research councils and support organizations in southeast asia: institutions, issues and...

Research Councils and Support Organizat ions in Southeast Asia: Inst itut ions, Issues and Collaborat ion

A Report on Science, Technology and Innovation Systems in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) First prepared: December 2007 Updated: November 2008 Report prepared by Randy Spence, with contribution from colleagues from IDRC and Southeast Asia

© International Development Research Centre 2008

The international Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies.

For inquiries regarding this report, please contact:

IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia 22 Cross Street #02‐55 South Bridge Court Singapore 048421 Phone: (+65) 6438‐7877 Fax: (+65) 6438‐4844 Email: [email protected] Web: www.idrc.org.sg

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.idrc.org.sg/

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration i

International Development Research Centre 2007

About the Author

Dr. Randy Spence, Ph.D.

Director, Economic and Social Development Affiliates

Dr. Randy Spence’s current assignments include ICT policy and regulation, poverty and economic policy, human development and capability initiatives, intellectual property and innovation systems. Between 1990 and 2005, he worked with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada as Senior Program Specialist in economics and as Director of IDRC's Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia (ASRO) in Singapore. Prior to joining IDRC, he was a senior economist with the Canadian government departments of External Affairs, Finance, and Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as with the Ottawa‐based North‐South Institute. He has worked on a long‐range planning project in Kenya (World Bank) and as an economic advisor in the Tanzanian Ministry of Planning (CIDA), and has taught economics at McMaster and Guelph universities, in Canada. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Toronto, Canada.

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration ii


Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank everyone who took the time for meetings in Jakarta, Manila, Hanoi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, in particular:

In Indonesia:

Mr. Dudi Hidayat, Head, Division for Science and Technology Policy and Development Studies, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)

Mr. Siti Meiningsih, Deputy Head, LIPI Dr. Sofyan A. Djalil, State Minister, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) Dr. Sardjoeni Moedjiono, Deputy State Minister, MCIT Dr. Tatang A. Taufik, Director, Center for Information and Communication Technology Dr. Derry Pantjadarma, Material Scientist, Bureau of Planning Dr. Wahono Sumaryono, Deputy Chairman for Agroindustry and Biotechnology Dr. Ir. R.D. Esti Widjayanti, Head, Division of Functional Food Technology Dr. Ir. Ugay Sugarmansyah, Director, Center for Innovation Policy Dr. Totok Hari Wibowo, Researcher in Technology Policy, Agency for the Assessment and Application of

Technology (BPPT) Dr. Ir. Tusy A. Adibroto, Secretary, National Research Council (DRN)

In Vietnam: Prof. Do Hoai Nam, President, Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences (VASS) and Vice Chairman,

National Council for Science and Technology Policy (NCSTP) Mr. Thach Can, Director‐General, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Mr. Le Thanh Binh, Deputy Director, MOST Dr. Tran Ngoc Ca, Director of Secretariat, NCSTP, and Deputy Director, National Institute for Science and

Technology Policy and Strategy (NISTPASS)

In Malaysia: Dr. Lum Keng Yeang, Chief Scientist, CABI Southeast and East Asia Regional Centre Dato' Seri Dr Salleh Mohd Nor, Vice President and Fellow, Malaysia Academy of Sciences (ASM), and

Executive Director, The TropBio Group

In the Philippines: Dr. Reynaldo V. Ebora, Executive Director, Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology

Research and Development (PCASTRD) Dr. Fortuna T. de la Peña, Undersecretary, Department of Science & Technology (DOST) Dr. Nap P. Hernandez, Acting Executive Director, National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP) Dr Salvador G. Tan, Chief Science Research Specialist, Research Assistance Division, NRCP Dr. Antonio G. M. La Viña, Dean, Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University

In Singapore: Dr. T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj, Assistant Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National

University Of Singapore Mr. Teoh Yong Sea, Deputy Managing Director, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Mr. Andrew Fun, Head, International Relations, Planning & International Relations, A*STAR Ms. Cynthia Lim Ai Lan, Senior Officer, Corporate Affairs, A*STAR Prof. Paul S. Teng, Dean, Graduate Programs and Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang

Technological University (NTU)

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration iii


In Thailand:

Dr. Ammar Siamwalla, Distinguished Scholar, Office of the President, Thailand Development Research

Institute Foundation (TDRI) Dr. Yongyuth Yuthavong, Minister, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Dr. Sirirurg Songsivilai, Assistant President, International Cooperation Department, National Science &

Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) Mr. Simon Grimley, Consultant, International Cooperation Department, NSTDA Ms. Chanthana Manowong, International Cooperation Officer, International Cooperation Department,

NSTDA Dr. Jingjai Hanchanlash, Board Member, NSTDA Dr. Chachanat Thebtaranonth, Vice President, NSTDA, and Director, Technology Management Center Prof. Piyawat Boon‐Long, Director, Thailand Research Fund (TRF) Prof. Vicharn Panich, Special Advisor (and former President), TRF Dr. Supreda Adulyanon, Director Health Promotion and Primary Risk Reduction, Thai Health Promotion

Foundation (THPF) Prof. Said Irandoust, President, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Prof. Sudip K. Rakshit, Vice President – Research, AIT Dr. Supachai Lorlowhakarn, Director, National Innovation Agency (NIA) Mr. Wyn Ellis, International Affairs Manager, NIA

Special thanks are also due to IDRC colleagues in Ottawa and in the Regional Offices in Singapore and New Delhi, in particular:

Dr. Richard Fuchs, Regional Director, Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia (ASRO) Dr. Ellie Osir, Senior Program Specialist (ASRO), who provided valuable input into the report. Dr. Maria Ng, Senior Program Specialist, and Jacqueline Loh, Senior Research Officer, ASRO, who

attended some of the country meetings. Dr. Richard Isnor, Director, Innovation, Policy and Science Programme Area (IPS) Dr. Stephen McGurk, Regional Director, Regional Office for South Asia (SARO) Dr. Shadrach Basheerhamad, Programme Officer (SARO) Ms. Joyce Tan, Executive Assistant and Ms. Tan Say Yin, Office Administrator (HR & GA) (ASRO), whose

arrangements and always excellent administration made the study and meetings possible. Ms. Vivien Chiam (Partnership and Communications Manager), Ms. Shirley Pong (Regional Program

Assistant) and Ms. Marcia Chandra (Consultant), ASRO, who helped with editing and finalization of this updated report.

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration


Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................ List of Boxes ................................................................................................................................................................................. List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................................... Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... I. Introduction: Science, Technology and Innovation Frameworks, and Aims of this Initiative ..................................................1 II. Summary of Study and Consultation Findings.................................................................................................................... 4

1. What is the configuration of principal research councils in each country, and how do they interact and collaborate? ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2. What are key new issues and strategies in S&T, innovation systems and ICTs? ......................................................7 3. What are the region‐wide common strategic directions where the work of most research councils intersects? ..... 9 4. How can IDRC improve its work with research councils?....................................................................................... 9 5. Results of the Singapore Meeting, Sept 10‐11, 2007 ............................................................................................ 11

III. Country Perspectives .......................................................................................................................................................13 1. Indonesia............................................................................................................................................................13

1.1. Institutions consulted .............................................................................................................. 13 1.2. Institutions and coordination ................................................................................................... 13 1.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda.............................................................................15 1.4. Regional and international collaboration..................................................................................16

2. Vietnam .............................................................................................................................................................16 2.1. Institutions consulted ..............................................................................................................16 2.2. Institutions and coordination ................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda............................................................................. 17 2.4. Regional and international collaboration..................................................................................18

3. Philippines..........................................................................................................................................................19 3.1. Institutions consulted ..............................................................................................................19 3.2. Institutions and coordination ....................................................................................................19 3.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda............................................................................ 22 3.4. Regional and international collaboration..................................................................................23

4. Thailand .............................................................................................................................................................23 4.1. Institutions consulted ..............................................................................................................23 4.2. Institutions and coordination .................................................................................................. 24 4.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda.............................................................................27 4.4. Regional and international collaboration................................................................................. 28

5. Singapore.......................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.1. Institutions consulted............................................................................................................... 28 5.2. Institutions and coordination .................................................................................................. 29 5.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda............................................................................ 29 5.4. Regional and international collaboration..................................................................................32

6. Malaysia .............................................................................................................................................................32 6.1. Institutions consulted ..............................................................................................................32 6.2. Institutions and coordination ................................................................................................... 33 6.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda.............................................................................34 6.4. Regional and international collaboration..................................................................................35

Annex A. Regional Councils and Research Organizations............................................................................................36



List of Tables Table 1. Principal research institutions in the countries under study.....................................................................................5 Table 2. Innovation systems in six ASEAN countries. .......................................................................................................... 6

List of Boxes Box 1. Terminology used in this report.............................................................................................................................. I‐1 Box 2. System and technology issues of most common concern at the sub‐regional or regional level..............................II‐10 Box 3. Organization of STI institutions within the Indonesia Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK) ..III‐14 Box 4. Overview of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Philippines. ....................................................III‐21 Box 5. Organization of the Thailand Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). ........................................................ III‐24 Box 6. Organization Chart for Thai National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). ..............................25 Box 7. Overview of the National Innovation Agency (NIA), Thailand.............................................................................. III‐26 Box 8. Chart of Singapore Government R&D sector institutions, including funding. .......................................................III‐30 Box 9. A*Star Organization Chart ................................................................................................................................. III‐31 Box 10. Malaysia Government S&T Institutions ............................................................................................................. III‐33 Box 11. Thematic priorities for S&T funds in Malaysia ....................................................................................................III‐34



