R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11
Download 338.85 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Health and Biomedicine.
- Education and Training.
- Rural Economic Development.
- Human Environmental RD in Alaska: Strategy, Actions to Date, Next Steps
- RD and Alaska’s Economy
The Dominant Themes1. Resource Management. Our discussion of fish and wildlife, and human activities in the Natural Environment section emphasized the importance of adopting an ecosystem-based approach to management. Here, we stress that people and their culture are important, often dominant parts of the ecosystem. One of the key issues, and most urgent challenges for resource management in Alaska, is to understand how coupled human and natural systems interact to enhance or erode the resilience of regional ecosystems. 13 The intent is to seek strategies that simultaneously enhance the sustainability of ecosystem services, economic output, cultural integrity, and other important sources of social well being, on regional scales. This requires not only the development and integration of knowledge about the biological basis of sustainable resource supply and the extent to which these supplies may change (e.g. due to climate change, as we discussed above) but also knowledge of the historical and cultural use of the resources, the impact of the introduction of new technology, and the valuation of the resource in both the monetary and the non-monetary marketplace. Long-term sustainable use of resources requires an understanding of current and projected patterns of use and associated cultural values. These issues are important throughout the world, and Alaska is an excellent “laboratory” in which to address the intersection of cultural, political, economic, and ecological change in ways that have direct relevance to our own state as well as other regions. Further, these are particularly relevant topics in which to exploit potential synergies between western science and traditional knowledge. Local knowledge of the indigenous people who have lived on the land for hundreds or even thousands of years provides information over much larger temporal scales ( via oral history) and at broader spatial scales than is available from modern instrumentation. Native knowledge also adds new observations and perspectives on social-ecological relationships, and extends our capability to understand changes that are occurring and their consequences to society. Western science can complement this knowledge with precise numerical measurements, correlation with chemical and biological impact, and comparisons to other areas. In addition, it can help explain process and the reasons for change, and ultimately can develop models with which to forecast or explore the logical consequences of policies. Clearly, traditional knowledge and western scientific knowledge can be complementary. The rural-urban, western-indigenous divide, which R&D can help bridge, is exemplified in Alaska by differences in federal and state regulations regarding subsistence activities. The implications of value-based differences in the approach to resource management and development in the state, however, extend far beyond this one issue. Our large urban population centers are governed by monetary/policy/regulation-based economic systems, while our rural, and particularly indigenous people -- who form the majority in much of our state -- are steeped in a cultural, non-monetary resource valuation ethos. We believe that R&D oriented toward understanding the intersection of these value sets, and actions to increase the degree of correlation between them, is a matter of great importance both to our state, and to other developing economies. We acknowledge that the problems associated with the rural-urban, western-indigenous differences in our state are extremely complex and require considerable insight from a wide range of disciplines and cultures. These issues are as difficult as they are important, for all three of the challenges posed by SJR44. We simply argue that the nature of coupled natural and human systems in the contexts of resource management, sustainability, and resiliency, has to be a focal theme for an Alaska R&D plan, if -- as stated at the start of our Executive Summary -- the State is to expand its economy while preserving those human and natural values that make the state so attractive. 2. Health and Biomedicine. We first note that just as in resource management, there are many human cultural and physical aspects to the contaminant theme, which was addressed under our discussion of natural environment. Subsistence, particularly for Alaska Natives, has social, spiritual, and educational aspects; however, at the bottom line, the questions regarding subsistence from a health standpoint are: who eats what, when, and how. Occasional ritual consumption of some organs, even if laden with POPs or heavy metals, has vastly different implications for health than a steady diet of plants, fish, and animal flesh with much lower levels of accumulation. Similarly, there are seasonal variations in contaminant load, different cooking methods induce different chemical changes, and some foods are of most concern during pregnancy. Consumption patterns and nutritional makeup of the diet has not been consistently documented across Alaska. The health benefits of traditional or wild food must be part of the research agenda in order to intelligently weigh dietary benefit with risk. Thus, R&D about hunting, fishing, storage, cooking, and dietary practices—those that that above we referred to above as the “third set” of questions regarding contaminants—are at least as important as studies of physical, chemical, and non-human biological processes and characteristics. In spite of their importance for both commercial fishing and subsistence, contaminants rank relatively low on the overall list of health issues in the state. Health Alaskans 2010, the State’s overall strategy for improving the health of Alaskans, only included contaminants as a subset of “food