Quality of research and development compromised for quantity

year, the government allocates about one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) for research and development (R&D).

It was RM400 million last year, which was below the three per cent of GDP spending by developed economies.

Almost 100 per cent of our R&D budget comes from the government. In contrast, almost 80 per cent of South Korea’s R&D budget comes from industry. No wonder they achieve better innovation success.

The same is true for Germany, Japan and the United States. In those countries, the government funds only basic R&D, with the rest borne by industry.

Lately, there have been concerns about the disbursement of funds. Apparently, in the haste to be ranked high on world university charts, we have compromised quality for quantity.

A young engineer researcher who just returned from a research stint with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration complained about a pecking order in the approval of R&D projects. Senior researchers are allegedly given preferential treatment over younger scientists.

If this claim is true, we should be concerned.

Such claims have been corroborated by senior scientists and professors from universities.

They are concerned that R&D projects are often approved by government administrators who do not have any inkling of science or the subject matter.

The Academy of Science has long proposed a revamp of the evaluation and approval system for R&D projects. The idea is not new. It is practised in developed economies.

Instead of getting a ministry to handle the management of the R&D funding, most developed countries park it under the purview of a science foundation, where the right professionals are tasked with not only to disburse funding to the right topics but also to monitor the implementation of the approved projects.

Unfortunately, the idea had been objected to and the country is left to suffer the consequences.

It has been acknowledged that our growing number of research publications is not matched by their citations. In other words, the quality is compromised and the impact is lacking.

It had been reported that in the last five years, several of the country’s top universities rapidly improved their global ranking, thanks to a surge in research papers. Estimates suggest that Malaysian researchers have published about 50,000 papers, higher than its neighbours.

But a large number of these publications carry little impact.

QS, a global education consultancy, commented last year that Malaysian universities continue to produce unproductive research with little industrial or real life use even if their ranks improved.

Many researchers have been clamouring to change the way R&D projects are approved for funding.

For one, projects must be evaluated on their potential to contribute to global knowledge and innovation, and not on the seniority of the researchers.

In addition, R&D funding should be made accessible to industry researchers.

One is to pursue R&D in areas of global interest such as sustainable development, climate change, cybersecurity and topics related to photonics, biotechnology and plasma physics.

At UCSI University, we are looking at the research needs of the Straits of Malacca, an important asset of the country which is under threat of pollution and other disruptions.

Not only is the logistics business threatened, the fishermen have also seen declining earnings. Such mission-oriented R&D should be given preference instead of funding research on the basis of seniority.

Many have criticised our obsession with ranking but, sadly, no action is taken to change.

Most of our universities focus on improving rankings. Inadvertently, the quality of our R&D has been compromised for quantity.