List of Acronyms A*STAR Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore AIT Asian Institute of Technology APEC Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASM Malaysia Academy of Sciences ASRO IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia ASTNET ASEAN Science and Technology Network BOP Bottom of the pyramid BPPT Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology, Indonesia CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIEM Central Institute of Economic Management, Vietnam COST ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology DOST Department of Science and Technology, Philippines DRD Regional Research Council, Indonesia DRN National Research Council, Indonesia EEPSEA IDRC Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia ENRM IDRC Environment and Natural Resource Management Program Area EU European Union GM Genetically modified ICT Information and communication technology IDRC International Development Research Centre IP Internet Protocol IPR Intellectual property rights IPS IDRC Innovation, Policy and Science Program Area ISEAS Institute of Southeast Asian Studies ISTWG APEC Industrial Science & Technology Working Group ITDB ITS IDRC Innovation, Technology and Society Program Initiative LIPI Indonesian Institute of Sciences MOST Ministry of Science and Technology, Vietnam MOST Ministry of Science and Technology, Thailand MOSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Vietnam (former) MOSTI Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation, Malaysia MPT Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications NCE National Council for Education, Vietnam NCSTP National Council for Science and Technology Policy, Vietnam NGO Non‐government organization NIA National Innovation Agency, Thailand NIS National innovation systems NISTPASS National Institute for Science and Technology Policy and Strategy, Vietnam NITC National Information Technology Council, Malaysia NRCP National Research Council of the Philippines NRCT National Research Council of Thailand NRF National Research Foundation, Singapore NSTDA National Science & Technology Development Agency, Thailand PAN IDRC Pan‐Asia Networking Program Initiative PCASTRD Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development R&D Research and development RIEC Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council, Singapore RISTEK Ministry of Research and Technology, Indonesia S&T science and technology STI Science, technology and innovation SARO IDRC Regional Office for South Asia SEP Social and Economic Policy Program Area, IDRC SME Small and medium‐sized enterprise TRF Thailand Research Fund TWAS Third World Academy of Sciences



VASS Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences VAST Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology WTO World Trade Organization



Executive Summary Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration A Report on Science, Technology and Innovation Systems in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore

This report documents desk research on innovation systems and meetings in 2007 with senior people in science and technology (S&T) ministries and agencies, and universities in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. Chapter I begins with an introduction to the science, technology and innovation (STI) concepts and frameworks, and identifies the objectives of this study. Chapter II summarizes and highlights findings from the study and consultations, including providing a review of principal research councils and how they interact and collaborate, and lists key new issues and strategies for STI systems (system issues and technology/application issues) identifying region‐wide common strategic directions where most research councils intersect. The chapter concludes with summarizing how IDRC can improve its work with research councils in the region, including highlighting main recommendations of a meeting of experts and policy makers in Singapore. Chapter III provides a detailed summary for each country including highlights of meeting discussions, an institutional survey, an outline of the national STI agenda, and a look at regional and international collaboration activities.

As summarized in this report, the innovation systems in the six countries are at quite different stages of development and institutional configurations also vary considerably. The following table outlines the institutional organization in each country:

Policy Funding R&D/Innovation Advisory

Indonesia Ministry of Research & Technology (RISTEK)

RISTEK RISTEK institutes (i.e. LIPI, BPPT)

National Research Council (DRN)

Philippines Dept. of Science & Technology (DOST)

DOST

Councils

National Research Council (NRCP; basic research)

DOST

R&D institutes

NRCP

Vietnam National Council for Science & Technology Policy (NCSTP)

Mnistry of Science & Technology (MOST)

MOST MOST centres & institutes

Vietnamese Academy of Science & Technology (VAST)

Thailand Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST)

National Innovation Agency (NIA)

National Science & Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)

Thailand Research Fund (TRF)

National Research Council (NRCT)

NIA

NSTDA centres NRCT

Malaysia Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI)

Prime Minister’s Office

MOSTI MOSTI departments & agencies

Malaysia Academy of Sciences (ASM)

Singapore Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC)

National Research Foundation (NRF)

Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR)

NRF

Economic Development Board (EDB)

Academic Research Fund (ACRF)

A*STAR councils & institutes

Government, private companies, universities

National Academy of Sciences (SNAS)



System issues of most common concern at the sub‐regional or regional level were:

• innovation in and for the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP); • coordination among government institutions; • low research and development (R&D), and innovative culture in industry; • university roles, incentives and incubators; • Internet Protocol (IP) management and services; • private‐research‐public institutional linkages; • innovation financing and venture capital; • international linkages and collaboration; and • fostering a culture of innovation in society.

Technologies most underlined included the following:

• information and communication technology (ICT) access, costs, usage/services; • new and alternative energies, including biofuels; • agricultural biotechnologies; • medical biotechnologies and new medicines; • water management (many kinds); • global warming and climate change; and • nanotechnology.

There was broad agreement at the Singapore meeting on the idea of forming an informal and flexible network of national councils with institutional backup, which would engage in state‐of‐the‐art reviews of innovation systems, and documenting experience and successes. The underlying, if not exclusive, theme would be innovation in and for the BOP.

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration 1


Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia: Institutions, Issues and Collaboration A Report on Science, Technology and Innovation Systems in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore

I. Introduction: Science, Technology and Innovation Frameworks, and Aims of this Initiative

There is a lot of recent and current thinking, research and experimentation on national innovation systems (NIS), which include the science and technology research and innovation institutions of the market, non‐profit and public sectors. How these develop and interact, where they are most needed and valuable, and how national approaches differ, are important areas of knowledge for those involved. With a growing relative importance of innovation in and for the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) in many countries, how can systems work to support modern and grassroots innovation and synergy among sectors and communities?

These are some of the questions that motivated IDRC’s Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia (ASRO) and its Innovation, Policy and Science (IPS) Program Area to initiate a study of NIS in six Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in 2007. An initial literature and desk study was produced by Randy Spence, and was followed by meetings with policy makers and other thinkers in each country. These colleagues then came together in Singapore on September 10 and 11, 2007, at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), to discuss the issues and findings of the study, and, as a result, decided to pursue some further areas of collaboration in national innovation policies and systems.

IPS works through its Innovation, Technology and Society (ITS) Program Initiative, whose prospectus situates the study, starting with the terminology presented in Box 1 and including the following excerpt1:

The rationale for the new ITS program initiative is driven by a set of inter‐related challenges that developing countries continue to face with respect to science, technology and society including: achieving effective interactions between key actors in innovation systems; creating and applying more effective and inter‐linked science, technology and innovation (STI) policy frameworks, and instrument choices; reducing stakeholder marginalization and inequity in STI policy decision making; and, narrowing technological access and learning gaps in relation to more developed countries.

As part of its programming strategy, ITS supports research activities along three research themes or entry points: 1) innovation system actors; 2) science and technology (S&T) policies; and, 3) impacts and inclusion. These themes interact with each other in ways that can help empower developing countries to more effectively harness STI to address their development challenges. The starting point is to improve understanding of and strengthen the capacity, roles, functions and linkages of developing country innovation system actors

1 Innovation, Technology and Society Program Initiative Prospectus 2006‐2011, can be viewed online on IDRC’s website: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev‐104936‐201‐1‐DO_TOPIC.html.

Box 1. Terminology used in this report.

Innovation – for the purposes of the ITS program initiative, innovation is defined as the use of new ideas, technologies or ways of doing things, in a place where (or by people for whom) they have not been used before.

Science and technology (S&T) – the term science and technology, as well as scientific and technical knowledge, refers to the full range of social, natural, medical and life sciences, as well as physical and engineering disciplines.

Policy‐relevant research – The term “policy‐relevant” is used here to refer to the range of possible actions that could be generated with respect to the organization, behaviour and action of numerous organizations or individual actors implicated in innovation, science and technology, including government agencies, private sector firms, entrepreneurs, associations, non‐government and civil society organizations, universities, legal institutions, international donor organizations, etc.

Source: ITS Prospectus, IDRC 2005, see footnote 1.

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-104936-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html



(organizations and individuals). By focusing on supporting the development of explicit and implicit S&T policies, the program helps to frame the enabling policy environment for innovation and innovation systems. Finally, research on impacts and inclusion will address issues related to improving social equity within innovation systems and bring a stronger range of social considerations to bear in STI decision‐making.

Paterson et al. (2003)2 define a system of innovation as “a set of functioning institutions, organizations and policies which interact constructively in the pursuit of a common set of social and economic goals and objectives, and which use the introduction of innovations as the key promoter of change.” Analyses of innovation systems tend to focus on organizational and institutional components, network interactions and relationships, and socio‐cultural dimensions (practices, rules and laws), as well as supporting policies. Interactions between the actors and organizations that comprise innovation systems can be technical, commercial, legal, social and financial, inasmuch as the goals of such interactions are the development, protection, financing or regulation of S&T to enhance sustainable forms of development. Analyses of stakeholders and functions have permitted rapid assessment, comparison and design of supportive policy interventions. Innovation system ‘mapping’ efforts have also yielded useful analytical information accessible to policy makers and other actors in the system.

