However, many key factors will have to work out right for a successful, sustainable and satisfactory outcome.

One must also be keenly aware that this is, after all, a science park, and make certain that the "science" part does not get lost by the wayside as the park becomes operational.

The Stanford Industrial Park is an oft-cited example of a successful and highly profitable academia/industry partnership. The creation of the park was one of the milestones in the genesis of Silicon Valley and it heralded subsequent technology booms, from semiconductors to biotechnology, and from information technology to the currently accelerating interest in alternative energy.

Thus, it should be instructive to consider the historical context that lead to its founding and the lessons that Thailand may learn.

In the 1950s when the park was created, an enormous amount of funding had already been channelled into scientific research in the US, starting with World War II and continuing into the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. At the same time, American academia had been jump-started with an influx of top-notch scientific minds fleeing post-war Europe, many of whom had cut their teeth doing war-time research and applying scientific knowledge to real-world problems.

Meanwhile, the G.I. Bill granted free college education to hundreds of thousands of war veterans and brought about a highly educated workforce.

Many of the innovations from the Manhattan Project, most notably the computer, had started to pay dividends around this time.

A surplus of military electronic equipment and manufacturing capacity from the war meant a ready availability of research equipment.

This historical context is crucial to understanding the rise of Silicon Valley.

While the Stanford Industrial Park was instrumental in Silicon Valley's emergence, by that time innovative ideas were fermenting in academia and industry. Thus, one should see it more as a catalyst that facilitated innovation and progress rather than the almost-mythical wellspring it is portrayed as in some overly dramatic accounts.

In other words, the role of the park is best thought of as a bridge. While it made getting from point A to point B easier, one must not forget there had to be a point A and point B worth getting to in the first place.

If the history of Silicon Valley can serve as any guide, then one would think that in order to emulate its success and that of other technology hubs, one would be wise to foster academic excellence in the traditional sense. Once that gets going in Thailand, it is certain there will be plenty of incentive for Thai universities or real-estate developers to set up their own science parks to house technology spin-offs. That is, Thailand might be better served if the relevant agencies would get back to basics and build a strong foundation that is the prerequisite for any knowledge-based economy. 

Now to the issue of the direction of Thai science in general, brought up by Dr Thawatchai Wirattipong in a controversial Matichon article. While applied research, with the promise of short-term financial gain, is currently in vogue, we would be ill served if this is done at the expense of basic and fundamental research.

Furthermore, while there are specific cases of successful application-oriented research, such as reducing reliance on certain imports, it is questionable that this strategy can really be scaled up and generalised. After all, there simply is no such thing as a low-risk, quick-return, high-reward investment that scales arbitrarily.

At the national level, if one really wants to generate income worthy of one's investment in science and technology, it is going to be in creating value added, which comes with owning unique products that satisfy unmet needs - the fruits of ground-breaking basic research - and not in making more commodities more cheaply. 

All the same, if Thailand is really determined to succeed in the science and technology arena, we must be prepared to accept the reality that this effort will be a big money sink for a long time to come. We can be quite sure the effort will not pay any appreciable dividend probably for two generations or more.

Furthermore, if funding drops in the interim, all the investment put in so far will likely be lost. We will then be in a crowded race, and one in which we started late; a lot of other nations are competing to reach the same goals. 

Ultimately, the choice of whether to embark on this path should be for the public to decide. 

In essence, funding for science and technology is an investment for the long-term and the greater good of the public. Benefits will not come to the present generation, which pays for it, but to subsequent generations. Consequently it doesn't rank high in political priority and it is always a hard sell to promote - not just in Thailand but in most other countries, too. 

The promotional effort undertaken over the past few years by the government is a good sign that the importance of public support is recognised.

Still, it is unhelpful, unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating to promise too much - otherwise public disillusionment and a critical backlash will be quick and inevitable.

For genuine and sustained support, it is best to ensure that the public has a realistic grasp of our difficult situation. People must fully appreciate what we are getting into and understand the hard work necessary to get to where we want to be.

Pakorn Kanchanawong

The author is a US-based scientist.