safety,” one of its 26 focus areas. Of greater concern in that report are chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes, which are the leading causes of death and morbidity in Alaska and the rest of the United States, and conditions like obesity, substance abuse, and tobacco use. Other major health issues include behavioral and mental health-related problems (e.g. suicide, child maltreatment, alcohol abuse {including fetal alcohol syndrome}, and violence) , unintentional injuries (which are the leading cause of death of Alaskan children and adolescents, and are also intolerably frequent in many of our occupations and avocations like fishing, snow machining and flying), and the problems inherent in providing health and social services to our population (particularly in wilderness or “frontier” regions). Further, although trends are improving, there are still glaring health disparities between Alaska Natives and the rest of our population. We also need to be concerned about “emerging infectious diseases,” the spread of disease associated with climate change and migration patterns, and possible bioterrorism. These issues are as pertinent to the health of people as they are for the health of plants, fish, and land animals. Research discussions have focused on improving inquiry into relevant questions in the following areas: -- Chronic Diseases: Like most other regions of the US, Alaska’s leading overall causes of death and illness stem from chronic diseases such as heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. -- Behavioral health: Alaska has staggering rates of suicide, child maltreatment, substance abuse and violence. The suicide rate for young males in some parts of Alaska is among the highest in the United States. Yet there are similarly situated communities in Alaska that are virtually free of these problems. What makes these communities resilient compared to their neighbors? What are the most effective service delivery methods blending cultural values and traditional western concepts? Since many of the more significant disparities among segments of our population are in the areas of behavioral health, the intersection of indigenous and western beliefs and practices, including the accumulated impact of historical interactions, will be important R&D issues. The Alaska Native health community is and should continue to make essential contributions to these issues, and the people themselves must partner with the researchers in their efforts. -- Emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis, tuberculosis, pneumonias, HIV, strep and Heliobacter pylori are public health concerns in Alaska. Unusual epizootic diseases erupt in rural villages where people have continuing exposure to feral animals. Severe and catastrophic weather events are characteristic at high latitudes, and they render animals and peoples susceptible to unpredictable opportunistic infections. West Nile virus and other infectious diseases can be spread by animal migration and it is unknown how this might effect the Arctic US. Increasing threats from bioterrorism present unique challenges in Alaska because of the great distances and isolation. The Arctic Investigations Program at the CDC in Alaska and well as the State’s Division of Public Health has done a quality job in surveilling for and investigating infectious disease for many decades. More should be done to enhance research efforts in this area. -- Injury Control: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death of Alaskan children and young adults. Alaska is a dangerous place to live, work, and recreate because of the challenges of its natural environment and lack of access to health care. Vehicle and plane crashes, drowning, fires, poisonings, gunshot wounds, snow machines and all- terrain vehicle injuries, and even dog bites account for Alaska’s alarmingly high rates of death for unintentional injuries. -- Genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics: These are basic modern techniques that are fundamental to the study of many chronic and infectious diseases, and are equally relevant to natural environmental studies in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and wildlife biology. Given the relatively small scale of the Alaskan research enterprise in these areas, R&D here will likely focus on diseases and behaviors for which Alaska can make potentially unique contributions, or on topics that research outside of the state is unlikely to adequately address. Examples include diabetes and obesity as related to traditional Alaska diets, and the increasing consumption of western foods by indigenous people; the molecular-to-behavioral mechanisms associated with the reduction in metabolic rate and other bodily processes in hibernation , using ground squirrels and bears as model species (with relevance to human protection from injury due to stroke and heart attack, as well as the study of memory, sleep, and neurological mechanisms of daily and seasonal timing); and the impact of contaminants on DNA and chromosomal structure, and associated mechanisms of cellular repair. -- Toxicology and other aspects of environmental health (particularly as related to Arctic and high-latitude conditions): Important health-related topics in Alaska include the impact of contaminants, the development of improved infrastructure for water supplies, sewage and waste disposal, and air quality in housing, particularly as it affects asthma and other respiratory problems. -- Rural and Frontier health delivery: Alaska has only 1.1 persons per square mile, compared to the 79.6 persons per square mile in rest of the US with. Many health-related challenges and innovations are directly associated with Alaska’s natural environment and remoteness. A few examples where R&D can make significant contributions include the study of epidemiology in sparse populations and in communities designed for harsh winter conditions, life style and occupational practices that result in our high rates of death from unintentional injuries and ways to