The transition experiences of some Asian economies (e.g. South Korea and Taiwan), from relative poverty to prosperity in the 1970‐80s, are often used to illustrate how S&T can lead to development. The key lesson from these countries lies in the order and timing of different types of S&T activities (and the related set of institutional adjustments and policy instruments they put in place). Initially, all of these countries focused on importing scientific knowledge and technology from abroad; this was followed by efforts to copy and master it, and, finally, to make incremental improvements through applied research and improved design engineering. Government investment in primary, secondary, technical and tertiary education, as well as industrial policies involving support for nascent industries followed by timed entry into global markets, are other important and implicit S&T policies that contributed to their economic success.

It is now recognized that working with (and reworking) existing knowledge, rather than simply generating new knowledge through research, is a predominant activity in innovation.3 Research can help identify if and where this is occurring in developing countries as well as identify opportunities for such reworking of knowledge to occur more naturally.

Importantly, effective innovation is not only a question of bringing about better connections between existing organizations and actors (e.g. between knowledge producers and knowledge users), it is also a matter of the suitability and orientation of existing innovation actors (individuals, organizations and their ideas), social‐institutional behaviours (norms and laws), policy frameworks, and policy instrument choices. The business system is of particular importance in these studies since this is where most knowledge is translated into goods and services and where economic wealth is mainly created. Companies and other business actors (e.g. farmers, traders and entrepreneurs) are, therefore, among the most important elements in innovation systems and increasingly so as levels of development rise.

It is essential to emphasize that the actors comprising innovation systems are not limited to scientific elites working in research organizations. People in banks, in companies, on farms, in business associations and in non‐government civil society organizations also contribute extensively to innovation; for example, they may contribute tacit knowledge that comes from the application of their technical skills, advice and experience, while researchers working in formal research‐based organizations supply codified knowledge in the form of scientific papers, data and reports. Non‐experts also have an important role to play in determining acceptable levels of social risk related to the adoption or development of new technologies, or in generating the social demand for political leadership in support of STI. 2 Paterson, A., Adam, R., Mullin, J., 2003. The relevance of the national system of innovation approach to mainstreaming science and technology for development in NEPAD and the AU. Draft Working Paper for the Preparatory Meeting of the First NEPAD Conference of Ministers and Presidential Advisers responsible for Science and Technology, Nairobi, 13‐15 October. 3 Arnold, E., Bell, M., 2001, 'Some New Ideas about Research for Development', in Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Partnership at the Leading Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development.



There are key challenges to the development of effective STI policy in developing countries. The components of traditional and modern knowledge streams in developing countries are often poorly linked and traditional knowledge activities are usually disconnected from the formal organization of education and training. More open and participatory modes of S&T decision making can create intense debates between groups who hold different viewpoints and values, or who have different tolerances for risk and willingness to accept change.

Another dilemma is the frequent disconnect between efforts to foster innovation and those aimed at reducing social inequities.4 As noted earlier, investing in S&T capacity alone often does not solve deep‐rooted problems related to poverty in developing countries and can sometimes aggravate it. The need for policy‐relevant and action research oriented towards the social responsiveness of innovation systems (i.e. the ability to link innovation and social policy objectives) has thus become increasingly more apparent. In the case of developing countries, these needs are particularly acute as society and decision makers grapple with the social, legal, ethical, political and economic implications of so‐called transformative technologies (biotechnology and genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and information and communication technologies [ICTs]).5

In discussions about IPS and ITS, IDRC’s Board and Management enquired about the extent to which IDRC had directly supported and collaborated with research councils and research support/funding agencies in developing countries and regions, and whether closer consultation and collaboration might lead to improvements in IDRC support and other strategic partnerships. An initial study of IDRC projects in Southeast Asia from 1990 to the present indicated that:

• IDRC has worked mostly with specific institutions and networks ‐ of about 200 projects in Southeast Asia, about 20 were undertaken primarily with national research councils, foundations, S&T ministries and their main research agencies;

• these 20 projects are concentrated in a few large and/or sustained undertakings including ICT development in Philippines and Vietnam, science and technology policy development in Vietnam, socioeconomic impacts of avian influenza (regional), Cambodia Development Research Forum, and, economic and environmental management in Vietnam; and

• through its project and program work, IDRC has good regular contacts with many of the research

support organizations in the region.

Following the results of the study, meetings were arranged with senior policy makers and experienced thinkers and practitioners in Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Bangkok and Hanoi.6 Twelve of these colleagues then came together at ISEAS in Singapore on September 10‐11, 2007, to meet with IDRC President Maureen O’Neil, IPS Director Richard Isnor and ASRO Director Richard Fuchs, as well as Randy Spence and other IDRC colleagues. The findings of these consultations and related study are presented in the following section.

II. Summary of Study and Consultation Findings

The main questions posed for the study and explored during meetings were the following:

4 Sutz, J., Arocena, R., 2006. Integrating innovation policies and social policies: a strategy to embed science and technology into development processes. Paper prepared for IDRC Innovation Technology and Society Prospectus. 5 S&T policy in recent years has often placed emphasis on a small set of high profile technologies in which current advances are particularly rapid and which are identified as especially “dynamic, pervasive or generic.” Bell, 2006, has noted that over‐attention on these applications in developing countries may distract attention from other important forms of STI policy, capacity and investment efforts that may be more centrally important for, and perhaps far more pervasive in, large parts of society in poorer countries. (Bell, M. 2006. Background Discussion Paper for the L‐20 workshop. Paper prepared for Maastricht L‐20 meeting on S&T for Development, March 8, Maastricht, NL.) 6 During the discussions in September 2007, Laos and Cambodia were also included in the territory being examined.



1. What is the configuration of principal research councils in each country, and how do they interact and collaborate?

2. What are the key new issues and strategies in S&T, innovation systems and ICTs? 3. What are the region‐wide common strategic directions where the work of most research councils

intersects? 4. How can IDRC improve its work with research councils?

‘Councils’ refer to government and related public institutions that support research and innovation, primarily ministries of STI, boards, councils, academies, foundations, institutes, centres and a few others. They differ in the extent to which they focus on four main functions: policy, conducting research and innovation, carrying out research and innovation, and advising governments. While there are many definitions of innovation, this report uses the one noted above in Box 1 and is generally understood to mean “bringing knowledge and invention into commercial use or otherwise into application in society.”

1. What is the configuration of principal research councils in each country, and how do they interact and collaborate?

Configurations of principal research institutions vary considerably across countries.7 In terms of capacity and coordination of institutions, and focus on innovation, countries (ranked in ascending order) are: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. Indonesia and Philippines, with different visions and issues, remain relatively resource poor. Vietnam is catching up with Thailand, and Thailand is close to Malaysia, the latter of which is both ambitious in vision and high in accomplishments. Singapore tops the list with internationally respected capacities based on some decades of both mobilizing savings and investing heavily in education, research, development and innovation. Table 1 provides an institutional overview for each country.8

The dominant actors in most countries – in policy development, funding and undertaking R&D, and, in some cases, innovation ‐ are the S&T ministries. In all countries, line ministries are also important in funding and sector priority setting. Some countries have established coordinating bodies – e.g. National Council for Science and Technology Policy (NCSTP) in Vietnam, Prime Minister’s Office in Malaysia, the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC) and the National Research Foundation (NRF) in Singapore. Coordination/coherence is discussed as a major problem in Indonesia, and, to a lesser but significant extent, in the other four countries (excluding Singapore). Reasons differ and are elaborated later in this report.

The concept of innovation is rooted in the top echelons of the systems of each country. Malaysia and Thailand have recently institutionalized this within the Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI) and the National Innovation Agency (NIA), respectively. In Singapore, innovation thinking is quite integrated throughout the system and is now beginning to be taught widely at secondary and primary school levels. In most countries, the spread of this ‘culture’ in public research institutions, universities, private enterprise and society is still fairly early, however, is being addressed with (rapidly) growing priority and funding.

7 See Chapter 3 for a detailed institutional summary of each country. 8 The table leaves aside, for the moment, all the line agencies, including education, health and industry on the government side, and businesses, universities and others in the private market and non‐profit sectors.



Although the picture is gradually changing (many contrary examples notwithstanding), it is typical for public research institutions and universities to undertake research with little attention and connection to commercialization. Companies, both domestic and multinational, typically buy technologies from abroad (again, with notable exceptions and changing trends). Reasons provided relate to comfort with the status quo, lack of incentives and motivation in publicly‐funded government and university/academic institutions, tradition and culture, and education. Most countries report major shortfalls in sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers; some of the discussions with national colleagues, however, suggested that solving deployment problems, including building linkages among institutions and scientists engaged in innovation, was as important.

There is also much attention to and evidence of substantial innovation ‐ in agriculture, services, and small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) ‐ at the BOP in all countries; the development of uses and services (i.e. financial) based on mobile phones is just one example of some revolutionary changes occurring. Local

Table 1. Principal research institutions in the countries under study.

