal investigator.” Other participants echoed this sentiment and said that even if they tried to initiate collaborations with their CO, they would not have credibility unless they held a highprofile position in the developed world. Finally, a common response among these participants was to look at the study notice as a “call for help,” and although the notice made no mention of this, they hoped they were being recruited for an existing program. Nine individuals were actively engaged in projects in or with their COs. They have contributed to S&T capacity-building in various ways such as serving a scientific advisory role in academic institutions, organizing joint research projects, organizing “traveling expert panels,” forming a transnational life-science company spanning Canada and the CO, and partnering with a Canadian company to help it enter his CO’s market. Among these leaders was an executive officer of a biotechnology firm, principal investigators in academic research centers, and a Ph.D. student. One of these participants was con-