ameliorate them, emergency treatment in the wilderness, seasonal syndromes and cold-induced injuries, health and social-care delivery to remote regions with a very low number of health care providers (including issues of recruitment and training), and advances and innovations in telemedicine (where Alaska can make major contributions to delivery procedures, provider training, and scope of practice because of the quality and extent of it telemedicine system). -- Justice and Human Services Research: There are many important issues that intersect between the justice, human service and health system. For instance, what are effective interventions for juveniles in rural communities? What is the best practice for child and family well-being in rural and urban Alaska? How do vulnerable adults, such as the mentally ill or those with FAS or other disabilities, interact with the justice system and what interventions are working to keep them out of the system? -- Aging and Disabilities: Alaska has a small, but rapidly growing, aging population. Similarly, persons with disabilities are living longer and are in community settings with independence previously thought impossible. Research in rural aging and disabilities is an area of great need in our state. -- Capacity Issues: As Alaska takes on an increased role in health, behavioral health, and biomedical research it must also build its graduate education programs to provide for a substantial research talent pool. UA is one of few state universities in the nation that does not have a PhD program in behavioral health. Plans to support an efficient but tailored PhD program in Psychology should be supported to enhance research. In addition Masters programs in public health, social work, and many other relevant areas are underway. In addition, the research role of medical students and residents enrolled through the WWAMI program should continue to be developed and supported. -- Adherence to Human subjects research protocols: All research in Alaska regarding human subjects should strictly adhere to local IRB approvals. -- Ongoing, research information sharing: There is no centralized consistent source of published, unpublished, and grey literature of relevance to Alaska’s health, justice, and human services. The State should support projects, such as the National Library of Medicine Arctic Website, to make information accessible. This also provides accountability of researchers to communities. A periodic forum for presentation of health and human related research is also needed. 3. Education and Training. Although education and training are often treated separately, and education is generally subdivided into K-12 (or K-14) and higher education, at this stage of our planning there are enough common issues between education and training in our state that they can be addressed here as a single theme. Difficulties in teacher recruitment and retention (and associated low achievement) are common problems, as are the complexities associated with distance delivery. There are new requirements for professional “certifications” and through-career upgrades for many jobs and at all levels of education. The life skills and traditional knowledge so important in rural communities need to be integrated into education and training at all levels. There is need to share facilities and opportunities among providers. The techniques and concepts of education and training are becoming more closely integrated as many young adults try to balance the learning-skill aspects of secondary and tertiary education with practical classwork that makes them more competitive in Alaska job markets. Thus, although there are issues peculiar to each, some of which we address below, there are also some common underlying challenges. Perhaps the most basic and perplexing question is, why -- given all the attention and effort over the past several decades put into trying to fix the acknowledged problems of poor educational achievement in the US, particularly at the K-12 level -- has improvement been so minimal? In spite of the promises and potential of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), we suggest that this question remains unanswered, particularly for Alaska Natives and rural schools. In spite of dedicated efforts, and the general acceptance of Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools, which are explicitly designed to improve relevance and acceptability, significant disparities in performance remain. A closely related question is: What will be the impacts in Alaska of recent changes in law and regulation? 14
-- Teacher retention: Retention appears to be closely associated with student achievement. At issue is not just retention in general, but the need for teachers with expertise in given areas (e.g. math and science and, most particularly, special education). -- Recruiting Alaska Native Teachers: UA has received major grants to develop programs to recruit and prepare Alaska Native teachers, and the research associated with these grants focuses on identifying practices that inhibit or promote success. A closely related issue is professional certification for teacher aides, and methods to transition these aides, who are often the most stable element in the school system, into the teaching profession. -- Culturally Responsive Teachers and School Practices: “Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools” serves as a basis for programs. Research questions look at the development of teacher practices, teacher candidate perceptions, development of curricula and learning experiences to advance cultural understanding, and assessment of the impact of cultural heritage programs on retention and other success measures. -- Preservice and In-service Education: At issue is the balance between content and pedagogy in teacher education, and associated performance of traditionally and non-traditionally (e.g., fifth-year MAT) prepared teachers. The basic questions include: What makes a good teacher; and what is the impact of the alignment of teacher preparation