Policy Funding R&D/Innovation Advisory

Indonesia Ministry of Research & Technology (RISTEK)

RISTEK RISTEK institutes (i.e. LIPI, BPPT)

National Research Council (DRN)

Philippines Dept. of Science & Technology (DOST)

DOST

Councils

National Research Council (NRCP; basic research)

DOST

R&D institutes

NRCP

Vietnam National Council for Science & Technology Policy (NCSTP)

Mnistry of Science & Technology (MOST)

MOST MOST centres & institutes

Vietnamese Academy of Science & Technology (VAST)

Thailand Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST)

National Innovation Agency (NIA)

National Science & Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)

Thailand Research Fund (TRF)

National Research Council (NRCT)

NIA

NSTDA centres NRCT

Malaysia Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI)

Prime Minister’s Office

MOSTI MOSTI departments & agencies

Malaysia Academy of Sciences (ASM)

Singapore Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC)

National Research Foundation (NRF)

Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR)

NRF

Economic Development Board (EDB)

Academic Research Fund (ACRF)

A*STAR councils & institutes

Government, private companies, universities

National Academy of Sciences (SNAS)



innovation appears to be supported somewhat more in some countries ‐ Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand ‐ than others, perhaps due in part to decentralized government and S&T institutions.

The advisory national research councils and academies all have a role in promoting science. Few have much influence as advisory bodies ‐ the recent exception being Indonesia ‐ or as funding agencies ‐ the exceptions being the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP) which funds basic research, and the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) which has a significant budget. Indonesia is notable for having regional councils and has plans to complete, strengthen and network them.

The overall picture is one of movement from S&T‐driven systems to innovation‐driven systems ‐ fairly early and gradual in Indonesia and the Philippines, somewhat more advanced and picking up speed in Vietnam and Thailand, relatively advanced in Malaysia, and very advanced in Singapore.

Challenges appear to vary considerably among countries in terms of the key aspects of the innovation system most in need of attention. One of the frequent suggestions from discussants was a comparative mapping of the innovation systems of the countries, identifying strengths, weaknesses, priorities and consequent investments. A very impressionistic picture, based on the information able to be collected from the desk study and meetings (which was insufficient), is provided in Table 2. The systems in Laos and Cambodia, not included in the table, were described as very underdeveloped, even in more traditional S&T terms; more capacity was attributed to Cambodian universities, but more focus in government policy and attention to Laos.

Table 2. Innovation systems in six ASEAN countries.

Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Singapore

Research facilities X X X (x) (x)

Scientists X X X (x)

Incubators & services X X X X X

SME/business culture X X X X X

Legal/IP infrastructure X (x) X (x) (x)

Financing & venture capital X (x) X (x)

Platform technologies X X X (x)

Culture/awareness X X X X X (x)

International linkages X X X (x) X

Policy & coordination X X (x) (x) (x) (x)

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions, it is worth noting some challenges for each country that were indentified at the meetings:

• Indonesia ‐ lack of coordination among agencies related to broader management practices in government.

• Philippines ‐ mobilization and political support, which have just recently received a major boost through increased funding for postgraduate degrees and Department of Science and Technology (DOST) facilities.

• Vietnam ‐ the whole system is mobilized, however, lacks depth and experience in almost every area; training and knowledge acquisition are proceeding rapidly.

• Thailand ‐ in contrast to Vietnam, depth and resources are substantial, but mobilization and focus on innovation is relatively recent and challenging, both politically and culturally.



• Malaysia ‐ focus and resources are substantial, but perhaps some lack of delivery on big ideas such as the multimedia super‐corridor and Bio Valley, although the ideas were very big and the progress strong.

• Singapore ‐ coordination might still be an issue by Singapore standards, but ‘Fusionopolis’ may put an end to that.

One could also posit some pair‐wise similarities, at different levels of resources and capacities, between: Indonesia and Malaysia; Philippines and Thailand; and, Vietnam and Singapore.

2. What are key new issues and strategies in S&T, innovation systems and ICTs?

The new and priority strategies and issues identified throughout the discussions can be divided into two categories: 1) those relating to aspects of innovation systems and policies; and, 2) those relating to particular technology applications. The most frequently mentioned ‘drivers’ for both types of strategies were the need to maintain and increase competitiveness, and related World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional trade compliance. Also prominent were considerations of equity and poverty reduction, and the need for innovation in and for the BOP. In Southeast Asia, where these objectives conflict, competitiveness and growth become particularly strong drivers, and conflicts tend to be addressed by ongoing redesign and development of innovation systems to serve all parts of the economy and society, with success at this being gradual and uneven.

♦ System issues

All countries expressed a general concern and priority for better understanding their innovation system, comparing it with those of advanced countries and those of their neighbours, and identifying in detail the main problems and how to resolve them. In this context, all pointed to the need to develop, test and implement better policy‐oriented innovation indicators and survey methods.

On the industry side, government and university discussants indicated a general lack of R&D and innovation culture for most countries, and a comfort with relying on imported technology. Associated with this was a lack of productive connections between industry, and academic and public research institutions, in both modern and more traditional sectors.

On the government side, coordination was raised as an important issue, in terms of both top‐level policy and institutional structures, and communication among clusters of researchers and innovators, and the development of ‘open methods of coordination.’

On more specific ‘public’ aspects of innovation systems, two issues stood out:

• Internet Protocol (IP) management, both in terms of broad debates and the micro‐level of IP services for companies, SMEs, public sector and university researchers, and how these services can be effectively provided where needed with emphasized strategies being forward thinking and engaging with country IP authorities; and,

• institutional linkages, particularly for universities, where key questions focus on how to motivate both university and public sector researchers to innovate, and how to provide the services (including IP) they need (e.g. through incubators and research technology centres).

Innovation in and for the BOP was a frequent topic of discussion and area of interest for learning from other regions or countries. Both ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ successes were evident, a few of which are summarized in the country perspectives presented in chapter III. Connecting innovation support systems, usually quite oriented to the modern sector, to traditional sectors and poorer communities was frequently emphasized ‐ particularly with respect to agriculture and resource sectors, and rural infrastructure and services. In short, a



NIS needs to serve, and support and respond to innovation in the BOP, and it also needs to connect modern and traditional production and innovation activities.

Other system issues frequently raised include: increasing the supply of scientists and engineers; upgrading research facilities; innovation financing and venture capital; international linkages and collaboration; and, fostering a culture of innovation in private enterprise and society as a whole.

♦ Technology/application issues

Platform technologies were raised as issues across all countries, with ICT and biotechnology the most prominent by far. ICT priorities varied quite widely across countries and particular areas mentioned included:

• regulation and cost reduction; • infrastructure; • human resources development; • universal access (models); • software legalization and open source; • language localization; • e‐government; • e‐learning; • mobility and mew media; and • wireless technologies.

New and alternative energies were also raised in most discussions, particularly biofuels (bioethanol and biodiesel). Most countries are very actively engaged in biofuels development. Issues include: adverse biodiversity and food production costs and impacts; cross‐border contract farming; using crops (jatropha) that grow on marginal lands; and, the prospects for (much) more efficient and low‐cost conversion technologies in the near future. ‘Doing it right’ was suggested as the overall priority.

Agricultural biotechnologies remain a major priority, particularly genetically modified (GM) crops, but also a range of other technologies. Biosafety management, and risk assessment methods and processes were frequently mentioned, mostly described as relatively well advanced but needing ongoing implementation and management research for new crops and technologies.

Medical biotechnologies and new medicines were important, and included development of the knowledge and R&D base, and IP management ‐ including compulsory licensing and related trade.

Water management was also a key issue, with the priorities being drought resistant crops; urban conservation; water cleaning and recycling; aquifer and watershed management; and, desalination. New approaches and technologies were emphasized in terms of innovation systems research.

Global warming and climate change were, for the most part, seen in terms of particular mitigation approaches (e.g. new and alternative energies and reforestation) and adaptation strategies (e.g. water management and disaster preparedness and management). Several discussions suggested a need for more comprehensive study of adaptation and mitigation strategies, particularly new and prospective technologies.

Nanotechnology came up in many conversations with suggestions for further study in applications, and related health, safety and security concerns. International nanotechnology development and management networks, supported by IDRC and others, might play a role here.



3. What are the region‐wide common strategic directions where the work of most research councils intersects?

During the discussions, two types of common strategic issues arose:

• common priorities, for which councils saw merit in cross‐country collaboration for purposes of learning, and sharing knowledge and experience; and

• shared priorities, for which councils saw the absolute need to work together to solve the problems in question.

The former group was, by far, the most dominant. A short summary of common priority systems and technology issues was given above; there is considerable bilateral cooperation in the region on these issues. Thailand is particularly well organized in providing technical support and training, and Singapore and Malaysia are seen as major sources of training. Other regional powers ‐ including Japan, Korea and China ‐ are collaborating in various ways in national and regional ASEAN STI.

Among regional institutions, the ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology (COST) was highlighted for providing an effective platform for networking and sharing of experience, as well as some research support. The Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) was also described as important for networking; currently chaired by China, it networks national science academies, helps build their confidence and could be an important source of collaboration for IDRC and partners. The recently announced Malaysian‐based International Centre for South‐South Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation (ISTIC) was flagged for future attention, and some regional‐based institutions, such as the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), were identified as sources of expertise, networking and training across a range of issues and technologies.

Avian influenza is one example of an issue for which cross‐country collaboration is essential for purposes of reaching solutions. Only a few others were identified, including:

• climate change, where some aspects ‐ e.g. negotiation of targets – and perhaps specific issues ‐ e.g. cross‐border contract farming of biofuels stocks ‐ need collaboration, while other mitigation and adaptation strategies benefit from shared experience but are essentially ‘national’ in terms of policy and action;

• haze from burning of forests, which is a major concern in Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand requiring discussion and collective action;9 and

• disaster preparedness, where the ‘upstream’ elements of early warning systems, particularly for tsunamis, have substantial economies of scale resulting from collective action, while the domestic and ‘last mile’ components seem to dictate mainly domestic solutions.

