Conclusion

From the beginning of the research I assumed that the transfer of scientific technology could accelerate development, and aid in achieving social objectives; I still do. But, the process of transfer, and the selection of technology are far more complex avenues than I had anticipated. Although social activists, sociologists, psychologists, economists, technologists and historians have studied this issue, there is no consensus on the sub-issues or the method of transfer.

The technology transfer is a dynamic process. The inequalities, values and aspirations of the recipents shape, and are shaped by the technology. In the past, technology transfer projects have failed partly in failing to realize this aspect. Further, lack of the "human and physical capacity", community involvement, appropriate technology, and priority to recipients' interests has contributed to failure of technology transfer projects. As Susan George highlights, defining social goals by the community is a fundamental step before considering any technology transfer projects. Therefore, the criteria for selection and transfer of technology must be guided by preferred quality of life of the community and must avoid past shortcomings. Considering recipients need as primary, using appropriate technology, innovating the technology around existing systems, consulting the community and guarding against criminal elements are all guidelines drawn from past shortcomings and guide towards preferred quality of life. The criteria are indicative of the direction shown by common sense and sought by social activists.