We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Last September (2004), Science published an editorial and a news focus endorsing the idea of using scientific collaboration to engage with North Korea (see North Korean scientists reach out to the West). The articles referred to collaborations suggested by the North Korean government, including working with a North Korean cloning centre on stem cell research.

In this letter to the editor of Science, Courtland Robinson, Myung-Ken Lee, and Gilbert Burnham, say that although they agree in principle, the international scientific community should focus more on collaborations in agriculture and the health sciences.

Moreover, they point out that North Korean scientists and intellectuals form an elite that is closely tied to the government. Prestigious science, they say, may be different from the type of science that can benefit the population.

Norman Neureiter, author of the original Science editorial, agrees but notes that the North Korean government is reticent to engage in most forms of collaboration. Its willingness —apparent desire, even — to collaborate on cloning experiments, could be used as a first step towards future joint research. He says that until this first step is taken, there is no point in trying to "dictate" research priorities.

Link to full letter in Science

Reference: Science 307, 206 (2005)