4. How can IDRC improve its work with research councils?

As noted above, this study included a survey of IDRC projects with Southeast Asia councils over the past 10 years. Over this period, there have been relatively few projects on S&T, innovation and ICTs undertaken directly with national STI support institutions. The main exceptions are the S&T policy projects and the recent collaborative regional program on avian influenza undertaken with the former Vietnam Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE). There are a few other examples in ICT4D projects in Vietnam (with the Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST], and Institute of Information Technology) and the Philippines (with the Department of Science and Technology [DOST], and the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development). There were also a few relevant Environment and Natural Resource Management (ENRM) Program projects in Vietnam and the Philippines, and several more in the Social and Economic Policy (SEP)

9 IDRC’ Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) supported effective policy research in the 1990s on the costs of haze and the benefits of mitigating action.



Program Area, including those of the Asia Development Research Forum on financial/crisis management, aging populations and other themes.

As a result of the discussions, three geographic approaches were identified: country, sub‐regional and regional.

♦ Country level approaches

Several specific projects were suggested (all are now in different stages of exploration and development) including:

• networking of the regional centres of Indonesia’s National Research Council (DRN); • a small grants program on climate change and alternative energies; and • developing and piloting better indicators and comparative mapping of country innovation systems.

Some countries, particularly Indonesia, expressed their priority for a national and sub‐national focus for STI, as well as related coordination issues involving networking and capacity development internally. Others, to varying degrees, gave more priority to forms of regional and international cooperation ‐ bilateral and multilateral.

♦ Sub‐regional approaches

Institutions in Thailand and Vietnam are interested and experienced in working together, as well as with Laos and Cambodia, where cooperation would include provision of some resources. There is a suggestion for an initial focus on strategic and system issues, perhaps starting with a good mapping and assessment of ASEAN country innovation systems, and assembly of information and indicators useful for policy makers on an ongoing basis.10

♦ Regional approaches 10 An example is the regular assessment of telecommunications regulatory environment indicators in Asia by LIRNEasia: http://www.lirneasia.net/

Box 2. System and technology issues of most common concern at the sub‐regional or regional level.

System issues: Technology issues: • coordination among government institutions • innovation in and for the BOP • low R&D and innovative culture in industry • university roles, incentives, incubators • IP management and services • private‐research‐public institutional linkages • innovation financing and venture capital • international linkages and collaboration • fostering a culture of innovation in society

• ICT access, costs, usage/services • new and alternative energies

including biofuels • agricultural biotechnologies • medical biotechnologies and new

medicines • water management, various • global warming and climate

change • nanotechnology

http://www.lirneasia.net/



There were several similar suggestions for ASEAN as a whole – a regional activity focusing initially on strategy and broad system issues, and initiating more specific system or technology collaborations over time. Box 2 lists the system and technology issues of most common concerns identified earlier.

5. Results of the Singapore Meeting, Sept 10‐11, 2007

During the country‐level discussions, several people suggested that IDRC and participants use the meeting in Singapore to sketch the elements of a program of collaboration on innovation systems ‐ objectives, initial time frame, resources and activities. The meeting participants would form a core steering group to help identify and develop collaborative activities. Some initial activity might start quickly ‐ for example, on mapping innovation systems, and perhaps on innovation surveys and/or indicators. Collaboration might focus early on strategic thinking about innovation systems, and supporting policy makers and policy development through a range of agreed research, knowledge and networking services/initiatives. A suggestion was made to focus from the start on local innovation and the linkages (research, business, etc.) between local and modern systems.

A later and perhaps larger meeting could develop activities on more specific aspects of innovation systems – system or technology application – and consider models or options for program/project management and administration. Participating country councils could provide counterpart contributions;11 this could be used to generate additional resources and collaboration internationally with donors, corporations and their foundations, and national research councils in Canada and the North. Such a mechanism should connect with regional institutions such as ASEAN COST.

The discussions in Singapore proceeded partly along these lines, and set out further views, experiences and suggestions, all of which are summarized in the following paragraphs:

• Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines face similar problems with old structures and thinking in government, universities and the private sector. These are complex and adaptive systems, with some aspects needing to die to generate others. Sharing of international and regional country experiences, particularly successes, would be very valuable to those managing the development of innovation in these systems.

• Countries have a lot of baggage with respect to governments, private sectors, academics and communities getting together; regional approaches can be easier and more effective in leading the way. A network of councils, essentially a network of networks, could add value if it were a flexible, incremental and learning mechanism. IDRC would be a good facilitator given its engagement globally with innovation systems and its history of community‐based support.

• More conceptual clarity is needed about innovation and the BOP. There is a tendency to associate

innovation systems with the elite, and for a ‘them vs. us’ view to prevail whereas all agree inclusiveness and a ‘we’ perspective are needed. Changing the mindset of policy makers and others is important, and comparative assessment of innovation at the BOP in ASEAN and in more advanced systems is a high priority. In this context, the experience of LIRNEasia12 is valuable in surveying ICT demand, usage and innovation at the BOP, and using that knowledge to influence ICT policy and regulation on one side and business models for providing mobile phones and a growing array of services on the other.13

11 Several national S&T ministries and agencies expressed willingness to cover national costs, and one country also said it could provide additional support for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Training support from Singapore and Malaysia was also frequently referred to as valuable. 12 LIRNEasia is a regional ICT policy and regulation capacity building organization active across the Asia‐Pacific: www.lirneasia.net. 13 See for example “Teleuse at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/current‐projects/bop‐teleuse/ and ‘Empowering rural communities through ICT policy and research’ http://www.lirneasia.net/.


http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/current-projects/bop-teleuse/




• Focus on the BOP is important not only because of the large potential markets for companies, but also to advance inclusive and participatory development strategies. Examples regarding biotechnology include development of drought resistant crops, maintenance of soil fertility, environmental remediation and vaccines for neglected diseases.

• Examples were given of innovation by farmers and others where there was the opportunity to think,

experiment and capture knowledge from outside their immediate system; facilitators in academic, public and non‐government organizations (NGOs) typically play key roles in initiating and assisting these processes. Empowering is a better concept than helping.

• Consistent implementation of policy agendas is a problem in most countries, as are the best means of

devolving innovation system development and management in decentralized systems of government (particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines). The ways in which devolution serves innovation in and for the BOP are not yet clear.

• Ways of assessing or evaluating policies and programs need attention; indicators are important, and

there is extensive literature and experience to draw on. Indicators of the performance of innovation‐related policy need work, rather or more than the state of the STI system. An example from the ICT field is the Telecom Regulatory Environment (TRE) system of indicators developed by LIRNEasia, a rapid regular country peer assessment of the main elements of good regulation – market entry, access to spectrum, interconnection, tariff/price regulation, anti‐competitive practice and universal service.14

• All countries are striving to develop entrepreneurship among researchers through many means

including curricula at tertiary and secondary levels; comparisons of approaches and experiences would be valuable.

There was broad agreement on the idea of an informal and flexible network of councils with institutional backing, state of the art reviews of innovation systems, documentation of experiences and successes, and an underlying but not exclusive theme of innovation in and for the BOP. Expert researchers would be engaged to undertake key studies and the aim of the network would be to support the development of innovation systems in the region. It is potentially a very productive approach to begin with developing a network of policy makers and proceeding to filling their priority knowledge gaps. The Innovation Systems Research Network in Canada might be helpful as a model, as well as in terms of networking and knowledge sharing. It would also be important to engage with business and NGO groups, as well as many related initiatives – for example, Grassroots Innovation (UNESCO) and the Science and Technology Policy Asian Network (STEPAN). IDRC could facilitate the initial years of the network, beginning with resources and a mechanism for comparative scanning of innovation systems.

14 For a summary presentation, see Telecom Regulatory Environment 2006: http://www.lirneasia.net/wp‐content/uploads/2007/06/pakistan_tre.pdf

http://www.lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/pakistan_tre.pdf

http://www.lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/pakistan_tre.pdf



III. Country Perspectives

1. Indonesia

1.1. Institutions consulted

Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI):

• Division for S&T Policy and Development Studies • Center for S&T Development Studies

Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (including the Minister)

Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT):

• Center for Information and Communication Technology • Bureau of Planning • Division of Agroindustry and Biotechnology • Division of Functional Food Technology

1.2. Institutions and coordination

The STI institutions are, in formal terms, centralized under the Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK) (see Box 3).15

RISTEK, the parent ministry, sets policy and coordinates. The research agencies under RISTEK include LIPI, which is slightly more oriented towards science and upstream research, and BPPT, which is more oriented towards development, engineering and operation. BPPT – with 24 Centres and an equal number of labs ‐ has many modes, essentially services, provided at its discretion, or in collaboration with national/regional/local governments, industries and SMEs.

The National Research Council (DRN) is an advisory council to RISTEK and produced the National Research Agenda of 2006 through internal consultation with its 80+ members (prominent scientists and representatives of academia, research and industry), Regional Research Councils (DRD; of which a total of 33 are planned and 15 now exist) and resource persons, as well as consultative workshops with academia, other research institutions and industry. The Agenda priorities (identified in Box 3) stem from national development plans.

