Nature triumphs over society at the Institute of Sciences
Nature triumphs over society at the Institute of Sciences
By Mochtar Buchori
JAKARTA (JP): Are social sciences being devalued at the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)? And are basic and exact
sciences being subjected to reappraisal at the same institution?
These questions were asked by Prof. Sediono Tjondronegoro in
his recent article in Kompason Feb. 14, 1996.
He felt compelled to ask these two questions after a ceremony
installing institute leaders on Feb. 5 presided over by
Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono.
He noticed that at present six out of the seven top
bureaucrats at LIPI are hard scientists (five natural scientists
and one engineer). It should also be noted that it is the first
time the deputy chairman for social sciences and humanities there
was recruited from the physical sciences, a physicist.
In his article, Prof. Tjondronegoro wondered whether the
decision for these appointments took into consideration certain
basic realities.
He noted that our national development efforts face serious
problems at the moment. Within the agricultural sector we are
facing a shortage of new land areas suitable for agriculture to
compensate for the lands that have been converted into industrial
and residential areas. There is also a shortage of agricultural
workers in our villages.
Within the industrial sector we face a shortage of skilled and
educated workers. And in the social and cultural fields we are
confronted with an increasing number of social and political
problems, which need a professional approach if we are to succeed
in our national development efforts.
Prof. Tjondronegoro added that LIPI has been expected to help
solve the problems. However, social sciences have not been given
proper attention and proper treatment. He also reminded his
readers that top LIPI executives are not mere managers.
They are leaders of scientific endeavors, for which
professionalism and scientific integrity are absolute
requirements. Why, then, are social scientists being overlooked?
Are they less equipped for tackling social and cultural problems
than natural scientists and engineers?
He then asked former LIPI leaders (and he mentioned my name,
among others) for their opinions.
Prof. Tjondronegoro is a social scientist. I sympathize
entirely with him, and I share his feelings about this situation.
I felt sad when I first heard about the decision. Has the
community of social sciences and humanities within LIPI become so
impoverished academically that it has to look "outside" for
someone capable of fulfilling the leadership role?
The problem of finding a suitable deputy chairman for social
sciences and humanities within LIPI has long been considered
difficult, sensitive and touchy.
Finding deputy chairpersons for natural sciences, technology,
scientific infrastructure, and administration are considered much
easier. Why? As Prof. Tjondronegoro said, LIPI is in its design
heavily oriented towards natural sciences and technology.
To find a social scientist from the LIPI rank and file who can
feel at home in this kind of environment and is not easily
intimidated by numbers, tables, and mathematical models is next
to impossible. He or she must be able to see the "correct
academic path" in a heavily politicized environment, and be young
enough so that he can serve in this capacity for at least five
years, ten if possible.
The first three persons for this position were "imported" from
outside, including myself. There are basically three criteria
which have to be met to fulfill this function: academic
competence, personal willingness and political acceptability. The
problem is finding someone who is considered competent by his or
her peers, who is willing, and who is politically acceptable as
viewed by various agencies within the highest stratum of the
state bureaucracy.
As for personal willingness, I know that there are a number of
social scientists within LIPI who are capable, measured by any
academic standard. But they are not willing to serve as deputy
chairpersons.
Two reasons have been mentioned: economic and scientific.
Those who declined the position for economic reasons said that it
is too expensive to be LIPI's deputy chairman for social
sciences. This is the "driest" division within LIPI.
If you are an economist with some reputation, then you cannot
afford to miss those fees that come easily from consulting. Those
who have refused to be in this post for academic reasons
frequently stated that they will not get academic satisfaction
from doing a deputy's job.
A young brilliant scholar within LIPI who was considered to
have the potential was once asked this question: "If you were
asked to become deputy chairman for social sciences and
humanities, would you consider this request? He said no
immediately. If you can neither get satisfaction nor
gratification from a job, then what are you working for? Power? I
am not interested, was the answer.
There is still another consideration which makes certain
social scientists with reputation reluctant to accept this
position. It is conscience, scientific conscience. Any good
social scientist must have his or her personal view regarding
problems he or she perceives in his or her environment.
He or she will then take a stand on certain issues for which
he or she is totally accountable. And if in the line of duty you
have to act against your conscience, can you still be at peace
with yourself?
For these persons, to live in constant conflict with oneself
is a price they cannot afford to pay. In this kind of situation
LIPI's leadership has to choose the best alternative from a
number of choices that are less than ideal.
What does this particular situation signify? Does it mean that
social sciences and humanities within LIPI are on the decline? Or
does it mean that social sciences in this country as a whole are
on the decline?
Whatever it means, I would like to join Prof. Tjondronegoro in
wishing good luck to the new leadership of LIPI. May God always
guide you, protect you, and give you additional strength in your
efforts to serve our beloved nation and country.
The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.