programs with NCATE standards? --School Quality and Teacher Impact on Student Learning: NCLB emphasizes accountability, standards, and teacher success defined by student performance. These raise significant issues in the Alaska environment, where small numbers may bias results, where there is a wide diversity in classroom environment, and where there are many students whose first language is neither English, nor a language (e.g. Spanish) in which a substantial amount of educational material and ESL experience is available. Understanding the impact of the testing movement, and the contribution to school success (beyond improved test scores) that the testing movement has made are very important. The answers to these questions may soon affect the fundamental makeup of primary and secondary education in the state. -- In-service Professional Development: This can be seen either as a threat or as an inducement by teachers, depending on how the training is related to teachers’ perception of their needs. Identification of the best methods of mentoring beginning teachers is an issue of particular importance, given Alaska’s retention problems and the need to import so many of our teachers. -- Teacher Leadership: Teachers are more likely to stay at a school when they feel that they have an influence on local decision-making processes. At issue is how to fully engage teachers, and how to fashion local school culture into communities of learners. -- Classroom Research: There are two very different aspects of this issue. One concerns the best way in which to prepare teachers to research their own effectiveness and make necessary adjustments. The second is how to best enable teachers to incorporate research practices into their teaching. Both require that teachers understand and appreciate research as a fundamental concomitant to learning, both for themselves and for their students. These, in turn, are further aspects of the development of a “learning community.” -- Technology Proficiency: Again there are (at least) two aspects to this topic, namely, use of technology for teachers’ professional development, and in support of students’ content learning. Issues include integration of technologies into curriculum design and instructional strategies, preparing teachers and students to incorporate rapidly advancing technology into their learning and life practices, and the use of technology in assessing effectiveness. In addition to its role in teacher preparation, and thus its influence on K-12 education in Alaska, UA is also the dominant provider of tertiary and postgraduate education in the state, and through its community campuses throughout Alaska, as well as its outreach program, shares responsibility for technical, professional, and workforce training with other state organizations like the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) in Seward and the Alaska Technical Center (ATC) in Kotzebue. Commonwealth North has recently completed a study of UA, and over the last few years the University itself has sponsored a number of independent assessments of many aspects of its programs. As a learning community itself, UA continuously evaluates the relevance of its educational programs to the state and its people, compares itself to peers throughout the rest of the nation, and develops practices to improve its attractiveness to Alaskans and to assess the quality and effectiveness of its programs and the success of its students. One example of a recent action by UA to respond to state needs was its commitment, with the support of communities and industry, to double the output of nurses over the next five years. Examples of just a few of the R&D issues associated with the University’s role in higher education and workforce training, which should be important in the context of a state R&D plan, include the following: -- Are the missions of each of the three major administrative units (MAUs; Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau) clearly defined, and are the disciplinary focuses at each MAU complementary and effectively balanced? Do the MAU strategies clearly identify the disciplines where they wish to build and maintain expertise, and does their allocation of resources reflect their stated priorities? Are these strategies supportive of the needs of the state as a whole, as well as to the communities in which the campuses are located? Within disciplines that are important at more than one MAU (e.g. education, health, environmental studies, Alaska Native programs), is there effective partnership and alignment of roles among them? -- What is the appropriate balance between education and research at each of the MAUs, and what is the best method of integrating these two components for the sake of both student learning and recruitment and retention of excellent faculty? -- To what degree, and how, should the University provide preparatory education that supplements, or accommodates deficiencies in, secondary education programs, for both traditional and non-traditional students? How do such programs influence the philosophy and practice of open enrollment? -- What are the best methodologies for integrating professional qualification and training programs with higher education? What are the implications of various models for credit toward higher degrees, workforce relevance, meeting professional and national standards, and attracting and retaining students? Are there evolving job markets and requirements where more integration between scholastic and practical education may be relevant, or where “training” and hands on experience could substantially enhance the value of a traditional undergraduate or graduate program? For example, do models such a Maritime Academy, or workforce apprenticeships and internships have relevance to Alaska? If they do, how can the University work more effectively with other vocational and training-oriented centers in the state, and with industry? -- From the standpoint of management and use of faculty and facilities, is the current structure of community-focused