DRN is now mapping existing research in the country, starting with national public institutions, and proceeding to regional and local public and private institutions; copies of the initial mapping (listing short and long term activities of agencies, research titles, spending, human resources and outputs) were shared with IDRC. During the meeting, assistance from IDRC in networking the DRN and regional DRD was raised as an idea. District research councils were also discussed as a possibility as they are bottom‐up (with local discussions and agreements) unlike their more top‐down national and regional counterparts; of 400 districts, however, there are now only four district research councils.

15 For information on the organization of RISTEK, please refer to the website: http://www.ristek.go.id/english/organization.html

http://www.ristek.go.id/english/organization.html



The Center for S&T Development Studies (under LIPI) is focused on S&T policy, and research needed for its formulation and implementation. Development of indicators, aimed at measures of competitiveness (particularly research expenditure, human resources and outputs), is a particular focus as these have been lacking. The Center commissions industry surveys from the Bureau of Statistics, undertakes surveys of public higher education institutions and analyses public sector surveys done by RISTEK (its parent ministry). Innovation surveys are just starting; the first, covering 14,000 manufacturing firms, will be published in 2008.

Coordination was indicated as a major problem in Indonesia stemming from deeper problems in the practice of public management (bureaucratic structures, vertical communication, lack of transparency and related issues). There is no single point of responsibility for S&T (unlike in Malaysia where the Prime Minister oversees this

Box 3. Organization of STI institutions within the Indonesia Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK)

Non‐departmental research agencies: Other research agencies:

• Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)

• Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) • Nuclear Energy Control Board (BAPETEN) • National Coordination Agency for Surveys and Mapping

(BAKOSURTANAL) • National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN) • National Nuclear Energy Agency (BATAN) • National Standardization Agency of Indonesia (BSN)

• EIJKMAN Molecular Biology Institute • Center for Research, Science

&Technology • National Research Council (DRN)

• Bio‐Island • Center for Science and Technology

Exposure

Incentive programs:

• Acceleration of People's Creativity and Innovation To Increase the National Competitiveness for Sustainable Development

• Intellectual Property Protection • PRSD MIPA • Collaborating Prime Research • National Strategic Prime Research • Integrated Prime Research • Young Prime Research (RUR) • Indonesian International Joint Research Program

• Start Up Capital • Medicinal S&T • Capacity Development Research • National Strategic Prime Research • Humanity and Social Prime Research • Standardization Utilization (Guna Stand) • Technological Catalyst (Katalis Teknologi) • Information Technology Kiosks Plus • Empowerment of Technological Innovation

Centers • Management and Technology Investment

Six S& T Focus Programs of the National Research Agenda (2005‐2009):

1. FOOD and AGRICULTURE: Food resilience through agriculture, aquaculture, agro‐industry and agro‐business.

2. ENERGY: Sustainable energy supply through the creation and use of new and renewable sources of energy. 3. TRANSPORTATION: Creating an effective and efficient multi‐mode transportation and management system

based on land, space and sea . 4. ICT: Utilizing ICTs for increasing economic prosperity and good governance. 5. HEALTH and PHARMACEUTICALS: Technology utilization for pharmaceutical products (including herbal

medicine) and medical equipment. 6. DEFENSE: Self Resilience on Defense Technology in ammunition; land, water and space military vehicles.



area), and there is often little coordination between RISTEK and other ministries, such as industry or education. A further problem is the financial regulations, which prevent retaining of profits from research projects and services, and make it difficult for an institution to transform into a ‘Public Services Unit’, thus retain profits (so difficult that none have yet succeeded).

Coordination mechanisms (and clustering) were identified and discussed at some length. DRN, for example, has two meetings per year where members present the priorities of the organizations they represent (education, energy, transport, etc.); it is also involved in monthly meetings of government research organizations. There appear, however, to be no very effective coordination incentives (and no single person or place with the mandate to coordinate).

There is desire and discussion for an open method of coordination, like that developed in the European Union (EU), following the ‘mapping’ stage. In this approach, organizations share their research activities and plans (particularly using the DRN website), providing a basis for synergy and clustering. IDRC assistance with the development of such a mechanism was raised as an important possibility. On ASEAN collaboration, IDRC was advised to discuss with the ASEAN Secretariat S&T officer based in Jakarta.

1.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda

R&D to GDP ratios has fallen from about 0.5% in 1995 to 0.05% over the last 10 years and is now about 0.2%, significantly low compared to Malaysia’s 2010 projection of 1.5%. Mechanisms for increasing R&D are a major national priority with promotion of public‐private cooperation and financial/tax incentives quite prominent.

There has existed a national S&T agenda since 2006 and there was a national coordination meeting last year. Priority areas, broadly, are health, food technology, transport, defence, ICTs and energy (see Box 4), with three crosscutting technology areas ‐ materials, manufacturing and environment. Law 18 on National Systems of Innovation (2002) encouraged regions to establish research councils and centres, and most have done so. Focus, however, is national, aimed at competitiveness in manufacturing, and, although gaining more attention, local and indigenous innovation is a new concept.

Global warming is a key concern and is being tackled domestically through biofuels and renewable energies (e.g. ocean, wind and solar), legislation (e.g. autos) and reforestation, among others. On overall priorities, Dr. Wahono Sumaryono, Deputy Chairman for Agroindustry and Biotechnology, emphasized the importance of biofuels (primarily via small rural energy plantations on marginal lands) for having large multipliers in environmental protection, reduction of deforestation and poverty reduction, and ICTs as enabling tools. Biofuel issues include engaging big investors and obtaining assistance from other countries on models and methods. With regards to biotechnology priorities in food and medicines, Dr. Wohono emphasized the need for human resource development in research across all sectors.

♦ Innovation Systems

Many discussions focused on national and regional innovation systems; these are currently weak for many reasons including perceptions and horizons of industry, and lack of a culture of innovation. Law 18 was enacted in 2002 and there is growing pressure (in the form of supply‐demand gaps in R&D) for accelerating NIS development. Within this framework, priorities include ICT development and improving the technologies of SMEs. The Center for Innovation Policy has recently been created and is in need of help ‐ expertise and best practices ‐ from other countries and organizations (e.g. IDRC) in developing its agenda.

There was some discussion of comparisons of Indonesian innovation systems with those in Canada and other countries. The value of local and indigenous innovation has recently been raised in profile, including in intellectual property rights (IPR) reforms. There will be a seminar in August 2008 on competition and NIS aimed at clarifying best practices. There is the sense that development of innovation systems is on the right track, although it is in its early days and in serious need of acceleration.



♦ ICTs

The new National ICT Council, chaired by the President, oversees most of the 7 flagship programs: national ID numbers, national single window (trade and customs), legalization of software, infrastructure, e‐learning, and e‐budgeting. Contrary to discussions with other agencies, this is one sector where harmonization needs and problems have led to a high‐level coordination mechanism. High access costs and regulatory root issues were raised.

The Minister emphasized the role of infrastructure and noted a project to bring fibre to 440 towns and cities in two years, as well as a universal service plan (in tender) to bring access to 35,000 villages (IDRC knowledge of best practices and its telecentre.org Program experience could be useful here). The Minister also emphasized the need for human resource investments, legalization of software and language localization, and a new law on cyber crime. A language localization program, the subject of a proposal to IDRC’s Pan‐Asia Networking (PAN) program was discussed and endorsed by the Minister who said he would match IDRC’s contribution; it includes tools such as grammar and spell check, a search engine, and translation.

1.4. Regional and international collaboration

Regional collaboration is fairly thin. Some limited collaborations were indicated with Japan and ASEAN countries, due to constraints in budget and human resources, and approaches to solutions in cost‐sharing and technical assistance. A recent Korean‐funded project with ASEAN countries established an ongoing S&T policy network. Earlier projects included STEPPI (IDRC, early 1990s), Periscope (German, 1999‐2001) and ITDB (World Bank, $60 million); all were seen as successful, however, sustainability of collaboration has been a main problem.

Important and useful donor assistance was suggested for bringing Indonesian S&T policy institutions together (RISTEK, BAPPENAS, Industry, Education, etc.) to discuss and propose mechanisms of (horizontal) communication and coordination in S&T policy formulation and implementation. Evaluation of previous projects would also contribute learning (ITDB has already been evaluated) and such an effort would be relatively easy to organize.

At this stage in Indonesia, it appears that internal coordination may be a higher priority than regional collaboration, though both can be usefully pursued and even synergistic (as in the Korean project and another advisory project with China). The meetings raised the merits of support to DRN and the District Research Councils for networking and development of an open method of coordination, while biofuels, ICTs and global warming received particular emphasis in terms of technology priorities.

2. Vietnam

Vietnam is currently working hard and organizing well on STI challenges posed by WTO accession, economic liberalization, competitiveness and rapid growth.


• National Council for Science and Technology Policy (NCSTP) • National Institute for Science and Technology Policy and Strategy (NISTPASS) • Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences (VASS) • Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)




Key institutional changes began when the original Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE) evolved into MOST, while responsibility for environment and land administration went to the newly created Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Although other changes, such as moving IP to the Ministry of Commerce were considered, MOST remained in charge of all S&T issues. Other important institutions include the Committee for Science, Technology, Education and Environment of the National Assembly, and the Committee for Science, Technology and Education of Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party (this committee may be merged with the Committees of Propaganda and Ideology, not for substantive reasons but in an effort to reduce committee infrastructure and bureaucracy).

