RI needs better R&D system

RI needs better R&D system

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perishable; they can easily become out of date.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.