education and training within the University optimized? Are there ways, in Alaska, to increase community involvement in, and support of, community campuses? Are the course offerings designed to meet the most important community and state needs? Furthermore, is local entrepreneurship encouraged when the University refrains from offering training that can be provided by small companies or other local organizations, such as community organizations or NGOs? One pervasive issue for education and training in Alaska is distance delivery. Distance delivery is essential in our state, both because of our size and dispersed population, and because of the need for many of our students to accommodate other activities -- from subsistence to paying jobs -- while learning. While there are many pedagogical, social, cultural, technological, and cost challenges associated with distance delivery, solving them in Alaska would create opportunities for exporting our success to many other areas around the world. Alaska has made a major commitment to telemedicine, and there are reasons to assert that distance education deserves similar treatment. A consortium was formed several years ago to improve distance education in the state, and UA has devoted significant effort to the topic. We believe that much more can and should be done to facilitate distance education, and that R&D needs to address policy and organizational relationships as well as issues more directly associated with delivery. There are a large number of these latter issues, including the communications systems for delivery, teaching methods, faculty proficiency, integration of distance and traditional programs, and cultural relevance and acceptability. Properly designed and implemented, we believe that distance education can play a major role in the transformation of our towns, villages, and even cities into “learning communities,” and that such a transformation will be required to solve many of our recognized educational and cultural problems. We therefore consider it an issue of first-order importance for the state R&D plan. 4. Rural Economic Development. The three traditional options for economic development in rural Alaska are exploitation of natural resources, tourism, and native crafts. All face significant challenges to their development. Oil, gas, and mineral exploitation requires extremely large capital investment and major infrastructure development, may significantly impact the local natural environment, and are subject to global market forces that can quickly erode profitability. Salmon fishing, once a reliable source of cash income both for coastal communities and for inland boat owners, now faces challenges of variable stocks and a market dominated by high-quality farmed fish. Other fishing opportunities are available under quota systems, but require significant investment and different processing and marketing technologies, and are not as broadly available as salmon. Locally run tourism companies faces stiff competition from the big cruise companies and from Alaska’s many national parks. Likewise, in spite of the appeal of native crafts and other cottage industry products, there is a limited market for these items. Many R&D issues about rural economic development involve the formulation of policy, rather than simply technology. This is similar in nature to questions about infrastructure, as discussed in some detail below and in the Working Group 2 Appendix. DCED’s RAPIDs, and Alaska Economic Information System web sites describe capital improvement projects throughout Alaska, but note that less that one percent of them are oriented toward economic development. At issue are the nature, order, and characteristics of rural capital investment that may have the potential to increase economic opportunity--should such economic growth be desired by the affected communities. One of Alaska’s unique competitive advantages is its 12 land-entitled ANCSA Corporations. These corporations are Alaska’s largest land owners, and together with selected village corporations, had combined revenues of $2.5B in 2000, employed 10,600 people, had a payroll in Alaska of $350M, and distributed $64.5M to their shareholders. Their business strategies have evolved since their formation in the 1970’s, from resource extraction toward more diversified business operations, portfolio management, and investment in businesses not associated with their land base, both within and outside of the State. Our task force on diversity and economic development suggests that the ANCSA Corporations should assess ways in which they can increase sustainable development to benefit Alaska, through the establishment of an ANCSA Research Center. It also suggests that a common theme of both regional and village corporations is an interest in eco-tourism or tourism that focuses on Alaska’s Native cultures. An interesting hypothesis for research is that if a larger number of visitors are attracted to Alaska because of its cultural diversity, then maintaining and enhancing indigenous cultures and the attractiveness of rural communities would be key elements in sustaining expansion and diversification of Alaska’s economy. In general, considerable attention has been focused on assessment of available resources, improvement of rural infrastructure and services, the problems of the salmon industry (e.g. via SJR28), state assistance to major projects (e.g. via the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority), and opportunities for local improvement projects through federal grants. What we believe is missing, and would be a worthwhile component of a state R&D plan, is a coordinated study of the interrelated elements that could contribute to rural economic development, including market opportunities, potential competitive advantages and available strengths (e.g. those associated with strong rural health programs), investment strategies, policy considerations, needs and interests of the communities themselves, and roles of major players, including ANCSA regional and village