The most important advisory bodies in S&T are the NCSTP and the National Council for Education (NCE). Dr. Chu Tuan Nha ‐ the former MOSTE Minister and a member of NCE ‐ chairs NCSTP and Dr. Hoai Nam, a long time friend, is Chairman of VASS and Vice Chairman of NCSTP; some members of NCSTP are Ministers (S&T, Education, Post and Telecommunications, and ICT). The interlocking memberships of committees help strengthen, however, can result in some substantive (rather than personal) conflicts between the interests of the institutional bodies individuals are involved in governing.

NCSTP has two main modes. First, it is responsive, in that all major laws, decrees, strategies, policies and programs of ministries and agencies relating to S&T must go to NCSTP before proceeding. Second, NCSTP undertakes proactive reviews, studies and advice on research. NCE is chaired by the Prime Minister and, unlike NCSTP, has a more decision making than advisory role; its secretariat is headed by Dr Tran Quoc Toan, also a member of NCSTP.

There are two academies of science (formerly National Centres): Vietnamese Academy for Science and Technology (VAST) and VASS. They are together oriented to basic research on science, engineering and the social sciences. There are similar academies under line ministries ‐ industry, agriculture and rural development, construction, and health ‐ with linkages to both VAST and VASS ‐ e.g. Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

There are also institutes for policy and strategic studies, such as NISTPASS, which act as think tanks for their respective parent ministries in laws, institutional reforms and other issues. The Ministry of Planning and Investment has two such institutes: the long standing Central Institute of Economic Management (CIEM), and the Development Strategy Institute (DSI). All other ministries have one policy institute (e.g. IPSARD for the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and IPSI for the Ministry of Industry). NISTPASS and CIEM have set up and facilitate a network of more than ten of these institutes.


Vietnam sees itself going through at least three main transitions: agriculture to industry; isolated to globally integrated; and rural to urban. Government and legal structures need to change accordingly and rapidly (e.g. in response to the accession to the WTO). The challenge is to become more competitive while retaining focus on key issues such as equity, poverty reduction, health, environment and gender equality. S&T must contribute to competitiveness, and equity and sustainability issues (e.g. climate change).

High technology has been a particular focus in the last five to six years, formerly mainly regarding ICTs, but now also with regards to biotechnology, nanotechnology and automation, among others. Government bodies are currently involved with the National Assembly’s Committee on Science, Technology & Environment in developing laws and regulations on high technology, complete with debates in the newspapers. These follow the law development of basic S&T (mid‐1990s, with IDRC assistance via the ‘Vietnam at the Crossroads’ project), e‐commerce, IPR (2005) and technical transfer (2006).



There is still a high degree of focus on ICTs and IDRC’s PAN collaboration remains very valuable; there is much to do in increasing competition in telecoms as the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) is still the largest commercial player and costs are still too high.

Vietnam’s S&T strategy for 2010‐20 involves two main elements:

1. move some government institutions into S&T enterprises where they will need to find funding by developing contracts with firms, donors and government institutions ‐ this has already been started; and

2. push ahead the global integration process in S&T following integration in the WTO, Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and ASEAN ‐ well underway, however, facing many difficulties, primarily the development of infrastructure (people, facilities, policies, institutions, processes, etc.).

More specific national priorities were described as:

• legal frameworks ‐ much has been done in the last 5 years to approach international standards, but there is still much to do;

• training abroad ‐ Masters and PhDs, and especially, group study in Vietnam and abroad through exchanges in areas of urgent need;

• mobilizing international human resources ‐ especially attracting Vietnamese scientists abroad to become engaged (both within and outside Vietnam);

• sending scientists to be involved with regional and international research/institutions ‐ so far there are very few; and

• pushing ahead with internal innovation processes.


Interest was high in the 1990s, including for IDRC support, then faded, but is now much more of a reality in terms of systems of innovation at national, sector, regional and corporate levels; there is much talk and quite a bit of action. A Memorandum of Understanding has recently been signed with IBM for a Centre of Excellence for Innovation, and there is now a National Innovation Strategy. A national innovation agency under MOST is possible, and the relationship between MOST, and the National Science & Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and National Innovation Agency (NIA) in Thailand is of much interest. Other partners include United States universities and national academies. Development of an innovation program is a high priority for the next few years, and a regular innovation survey is needed with focus on data and technologies rather than the current focus on politics and institutions.

Multi‐country collaboration on innovation system institutions and policies would be very valuable; however, focus on technology, especially in ICTs and energy, should not be left out. Each country has different resources, institutions and policies, and therefore specific technology‐related needs and issues.


Vietnam sees itself to be much behind Singapore and Malaysia, which are important partners for training, and a few steps behind Thailand; Thais see Vietnam as being focused and gaining fast. Collaboration with Thailand is substantial and growing, for example, the collaboration between MOST, and NSTDA and NIA in Thailand mentioned earlier. ASEAN COST is seen as providing a useful forum and network (ASEAN Science and Technology Network [ASTNET]). COST supports some activities under its nine sub‐committees, including R&D management, IPRs, clustering and pan‐ASEAN innovation indicators; NISTPASS chairs the one on infrastructure and resource development.

Suggestions focused on two types of collaborative approaches:

• specific technologies ‐ such as ICT, biotechnology and potential of nanotechnology; and



• innovation management – finance, knowledge management, IP and institutional linkages (policies, institutions and processes), where the latter are perhaps the most urgent (i.e. how to develop technology markets, linkages and technology intermediaries).

Some more specific priorities include:

• Role of universities ‐ there is a need for world‐class universities, and there is active debate about what kind (Tsinghua, Harvard, etc.) and how to get there. Also urgent is knowledge of how they interact with markets and other STI institutions with regards to teaching, research, commercialization and application of research, and ‘third mission’ objectives (equity, poverty and sustainability).

• IP ‐ especially with respect to WTO accession, Vietnam needs greater clarity on the impact of and alternatives to TRIPS, the role of IP in growth and competition including difficulties and barriers, and the balancing of IP protection and public interest; in this context, it is uncertain yet whether IP management will move from MOST to the Ministry of Industry.

Technology priorities include:

• New technologies in priority industries, including telecoms (with Korean collaboration, among others), new materials, new and renewable energies, and electronics (including large recent investment in the production of chips). Telecommunications/ICTs and new energies were identified to be of highest ‘catch up’ priority, followed by new materials.

• Value‐added technologies in agriculture and fisheries, thus moving from production and export of raw materials.

IDRC could continue its collaboration in ICTs, and bio and nanotechnology, but focus some new collaboration on the crosscutting issues, specifically, policies and institutions for innovation. Activities could include: policy dialogues; an innovation survey; comparative country innovation systems studies; studies on the role of universities; and, IP management. The NISTPASS/CIEM‐led network of institutes would be interested to partner, as would several Thai institutions, and others could be tapped or engaged as appropriate.

On the ‘management of techniques,’ policy and management in ICTs and IP were emphasized. If many countries were involved in collaborating, it would be easier to focus on one technology area (e.g. ICTs) as different fields have different management needs and priorities. Collaboration with IDRC in ICTs (particularly PAN) and recent collaboration with its IPS Program Area has been highly valued.

3. Philippines


• Department of Science and Technology (DOST) • National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP) • Philippine Council for Advanced Science & Technology Research & Development (PCASTRD) • Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University


DOST16 is the main government funding and policy agency, and most research in the Philippines is undertaken by universities, which have a long and strong history (see Box 4). The University of the Philippines campuses (Diliman, Los Baños, Visayas and Mindanao) focus more on research than the private universities, which focus

16 For more information on DOST visit: www.dost.gov.ph/.

http://www.dost.gov.ph/



more on teaching; both are important, however, as private universities tend to have more resources and better infrastructure.

University‐private sector linkages are not well established and there are many technologies developed but not commercialized. This scenario is improving ‐ for example, with technologies licensed from abroad by universities (e.g. Bt eggplant from India, rainbow papaya from Hawaii/Monsanto). The fertilizer BioN is a particular success story where the system of producing the micro‐organisms at University of Philippines Los Baños, along with regional bulk mixing plants, had to be worked out over seven years, with substantial subsidy, to make its usage ultimately viable to farmers.

The five councils of DOST undertake much of the applied research in the public sector. Sector councils include: agriculture, forestry and natural resources; aquatic and marine; health; and, industry and energy. PCASTRD is more oriented to basic research, and, with respect to biotechnology, both coordinates the national agenda and develops technologies to the point where they are taken up by the other councils.

Additional notes on DOST:

• DOST is the main coordinator across all stakeholders; • University of the Philippines is the biggest recipient of R&D funding (private universities are also

important) and the Commission on Higher Education is important in research capacity development; • line departments all have research arms ‐ Bureau of Agricultural Research, Energy R&D Centre,

Research Institute of Tropical Medicine, etc; • DOST, in addition to its councils, has seven R&D institutes and an equal number of services institutes ‐

private sector R&D is important but underdeveloped; • NGOs are not major players, but foundations do some research; • inventors and patent holders mainly develop utility models and petty patents, and include a wide

variety of serious (and not serious) inventors who need services or attention (i.e. the Inventors Assistance Fund); and

• other important agencies include: the IP Office (Ministry of Trade and Industry); financial institutions including the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Small Business Finance and Guarantee Corporation – started by 5 Government financial institutions; and private banks.

