In the heart of Cold War tensions, a quiet Swedish university became the stage for a bold experiment: could science and technology become the common language that would unite a divided world for development?
Imagine the world in 1977. The Cold War divided nations into opposing camps, and international conflicts dominated headlines. Yet, in the midst of this geopolitical tension, a group of visionary researchers believed that science and technology could become a neutral territory for cooperation. They understood that while politics could divide, shared human challenges—like poverty, disease, and underdevelopment—could unite.
Conference on International Conflict and Cooperation in Science and Technology for Development at University of Lund, Sweden 1
This conviction brought experts from around the world to the University of Lund in Sweden for the Conference on International Conflict and Cooperation in Science and Technology for Development 1 . Organized by the university's Research Policy Program, this gathering was not about celebrating technological marvels for wealthy nations. Instead, it asked a more profound question: How could knowledge be shared across political blocs to serve humanity's most pressing development needs? This conference represented an early attempt to transform science from a tool of national competition into an instrument of global partnership.
To understand this conference's significance, we must first look at its host—the Research Policy Program at Lund University. This was no ordinary academic department.
Established in 1966 by Stevan Dedijer, the Research Policy Institute was among the first of its kind—an academic center devoted entirely to studying how science, technology, and society interact .
The institute existed at the "intersection between Science and Technology Studies (STS) and policy studies" 3 , bringing together diverse experts to study complex questions.
A core part of the institute's research was "Knowledge and innovation for development" , making it the perfect host for exploring technology's role in bridging global divides.
The conference came at a crucial historical moment. Just two years earlier, the United Nations had begun planning for its major UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) scheduled for 1979 6 . The Lund gathering served as an important preparatory discussion where ideas could be tested away from the political pressures of the formal UN process.
The conference title itself—"International Conflict and Cooperation in Science and Technology for Development"—pointed to the complex relationship between these forces. Let's break down the key ideas that likely dominated discussions:
Participants would have recognized that technology inherently contained both divisive and unifying potential. The same computing technology that guided missiles could also manage agricultural distribution networks. The nuclear physics that created weapons could also generate power. The central challenge was how to steer technological development toward cooperative ends despite international conflicts.
A revolutionary concept emerging in the 1970s was that of "appropriate technology"—the idea that developing nations didn't necessarily need the most advanced, expensive Western technology. Instead, they needed solutions tailored to their specific resources, skills, and cultural contexts. This might mean simple, maintainable, and scalable technologies that could be locally produced and repaired.
The Research Policy Program was deeply interested in what they called the "interplay between structural and epistemic governance" 3 . In simpler terms, this meant understanding how formal policies (like research funding) interacted with the informal rules and cultures of scientific communities. Effective technology transfer required attention to both dimensions.
While the Lund conference itself was smaller and earlier, we can understand its significance by examining the larger geopolitical "experiment" it helped prepare for—the 1979 UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) in Vienna 6 . This major international gathering became the real-world testing ground for ideas likely discussed in Sweden two years earlier.
The data generated from this diplomatic experiment revealed clear patterns:
| Proposal | Proponent | Funding Scale | Primary Focus | U.S. Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2 Billion UN Fund | Developing Nations | $2 Billion | Large-scale technology transfer | Opposed as too grandiose |
| UNDP Special Fund | UNDP Head Bradford Morse | $250 Million over 2 years | Training and non-duplicative S&T activities | Conditionally support ($25M annually) |
| U.S. ISTC | United States | Dependent on Congress | Scientific cooperation with LDCs | Central to U.S. approach |
| Energy Aid Coordination | Tokyo Summit Nations | Variable | Expanding LDC energy production | Supported, with World Bank coordination |
| Agricultural Research | Multiple Developed Nations | $26M U.S. contribution (1979) | International agricultural research centers | Supported expansion |
"The analysis of these results shows several important patterns: The Funding Gap between what developing nations requested and what developed nations were willing to provide; Conditional Cooperation with strict conditions; and Sector-Specific Success in areas like agricultural research and energy."
The very fact that these discussions occurred across Cold War divisions suggests that science provided a rare common language.
The debates over funding mechanisms revealed that the main obstacles weren't scientific but political and structural.
The Lund conference likely served as an important "incubator" where ideas could be developed before reaching the UN stage.
The researchers and policymakers at these conferences had at their disposal a set of tools for building bridges between scientific communities:
| Tool | Function | Real-World Example |
|---|---|---|
| International Calibration Studies | Standardize measurements and methodologies across borders | ICTCT traffic conflict studies in Rouen (1979) and Sweden (1983) 5 |
| Research Networks | Create informal communities for knowledge exchange | ICTCT's informal network beginning with 1977 Oslo workshop 5 |
| Multilateral Funding Mechanisms | Pool resources from multiple nations for shared goals | UNDP's proposed $250 million special fund for S&T 6 |
| International Research Centers | Establish physical hubs for collaborative work | CGIAR's International Agricultural Research Centers 6 |
| Scientific Exchange Programs | Enable researchers to work across borders | U.S. ISTC's planned cooperation with developing nations 6 |
The 1977 Lund conference and the subsequent UNCSTD meetings created ripples that extend to our present day:
The proposed U.S. Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation represented a new model for scientific partnership with developing nations 6 .
The informal connections made at such conferences often evolved into lasting collaborations, similar to how the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) grew from informal workshops into a formal association 5 .
These discussions helped establish the field of research policy as we know it today—"an interdisciplinary field dedicated to the study of the management and governance of research and innovation" 3 .
Perhaps most importantly, these gatherings established a crucial principle: that science and technology policy couldn't be separated from broader questions of global equity and justice. The researchers at Lund understood that a technological solution alone wasn't enough—it had to be embedded in social and political systems that made it accessible to those who needed it most.
Looking back from our 21st-century perspective, where international scientific collaboration often feels natural (consider the International Space Station or global climate research), it's easy to forget that this cooperative mindset had to be deliberately built. The 1977 Conference on International Conflict and Cooperation in Science and Technology for Development represented an important milestone in this construction process.
National interests vs. global needs
Tailored solutions for different contexts
Creating viable financial mechanisms
The challenges these pioneers faced remain with us today. As we confront new global challenges from climate change to pandemics, we might draw inspiration from their conviction that scientific cooperation could transcend political conflict.
The Lund conference reminds us that the most profound technological innovations aren't always gadgets or drugs—sometimes, they're new ways of working together across boundaries, putting human knowledge in service of human need.
What international scientific collaboration today might our descendants look back on as revolutionary? The answer might be taking shape in a university conference room somewhere at this very moment.