Scientists' Union

The National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) has already been heavily criticized. No need to add more criticism here. There has been no response or argument. If the criticism is left unanswered, it will fade away on its own. Public attention will turn to another controversy. Those who were involved or affected will become busy with new routines.

The amount and severity of criticism does not guarantee change. What still needs discussing, or at least pondering, so that the same problem will not repeat itself? Perhaps a moment of introspection among scientists will be useful.

Also read:

Death of the Scientific Community

Various critics accused the government of not having a good and clear scientific vision and strategy in connection with BRIN. They may be right. But, do they still expect a scientific vision and strategy from politicians that will satisfy scientists? Isn't this expectation the problem?

It is not that there are no government officials who are smart, or that they are all evil. The problem is that the critics’ main concern was not theirs. Despite their qualities, politicians work with demands, threats and ambitions that are different from those of research scientists.

For a very long time, the state has intervened far into educational and research institutions. The government used to control scientists unilaterally. Scientists are used to being regulated for a very long time, regardless of whether the intentions and results were good or bad.

So researchers are used to expecting good things from the government. If their expectations are not met, they usually accept it or simply protest. This is perhaps the most basic source of the problem. What if the major roles and responsibilities in the field of education and science were gradually transferred to the scientists, depending on the readiness of all parties?

But the government does not need to intervene directly in managing the funds, recruiting personnel, or designing the work of educators and researchers in these various institutions.

The government can provide financial grants to research and educational institutions. Not as a gift, but as a mandate of the people as taxpayers. The government could outline the expected outcomes from the institutions that receive the funds. But the government does not need to intervene directly in managing the funds, recruiting personnel, or designing the work of educators and researchers in these various institutions.

Changing a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation is not easy. Not all officials like it when their authority and power are reduced. Not all scientists are comfortable with managing an institution on their own. If someone is willing but unready, they can be given management training. Autonomous institutions can recruit managers who are not academics. But the institute’s board of directors is still made up of scientists.

The most striking reaction about BRIN was criticism from individuals that appeared in the media, not a social movement from the scientific community. It was not diplomacy from scientific institutions, which would be able to pressure the government to postpone, cancel or revise its decisions. Presumably, in this case, journalists and factory workers are more familiar

with creating labor unions. Especially coal businesspeople. When exporting coal was banned, they were able to force the government to drop the ban in a short time.

Many institutions have made great achievements in science. What is not yet clear is the presence of a cross-disciplinary institution that can represent the interests, aspirations and concerns of its members in the face of external pressures, from both the government and universities.

Critics of BRIN often cite the autonomy of university in liberal countries as an example. What I haven't found in their criticism, and this needs to be watched more closely, is the struggle academics in liberal countries have faced in forming professional unions and associations. The goal is to protect and represent the interests of academics in the face of pressures from both the government and the leadership of autonomous universities.

Academic independence is a utopia, not an empty dream. It is a kind of ideal that is worth continuing to strive for, although it will never be fully achieved. There is no "ivory tower".

Those deemed to threaten the regime’s interests were removed. Rulers do not always succeed and scientists do not always bow down.

Since the era of dynastic kingdoms, rulers in palaces everywhere have required and limited the work of scientists at the same time. Some scientists were kept around the palace with special rewards. Those deemed to threaten the regime’s interests were removed. Rulers do not always succeed and scientists do not always bow down.

Before the 21st century, the gap in the working conditions of scientists in different countries was not a problem. They worked separately with their own advantages and shortfalls. Since the beginning of this millennium, scientists in various countries have been called on by their governments to be part of a global academic community that is unequally dominated by countries in the northern hemisphere.

Since then, lecturers and researchers have been encouraged to publish works in international scientific journals with super-tight screening procedures. Today, many universities are determined to become world-class universities. The global university rankings have become a national reference. An enormous burden is pressing on our academics that had not experienced by the previous generation.

Many giant universities in the world have implemented policies that are adapted to global demands. Differences in the age, nationality, religion, race, gender or sexual orientation of researchers are not given much attention, unless diversity is balanced. What matters most are their academic achievements.

Promoting prospective professors at one university involves professors in other countries in the evaluation process There is no government intervention. Lecturer recruitment is open globally, including Indonesia. Transcontinental universities fight over the top achievers.

There will be a problem if the state demands scientists with international achievements without providing the funds, independence, time and preparation according to the global demand. It is more worrying if education or research policies are oriented solely towards government programs or bow down to contests among the political elite, and continue to be polluted by factors of religion, ethnicity or gender.

Academic freedom can continue to be awaited and requested as a gift from the government. Or it can be achieved through self-efforts from below through the formation of independent scientific associations or unions. Each option has its pros and cons. The important thing is that scientists collectively have a choice, even if it is small, instead of giving up or complaining in the media.

BUDI SUWARNA

Ariel Heryanto

ARIEL HERYANTO, Professor Emeritus at Monash University, Australia

(This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo)