LETTERS: There is much evidence that the combination of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) can deliver wonders to a nation's socio-economic prosperity and sustainability.
Investments in STI would include robust R&D (research and development) spending, vibrant talent development, and a healthy innovation ecosystem which brings strategic stakeholders, including industry, academia, government and even civil society, together to chart the path forward for technology strengthening.
Despite initiatives by the government, we still struggle to put in place a vibrant STI ecosystem.
The stakeholders are not collaborating enough, mostly working in silos. Our R&D spending has remained stuck for decades at around one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Most developed countries spend on average three to 3.5 per cent of GDP on R&D.
It is a concern that the bulk of our R&D spending comes from the government. In developed economies, at least 70 per cent of their R&D spending comes from business and industry.
We need to invigorate higher R&D spending from the industry. The R&D ecosystem in palm oil is one model that has worked well.
The quadruple innovation helix framework has taken our palm oil business to great heights in the highly competitive global oils and fats business. Replicating such a model in other industry sectors is worth looking at.
Building and retaining good talent in STI is another struggle. Not only are we having difficulty attracting new talent, but we are also losing many of our talents to other countries in search of better ecosystems. How do we minimise such brain drain?
There is need for serious rethinking about how to retain our trained talents and attract talents from outside to help us realise our STI aspirations.
On top of all that, very few students now opt to take up science. Our target of a science to arts student ratio of 60:40 continues to elude us.
The closest we got to was 30 per cent. Now, it is even lower at 20 per cent. This is despite all the efforts to popularise STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths).
The lack of interest is mostly due to the fact that a career in STI, especially in R&D, is not so attractive. We do not face much problem getting students to do science to become engineers and doctors. We need to make a career in STI research more rewarding.
However, enough funding and good STI talent alone would not guarantee success. We would still face difficulties if the STI ecosystem is not robust and functioning. A weak R&D ecosystem is especially worrying.
The disconnect between industry and academia is still there. Again, it is not that the government has not done anything. Over the years, many initiatives have been introduced to close the gap. Unfortunately, they have not yielded the results we hope for.
This partly explains why the commercialisation of R&D has always been pitifully low. The mismatch between what business wants and what academia delivers remains unresolved. We need new approaches.
We should explore models from outside the country which work, and adapt them for the local situation. This is where the new administration can bring change.
Institutions must rise above their individual narrow interest to pursue more collaboration for the sake of the nation.
DR AHMAD IBRAHIM
Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy, UCSI University
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times