corporations. Human Environmental R&D in Alaska: Strategy, Actions to Date, Next Steps The core elements of our natural environmental strategy -- scientific excellence and capacity building, partnering and collaboration, long-term monitoring, and information flow – apply equally to our human environmental strategy. In particular, we have emphasized that people are a significant part of the ecosystem, and need to be considered on an equal basis with physics, biology, chemistry, etc., when developing ecosystem-based resource management approaches. One specific implication of this is that long-term monitoring schemes must include studies of the practices and characteristics of individuals and communities--whether they are urban, rural, western, or indigenous. The same consideration applies to studies of contaminants, and to many other aspects of health, education, and resource management. The implication is that it is extremely important for the affected and involved people to “buy in” to R&D plans, and to have a role in decisions about the plans and their implementation. As noted above, this will require considerable effort, particularly when the R&D involves indigenous people who have been adversely affected by past R&D practices. Thus our comments regarding the next steps for the natural environment strategy also apply here. We do note that ANSC has begun to develop regional Alaska Native science strategies. Further, UA researchers have recently started to actively build new collaborative research partnerships with Alaska Native communities and Tribal Health Corporations in one of their health initiatives, the NIH funded Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) (see below). We hope to benefit from this experience for our future efforts, including a newly proposed NSF research focus area in regional resiliency and adaptation. The major players in health, social welfare, and biomedically related R&D include virtually all the members of the Healthy Alaska Partnership Council who helped develop Healthy Alaskans 2010. These include our hospitals and clinics around the state, the NIH, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Alaska Investigations Program, and many other state agencies and labs. We expect that the task forces will soon produce specific recommendations. However, at this point, it is worth noting that the University of Alaska has focused its research capacity-building programs largely upon related skills and disciplines. This was done by successfully competing for four key multi-year grants to build physical infrastructure through the purchase of equipment, and to augment intellectual infrastructure with 16 new faculty members. These programs include research focus areas in the Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research of NSF and DOD, and in NIH’s Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network, Center of Biomedical Research Excellence, and Specialized Neuroscience Research Program. Similarly, the major capital projects for both the Anchorage and the Fairbanks Campuses, partially supported by last year’s General Obligation Bond, are specifically designed to build educational and research strength in relevant disciplines. Simply put, UA has bet the future of its research growth potential on building excellence in biomedical and health-related areas. A bet of this magnitude and importance will require consistent support and resource focusing by UA management and Regents, and continuing support from the state, to ensure its success. Although we have mentioned a number of R&D issues associated with education, with the exception of distance education, where UA is revising its management structure with the intent of improving performance, questions are either being researched by individual faculty members or remain to be addressed. At issue is the degree to which the state wishes to engage in a serious R&D program in education, as it has in health, and the mechanism for developing the associated research enterprise. To date, emphasis has been very heavily focused on implementing federal and state programs and initiatives, complying with law and new mandates, and attempting to improve the delivery and productivity of both teacher training and student learning. We believe that serious attention to questions about the educational process is extremely important as an adjunct to delivery, and hope that the further evolution of this plan will lead to treating education R&D in the state in much the same way as we have health and biomedicine R&D. Further, we suggest that the UA management and Board of Regents address the questions raised by this report as well as those presented by Commonwealth North as part of their own strategic planning processes. Rural economic development is in much the same state as education. There are quite a number of programs oriented at development, including those focused on the infrastructure that could enable it, and the resources that may support it. However, little structured attention to the subject as a serious strategic R&D issue involving all related aspects of business planning, marketing, strategic alignments, and cultural implications has occurred. Below, we discuss possible approaches as they relate to infrastructure, industry, and the overall enhancement and diversification of Alaska’s economy. The rural aspects of development are important components of the overall problem. We also want to call attention to the recommendation of the diversity task force that the ANCSA Corporations establish a research center to help understand their own dynamics and to assess ways in which they can increase sustainable development to benefit the state, thereby benefiting the long-term interests of their shareholders. These Corporations could be one of the state’s greatest competitive advantages. As the corporations have matured, the types of questions discussed above become both more relevant and more appropriate. R&D and Alaska’s Economy Download 338.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|