Death of the Scientific Community

The amalgamation of the Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology under the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) and all its implications are indicative of the culmination of a phenomenon confirming an antiscience policy.

Policymakers do not seem to be well-versed in the role of science as a rational and credible foundation for guiding the direction of the development of society and civilization.

Scientists assume responsibilities for the nation’s future as mandated through their research and scientific work.

Taking scientific institutions merely as an administrative entity, instead of an academic one, exposes an improperly executed policy and risks a decline in science.

Also read:

> Scientific Mindset Needed to Face Pandemic

> Govt Announces Vaccine Type to be Used

> Indonesia Receives First Covid Vaccine from China’s Sinovac

Governance reform is indeed very important, but disbanding and merging research institutions into a government-mandated structure does not appear to be a solution. The move is akin to uprooting the spirit of academic freedom, undermining scientific culture, academic habitus and the historicity of science.

With scientists being coopted by the bureaucracy, our nation will continue to lag behind in the fields of science and technology and remain bogged down in mediocrity, only to be a market for the science and technology products of other nations.

Authorities seem to have overlooked the milestone in 1947, when the nation’s founding fathers asserted the important role of science and scientific institutions as the locomotive that would pull the nation forward. They emphasized that universities must be granted autonomy, not exist as institutions subservient to the government, so they could move forward.

Research institutions like universities are knowledge production houses and deserve autonomy so their scientists can work.

Nurturing science

In a society with generally poor reading habits, low literacy and high acceptance of unfounded information and superstition, not many people are inclined to become researchers. They find it hard to dedicate their lives to science to be rewarded very poorly due to the government’s low appreciation of scientists.

Scientists are passionate about science, maintaining the legacy of their predecessors, and preserving the historic records and academic culture that guided their dedication. They are engrossed in exploring scientific literature, working in a laboratory or in the field, writing and striving to get their writings published in reputable international journals.

They do not aim for organizational rankings or positions, but scientific achievements.

They endeavor to keep their research in pace with the rapid developments that see the new discoveries unearthed by the scientific community. They do not aim for organizational rankings or positions, but scientific achievements.

Historic scientific developments must be preserved as milestones for passing on to the next generation. The Eijkman Institute is one such milestone in science.

Its founder Christian Eijkman (1858-1930) won the Nobel Prize in 1929, the first and seemingly the last prestigious award in science for Indonesia.

He gained worldwide recognition for his research on beriberi disease and its connection to vitamin B1, along with Gerrit Grijns (1865-1944), and their achievements catapulted Indonesia to the world stage.

In 1886, Eijkman became the first director of the Anatomical Pathology and Bacteriology Laboratory in Batavia (the old name for Jakarta), which was renamed the Medical Laboratory Center before it became known today as the Eijkman Institute.

The institution experienced a decline during the Japanese occupation and was closed in 1960. In 1992, it was revived by then-research and technology minister B.J. Habibie.

KOMPAS/AGUS SUSANTO

The Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology or the Eijkman Institute building in Central Jakarta, Tuesday (4/1/2022).

Later developments saw the Eijkman Institute become productive and self-sustained to the extent that it was viewed as a reference by many professors. A university with autonomous status should be managed independently, like the Eijkman Institute.

The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), the National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan) and the National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (Lapan) are all major research institutions that have their own philosophy, history and academic culture and cannot be coopted. The next generation of researchers deserves to develop science with pride under the banner of their respective institutions.

However, it seems that the existence of these research institutions has been put under serious threat, now that they are under centralized governance that smacks of politics. Researchers end up being part of the bureaucracy, their work performance measured in a more administrative manner instead of on scientific substance.

In fact, turning scientific institutions into government agencies infringes the very principles of science.

Scientific institutions cannot be identified with any political or business entity because they have a very special function, namely to produce scientific knowledge for the benefit of all humankind on Earth.

Administrative shackles

From the aspect of organizational management, there may be inefficiency and ineffectiveness due to too many unproductive employees, or a dearth of significant findings. However, chronic policy imprudence is also being blamed for the situation, isn’t it?

The government has never viewed research institutions as autonomous institutions that are free to govern themselves. The government's administrative intervention is too pervasive in terms of bureaucratization, like at ministries and other government institutions.

LIPI’s social sciences researchers can be used as an example. They are only allowed five days for field research. What data can a social scientist gather in this kind of “hit and run” study? Research becomes overstretched when it comes to funding. In fact, one scientific discovery will lead to ever more uninterrupted studies.

With its research institutions in the grip of the bureaucracy, Indonesia will find it difficult to draw upon basic research as a foundation for various researches in the applied sciences to produce science and technology products.

Our scientific institutions almost never produce spectacular findings and constantly fall short of even being nominated for a prestigious international award such as the Nobel, even though Indonesia has an abundance of smart scientists and researchers.

This is an ironic condition in the face of the digital and scientific era, in which no policy should be taken without a scientific study. Governments in many developed countries are very supportive of their scientists in conducting research in various scientific fields, and are even willing to earmark a large portion of funding for their research.

Kompas

Didie SW

A world-class industry has strong research institutions and works closely with universities. So when huge challenges arise, scientists at research institutes and universities are ready to deliver solutions by, in the case of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, producing vaccines and various health equipment.

Is our nation humble enough to be willing to learn from other nations that value researchers and scientists?

Implications

The wrong policy behind the management of scientific institutions does not only affect research institutions, but also universities. For a long time, universities have been coopted by regimes that have been overly bureaucratic and regulatory. Even scientists at state universities are deprived of academic freedom.

The demand for "world-class universities" or "entrepreneur universities" from lecturers as a civic group has become irrelevant. The issuance of Government Regulation No. 75/2021 on the statute for Indonesian universities is a mockery of scientific aspirations.

If the university statutes are flawed as the highest legal reference, any derivative policies on academic governance will be vulnerable to shocks.

The policy to merge various research institutes may have caused a backlash, but explosive uproars are hardly ever heard from the scientific community.

What are the implications of these imprudently executed policies on the scientific community? Generally, they are part of the silent majority. The policy to merge various research institutes may have caused a backlash, but explosive uproars are hardly ever heard from the scientific community.

However, the latent damage caused by depriving academic freedom and curtailing the scientific spirit will continue to effect the demise of scientific culture.

The scientific community will shrink as the culture of love for knowledge and seeking scientific truth disappears. It is an alarm that warns of the decline of a nation.

The consequence is that the wider public will lose a golden opportunity to enjoy the products of the nation's own advancements in science and technology. Rational thinking will regress into “street fights” based on fake news and superstition.

Scientific institutions will lose young researchers who are passionate about science and have to resort on those just looking for a job, or even employees of scientific institutions who are motivated by political interests.

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

Sulistyowati Irianto

Our founding fathers’ aspirations for our nation to regain its scientific glory as demonstrated by the ancient Sriwijaya kingdom have become a broken dream.

Sulistyowati Irianto, Professor of Legal Anthropology, University of Indonesia Law School (FHUI)

(This article was translated by Musthofid).