IN my final response to Mr. Clinton Urling’s letter of April 17, 2009 in the Kaieteur News, with the caption, “Brain gain, brain circulation correspondence now in, ‘silly season.’” I wish to say, that Mr. Urling failed to grasp my point once again.

My repetition served the purpose of sensitizing Mr. Urling to the nuances of brain gain.

My previous letters never argued that migration is not a serious problem. Instead, my main focus is to point out that we can turn the problem of ‘brain drain’ into a benefit for our country called ‘brain gain’. It is what good people refer to as extracting opportunities out of problems.

However, Mr. Urling rebuked my views, and deemed them as ‘illogical and adhomenin attacks’ rather than taking them into consideration. Should Mr. Urling read and fully comprehend my letters, then he would know that there is no need for a study to show the positive effects that ‘brain circulation’ has had on Guyana and other developing countries. The empirical evidence is there, many people just turn a blind eye on it.

I reiterate that my argument is not to say that migration is always positive, but, rather transforming ‘brain drain’ to ‘brain gain.’ It is all about turning the ‘negative’ to ‘positive’. What is so wrong with that?

If Mr. Urling rejects my proposal, then I hope he has a bigger and better solution to counter mine. I would advise that he peruse the literature on ‘brain gain.’
MARISSA LOWDEN