A vision for national R&D system: A call for change

Yohannes Samosir Researcher School of Land and Food Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia ysamosir@ourbrisbane.com

In globalization, where competition is intensifying, the deployment of technology and knowledge-based services is a strategic battlefield. It is now generally accepted that the future growth of nations will depend on technological development. Nations with knowledge will do better in global competition.

Knowledge and technology do not simply exist in isolation. They come via a systematic process known as research and development (R&D). In today's world, knowledge and technology are perishable; they can easily become out of date. Therefore, to keep pace with the global revolution in knowledge and technology we need to improve R&D capacity and capability.

Improving R&D in the light of reformation and globalization implies the need to review the system. A review of the system is particularly relevant as the world is now in the middle of two great knowledge-based revolutions i.e. biotechnology and information and communications technology. R&D as a key source of knowledge and technology is very important for national growth.

R&D intensity in Indonesia is relatively low compared with some other countries in Asia. Agriculture, for example, has been claimed to be our most important sector for decades, yet agricultural R&D is quite weak.

Most R&D in Indonesia is public funded and highly controlled by the central government, which has departments fighting for supremacy. This has led to high overhead costs, overlapping activities, poor coordination, severe underfunding, to name but a few. This all causes poor results. This situation must be changed, to provide a more conducive environment for scientists to work, at both private and government laboratories. We cannot survive and compete with other countries under the current R&D setup.

The reform in R&D is needed to accommodate a change in the governmental system whereby local governments have been given wider autonomy. The heart of successful autonomy is the ability and capacity to explore and utilize local resources. These are the areas where R&D is definitely needed. Therefore, greater autonomy must also be given to R&D institutions.

One of the most important changes to be made is to enhance the awareness of R&D. The government must realize that R&D is an investment, not a cost. In fact, R&D and education are the most strategic investments by which the government can secure stability in the future economy.

The return from R&D investment may not be very sensational as it varies from 2 percent to 60 percent. Although the rate of return can be low, R&D is still one of the best possible investments because it has a great spin-off effect.

This appreciation must then be disseminated to industry. It is necessary for the government to give incentives and to introduce more initiatives to support private R&D. Policies must be drawn up to ensure that the government will not compete with private R&D, where activities are mostly in relation to problem solving and near-to-market technology.

Encouraging the private sector to establish R&D laboratories must be included in the new policy. To some extent we have successfully helped private universities by providing lecturers whose salaries are paid with public money. This approach could be adopted to help private laboratories as they lack trained scientists, particularly at the early stages.

Perhaps we can learn from Australia. In 1985 a new system of funding and managing R&D was introduced. It was called the Research and Development Corporation (RDC) system. Industry provided funding to RDC through a levy system. The government then matched the amount of money collected. The RDCs set the programs and contracted out the research projects to R&D institutes and universities. This system ensured that the user's needs for R&D were satisfied.

A vision for university research must be intensely articulated and translated into action plans. This is now becoming more relevant to ensure the success of local government autonomy as well as university autonomy. The creation of cooperative research centers (CRCs) at universities could be a good approach in building R&D capacity and capability. The centers comprise university, government R&D, non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

This approach, if properly adopted, could produce many benefits. The presence of CRCs at universities would improve the capacity and capability of R&D. The collective assets generated by CRCs would take R&D resources well above the critical mass. It could also be a way of saving money because the creation of new government R&D institutions or laboratories with a full-scale facility might not be necessary.

The CRC system is a strategic way of building strong R&D, which is essential to support teaching and postgraduate programs. Interaction between students, lecturers and eminent scientists is encouraged under these circumstances. This is a conducive environment for knowledge transfer from generation to generation. In addition, students will be able to gain extensive experience in undertaking high-quality research.

Finally, the multidisciplinary nature of universities will nurture the emergence of new technologies that may need multifaceted knowledge. The history of biotechnology proves the benefits of enhancing contact between scientists from different fields.

Universities with a strong commitment to R&D should consider the double-ladder career path for their intellectual staff, i.e. both teaching and research. Research staff are mainly involved in R&D, with minor teaching commitments. This allows the universities to take a leading role in R&D without sacrificing the teaching.