Rubber Shoes and the Way We Evaluate Research
On Thursday, 6 August 2026, a device I developed was among more than 200 research results and innovations exhibited by the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) at the Merdeka Palace in Jakarta. Around 150 researchers and engineers presented various findings, spanning the energy, mineral, health, food, aerospace, and nuclear technology sectors. The device on display was a rapid soil nutrient detection tool based on near-infrared technology. It was developed to estimate the content of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, and soil acidity levels in less than five minutes. The simple hope was that soil condition information could be obtained more quickly, giving farmers a better basis for determining their land management.
However, a few days after the exhibition, public attention on social media largely focused on visually much simpler products, such as rubber shoes, composite roof tiles, and cassava crisps. This phenomenon is interesting, not because the public should not question research outcomes—on the contrary, an institution using public resources must be open to criticism—but because of how a research result is judged: is it sufficient to assess it merely by the appearance of the final product?
Do Not Judge Technology by the Shape of Its Product
Take the rubber shoes that became a talking point. If the only question is, “Why is a research institution making shoes?”, the criticism sounds reasonable. The footwear industry has, after all, existed for a long time. Yet, the value of research does not always lie in the object visible on the exhibition table. The shoes were made using one-piece injection moulding technology, a process that allows the upper and sole to be formed as a single unit without conventional adhesives. More importantly, the research behind the product relates to the development of materials based on domestic resources, including natural rubber and the utilisation of palm oil industrial waste. Palm oil boiler ash, for instance, can be processed into silica-based material with higher added value. Palm fibre, previously seen as waste, can also be developed into a component of composite materials.
Thus, the more relevant question is not whether BRIN can make shoes, but rather: what technology has been mastered, what raw materials can now be produced domestically, what import dependencies can be reduced, and what industries could potentially grow from this technological mastery? The same applies to many other innovations. The final product may appear simple, but the technology behind it is often far from it.
From Laboratory to Impact
The ultimate goal of research should not merely be to produce exhibition items. It must go further, addressing real problems: increasing productivity, reducing costs, improving product quality, solving environmental issues, strengthening industry, and enhancing public welfare. In this context, downstreaming becomes crucial. A technology can be said to have an impact when research results are no longer confined to reports or scientific articles, but are actually used by the public, government, or industry. Some of BRIN’s technologies have now been licensed and are being produced by domestic industries. When this process occurs, research begins to connect directly with investment, employment, supply chains, and economic activity.
Scientific journals remain important. Publication is part of the knowledge validation process and forms the foundation of scientific progress. However, for applied research, publication is not the only endpoint. Knowledge needs to be translated into usable technology. Indonesia still has significant work to do in this area. World Bank data sourced from UNESCO recorded Indonesia’s research and development expenditure at around 0.28 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2020. By comparison, Vietnam had reached approximately 0.41 per cent by 2023. With relatively limited research investment, the demand for research to produce tangible benefits becomes increasingly relevant. However, this demand must also be accompanied by adequate investment and an ecosystem that allows technology to develop from the laboratory to industry.
BRIN and Researchers Must Also Reflect
On the other hand, researchers and BRIN must also view this phenomenon as material for evaluation. If the public finds it easier to remember a rubber shoe than the material technology behind it, the problem may not lie solely with the public. Our science communication has not always been able to explain an innovation in simple terms: what problem it aims to solve, what is novel about it, who needs the technology, what is its economic value, and what impact would it have if widely applied? Researchers are often accustomed to using technical jargon. In the laboratory, this is not an issue. But when engaging with the public, technology must be translated into tangible benefits.
We researchers also cannot simply claim a technology is “innovative” or “sophisticated”. The public has the right to know the evidence of its benefits: is it cheaper, faster, more accurate, does it reduce imports, utilise local materials, save energy, reduce waste, or open up new industrial opportunities? These are precisely the questions that need to be continuously asked.
Criticism That Helps Research Grow
The meeting of BRIN researchers with President Prabowo Subianto and cabinet members on Thursday afternoon, 6 August 2026, conveyed one important message: science and technology must be positioned as an integral part of economic development and national self-reliance. On various occasions, the government has stressed the importance of technological mastery.