Developing countries are determined to foster stronger domestic science communities. Photo:NASA (flickr)

Developing countries are shooting for the moon.

No longer willing to follow in the technological footsteps of developed nations, Fast Company reports, developing countries are launching significant space programs to subsidize and promote in-country technological innovation.

From Tanzania to Brazil, governments of developing countries are investing billions into building domestic science institutions, as well as funding science and technology scholarships. The aim is to form cohesive space programs of their own without relying on the previous accomplishments of Western nations. On they way, they'll foster a stronger homegrown science community while strengthening education and promoting industry.

But most importantly, says José Goldemberg, a professor at the University of Saõ Paulo, this fledgling investment is an effort to “adapt and develop technologies appropriate to our local circumstances." Some developing countries are pioneering their own paths, exploring technologies relevant to their countries' unique needs.

The programs focus on everything from energy and bio-engineering to environmental science and water resource management. Some, such as the Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology (which has institutions located in various locations across Sub-Saharan Africa), will begin to offer master's and Ph.D. degrees.

In April 2010, one of the more ambitious developing-world projects was established. Mexico’s Agencia Espacial Mexicana, working with 45 partner countries from around the world, launched the development of a space program with an agreement by all parties to share financial, scientific, and technological resources in their space exploration efforts.

Though the goal of space exploration may seem far-fetched for countries that often struggle with domestic and economic stability, the growth of national ideas and talent are essential to any nation's progress. Even if space exploration is not in the cards for these countries for many years to come, technology developed in the process could prove to be vital. NASA’s space research led not only to man's first steps on the moon, but provided the technology behind everyday-use inventions like ear thermometers and smoke detectors, long distance telecommunications and cordless devices.

Small steps in the development of domestic science and technology programs could lead to a giant leap for the future of a country. From advanced education and job creation to new technologies that simplify complex problems, these programs promise much for millions across the globe.

Esther Duflo speaking at Pop!Tech in 2009. Photo: kk + (flickr)

Ever wonder why some development projects succeed while others fail?

Esther Duflo and her colleagues at MIT’s Poverty Action Lab are working on the answer. Duflo is one of the newest recipients of the MacArthur Genius Grant because of her commitment to investigating what causes poverty to persist in some developing countries and what works to alleviate it.

She does this by setting up controlled field experiments in some of the poorest countries in Africa and South Asia. These experiments set out to prove how social and economic forces fuel the cycle of poverty in these areas. They also test how effective foreign aid projects are at lifting people out of poverty.

Duflo conducts her experiments using a method that mimics how drug companies conduct randomized medical trials. One group participates in a development project while the other does not. The differences between them are then measured to see if the project worked, and exactly how well.

Some of Duflo’s best known work is on HIV prevention in Kenya. Her research shows it’s more effective to teach girls specific ways to reduce their risk — like avoiding sexual relations with older men — than teaching basic medical facts about HIV and emphasizing abstinence as the best method of prevention. As she explains in her recent article for VoxEU.org, girls who were given risk-reduction information now use condoms more often, stay in school longer, and become pregnant less often.

“Economics is about the best way to allocate resources, and finding out what works is important to understanding how to allocate these resources,” Duflo told Philanthropy Action. Too few development strategies are vigorously tested. Proving what works can help.

(For more information on the Poverty Action Lab, check out Sarah Standish’s post "Researching Better Ways to End Poverty.")

One of J-PAL's studies tested the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in certain Indian schools. Photo: niyam bhushan (flickr)

A research group thinks the best way to determine whether aid programs work is to evaluate them using the scientific method.

J-PAL, short for for the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, is a group of researchers - loosely affiliated with MIT - who help design and publish academic-quality studies of existing poverty alleviation programs in an effort to find out exactly what works and what doesn't. These researchers partner with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to evaluate their programs. They also offer courses for other researchers to share their methods. (Class materials are available here for free.)

As J-PAL's website explains, the key to their approach lies in randomization, which is an important part of a well-designed study:

Suppose we would like to see whether one thing (e.g. "schooling") really improves a life outcome (e.g. "health"). The natural instinct is to compare the health of those who have schooling to those who don't. But this would be like comparing apples and oranges: People who have been to school are different in so many ways from those who haven't. Perhaps they have more advantaged social backgrounds, greater access to government services and so better access to schools. And only a few of these factors can be measured and accounted for in a standard statistical analysis. So this simple comparison — those with schooling to those without — may tell us little about the effect of schooling: It may instead be the effect of any of these numerous other differences like social background. If policy are set on the basis of such apples and oranges comparisons, quite a bit of disappointment may result.

J-PAL uses this approach to evaluate existing programs. For example, J-PAL researchers cooperated with an NGO called Pratham to study how much weekly computer use could boost Indian students' academic achievement. They introduced computer-based learning only into randomly selected schools that Pratham was already serving. Students at these schools received basic computer skills training and two hours per week of independent computer time with educational software. After a year, J-PAL found that these students' math test scores had risen, but that their other skills hadn't changed significantly — and all for slightly more money than another effective Pratham program J-PAL had also evaluated.

What makes J-PAL's work innovative is that such randomized studies haven't typically been used in evaluating poverty-alleviation programs, or even in the wider field of economics.

Such data is designed to help aid organizations and governmental bodies decide the most effective way to allocate their funds. For the extra cost of designing an extra study now, J-PAL believes, more money can be directed toward the most effective programs for better poverty-alleviation strategies in the future.