Reproduce from The Petri Dish April issue
It
is election time once again. Parties from both sides of the political divide
are feverishly campaigning to convince the electorate to embrace their
manifestos. Bread and butter issues are being pedalled by both, the current
caretaker government and the opposition coalition right out and upfront. On the
macro level, eradication of corruption and transparent governance takes the
slot.
For
the next couple of weeks at least, the mainstream print and electronic media
will be inundated with colourful news of political campaigning - which will all
culminate with the outcome from the ballot boxes. There will be those wearing
the victor’s crown and those standing on the loser’s
pedestal.
In
fact even long before the dissolution of parliament - we have seen different
sectors of societies, politicians from both sides of the divide, university
students and NGOs championing various issues that will have an impact on the
electorate. However, reformation on science, technology and innovation is
hardly heard off – although in the United States and in the national British
election campaign trails science, technology and innovation gets high mention
in the agenda.
Science
and technology are key pillars for economic development, national
robustness and self-sufficiency. Science and technological innovation
spearheads and provides a high quality and standard of life for the citizenry.
How else can we attain a developed status as a nation and even create job
opportunities for our graduates if science is put away in the back burner?
This
is my wish list for the new Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation and
Minister for Higher Education who comes on board when the colourful fanfare of
our national elections on May 5 draws to a close:
>> Inculcate
a strong research culture among our scientists and researchers. When
we walk into a research institute overseas we see labs buzzing with activities,
researchers sipping their coffee in cafes and staff lounges while in discussion
with their colleagues with journal papers and work plans in their hands, and
meeting rooms occupied to discuss research and reports and not merely
administrative meetings. The same certainly cannot be observed when we walk
into our very own labs. Are there loud stories that can be told from every lab
besides purchasing of new equipment?
>> A
long term vision and direction. There should be focus on continuity
of long term research and sustained research. Research priorities
change when there is a management change. Research is not followed through till
the objectives are achieved. The frequently asked question is “when can we see
the product?” And my answer would be “two years if we want to sell at night
markets.”
>> Understand
the need for basic and translational research. We are currently too
much into commercialisation that we fail to understand it is basic research
that would lead to product development. How can we develop anti-cancer medicine
without understanding tumorgenesis pathways and cell genetics?
>> Prioritise
research areas to set national challenges. Can we set priority areas for
the various research and proposed grand national challenges to
address problems of the countries and the region. This will motivate different
groups from different institutions to work together within some
timeline? Let us break the territorial walls and have scientists working in
teams regardless of their affiliation and institutes with one goal in mind. I
know there are teams made up from various institutes now, but I also often
hear, “we should be the one working on this project as we are the designated
institute for this crop/product/project.”
>> Scientists
to have an independent voice. Freedom of speech is not just important for
the media but also for scientists to comment on policies, regulations
and to rebut misinformation. How many of our scientists came out in the public
to talk about Lynas, labelling of GM foods, GM mosquitoes, etc? Is it lack of
time or lack of confidence/independence to speak without fear and favour?
>> Tackling brain drain . How do we find ways to create job
opportunities or incentives so we can keep our best brains at all levels
to contribute to our national need and objective of getting 50
scientists per 10,000 population
This is may be a tall
order but I wish, with the hope of a renewed sense of commitment,
direction and strategies - that my wish list in some way will catapult the
country’s existing research laboratories to greater heights. It requires a
paradigm shift and strong sense
of commitment and perseverance.
By Mahaletchumy Arujanan