The NRCP, founded in 1933, was the main S&T agency and grant‐giving body before the National Science Development Board was created in 1958 (which then became DOST in 1987); today it is a collegial association of scientists and researchers ‐ with an elected President and Council ‐ funding basic research at a small level (5‐10% of DOST R&D budget), and issuing policy statements and advice. It also has important ‘recognition’ and outreach functions. The National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) is a smaller association of 53 senior scientists whose main function is recognition of achievements.



Box 4. Overview of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Philippines.

DOST is mandated to provide central direction, leadership and coordination of all science & technology activities, and formulate S&T policies, programs and projects in support of national development priorities. Guided by the principles of competence, competitiveness and conscience, DOST is pursuing six priority flagship programs under the Arroyo Administration, namely:

• Establishment of a Packaging R&D Center • Expansion of Regional Metrology Centers • Comprehensive Program to Enhance

Technology Enterprises

• Comprehensive S&T Program for Mindanao • S&T Intervention Program for the Poor, Vulnerable &

Disabled • Integrated Program on Cleaner Production

Technologies Functions

• Formulate and adopt a comprehensive National S & T Plan, monitor & coordinate its funding and implementation;

• Promote, assist and, where appropriate, undertake scientific and technological research and development in areas identified as vital to the country's development;

• Promote the development of indigenous technology and the adaptation and innovation of suitable imported technology, and in this regard, undertake technology development up to commercial stage;

• Undertake design and engineering works to complement research and development functions; • Promote, assist and, where appropriate, undertake the transfer of the results of scientific and technological

research and development to their end‐users; • Promote, assist and, where appropriate, undertake the technological services needed by agriculture,

industry, transport, and the general public; • Develop and maintain an information system and databank on science and technology; • Develop and implement programs for strengthening scientific and technological capabilities through

manpower training, infrastructure and institution‐building; • Promote public consciousness in science and technology; and, • Undertake policy research, technology assessment, feasibility and technical studies.

Fiver Sectoral Planning Councils are responsible for: formulating policies, plans, programs, projects and strategies for S&T development; programming and allocating funds; monitoring of research and development projects; and generating external funds.

• Philippine Council for Aquatic Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD) • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) • Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development (PCASTRD) • Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) • Philippine Council for Industry and Energy Research and Development (PCIERD)

R&D Institutes Services Institutes

• Advanced Science and Technology Institute (ASTI)

• Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) • Forest Products R&D Institute (FPRDI) • Industrial Technology Development Institute

(ITDI) • Metals Industry R&D Center (MIRDC) • Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI)

• Philippine Textile Research Institute (PTRI)

• Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)

• Philippine Institute of Volcanology & Seismology (PHIVOLCS)

• Philippine Science High School (PSHS) • Science Education Institute (SEI) • Science and Technology Information Institute (STII) • National Computer Center (NCC) • Technology Application and Promotion Institute

(TAPI)

Two Advisory Bodies pursue mandated functions of assistance, recognition, advisory and establishment of international linkages: National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST); and National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP).




DOST has previously had 10‐year R&D plans, and currently has a 2002‐2020 plan and a Seven‐Point Agenda (2006‐2010). The latter is particularly useful in summarizing priorities and initiatives including:

• Presidential initiatives – increasing R&D/GDP from 0.14% to 0.5%, increasing scholarship funding, setting up a science complex at University of Philippines Diliman, developing linkages and incubation parks for technology commercialization;

• focusing on 5 priority R&D areas ‐ biotechnology, ICT, health products, environment (including water resources) and alternative energy;

• enhancing technology transfer programs, including for farmers (Techno Gabay); • developing high impact programs in the regions; • boosting innovation capacity (many thrusts); • accelerating S&T human resource development, particularly graduate scholarships (the success of the

Science High Schools is also striking); • upgrading DOST facilities and budget, including ISO 17205 accreditation for labs; and • developing needed S&T policies including technology transfer, nuclear bill, disaster preparedness,

waste management, human resource diaspora, fiscal reforms, innovation‐led growth, clustering and generic drugs development.

Of interest is also the National Program for Basic Research (2006‐2010) developed by NRCP for DOST, and, within that, DOST priority areas for basic research including:

• environment and water supply and management, and disaster management; • alternative energy performance and testing (biodiesel and bioethanol); • ICTs including wireless technologies, digital content and emerging technologies; • biotechnology, including genetically modified crops, recombinant vaccines and bioinformatics; and • health products and technologies, including herbal medicines, vaccines and essential drugs.

The current priority agenda in biotechnology is concentrated on agriculture and plants, particularly on biosafety, where practice is well established by executive order, but application needs continuous research (new crops, etc.). There is some research on pharmaceuticals, however, this is an upcoming rather than current priority.


Innovation at and for the grassroots is important in the Philippines, and there are many successes in developing key products (i.e. nitrogen fixing microbes) and getting them into production (at provincial/district/local levels) and use at low cost. High technology is also emphasized, and the interaction with the grassroots is both understood and further developed over time. As in Thailand, there is reportedly a ‘thin’ culture of innovation in the private sector, which tends to like technology imports, perhaps more for the grassroots than the formal private sector. NGOs, non‐profits and unions have important roles in innovation systems.

♦ ICTs

PCASTRD manages the DOST‐funded R&D agenda for ICTs, while the Information Technology and E‐Commerce Council and the National Computer Centre are other key players. ICT research in Philippines is less structured than in other areas with so much of the attention on applications.




There is a fair amount of regional and international collaboration, notably with the United States, EU, Korea, India and Pakistan. In ASEAN, collaboration is more with the ‘dialogue partners’ – ASEAN+3 (Japan, Korea and China) and ASEAN+6 (adding India, Pakistan and Australia). ASEAN COST is an effective network, but lacks funding, so collaborative research projects tend to favour the stronger funding countries (Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand). Philippines will be hosting COST from 2008.

Areas of common concern in ASEAN include:

• IP ‐ particularly IP‐related business development services (patent mapping, patent development and disclosure, filing, fees, funding, utility models and industrial designs, legal services, business planning and IP strategy, financing, training, branding, etc.);

• policies for innovation‐led growth ‐ raised at one meeting was the UNESCO‐affiliated S&T Policy Asia Network (STEPAN), which started in 1988 with Australian leadership then foundered under Indian chairmanship; it is now under Philippine leadership but with limited participation in workshops, small but effective outreach (experts sent to Laos and Mongolia), limited funding, and an unclear future;

• advanced biotechnology ‐ with a focus on applications selected by participating people and institutions; and

• innovation at and for the grassroots or BOP.

In terms of possible areas for IDRC to explore, suggestions included:

• agricultural biotechnology and biosafety; • access and benefits sharing (ABS), and bioprospecting (policy and enforcement research); • local level attention, along with higher or national level research; • pharmaceuticals ‐ an emerging priority in the Philippines, which is behind Vietnam and others in

recombinant vaccines; • biofuels – from jatropha, coconut, etc. – especially evaluation of varieties, and better or more efficient

production technologies; and • policy fora as a useful strategy.

As in Vietnam, a suggestion was made to engage a core group meeting and a process in which, where priorities matched, national institutions would fund their participation in a program. Within the Philippines, there are good networks established among research institutions, including universities in all areas (biotechnology, materials, ICTs, etc.), so it is easy to access everyone and discuss.

4. Thailand


• Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), including Minister, Vice President and board member • International Cooperation Department • National Innovation Agency (NIA) • National Science & Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) • Thailand Research Fund (TRF) • Thai Health Promotion Foundation (THPF) • Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) • Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)




Box 5 demonstrates the organization of institutions under Thailand’s MOST. Some discussions indicated that the S&T and innovations systems are fragmented. The National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) is an advisory council with no executive power and is not consistently followed, with rare exceptions for views of prominent scientists. TRF was an attempt made 15 years ago to create a funding agency; it has some teeth, and is now being revamped with support from the Ministry of Industry. NSTDA is the main functioning research agency and public funder of S&T research; its legacy involves USAID support for its predecessor – the Science & Technology Development Board ‐ and the decision made later by the United States to ‘graduate’ Thailand. The current MOST Minister was the first NSTDA Director.

The NRCT17 is chaired by the Prime Minister, with Deputy Prime Ministers as Vice Chairmen, and Ministers and Deputy Ministers as Advisors.

The NRCT addresses the following strategic issues:

• formulation of national research policy and strategies; • management of national research; • formulation of national research standards; • systematic audit and evaluation; • acquiring international research collaboration; • strengthening of the national research system; and • research coordination and technical service delivery.

17 The National Research Council of Thailand: http://www.nrct.net/eng/

Box 5. Organization of the Thailand Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST).

Source: MOST website: http://www.most.go.th/engCMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=62

http://www.most.go.th/engCMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=62

http://www.nrct.net/eng/



Box 6. Organization Chart for Thai National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA).

The NTSDA (Box 6) is a ‘Learning Organization’ that is committed to strengthening and enhancing Thai S&T capacities in areas critical to national economic and social development. Its mandate is to:

• conduct and support research, development, design and engineering in science and technology in priority areas;

• support human resource development and capacity building in S&T through scholarships, both for local and overseas education, and through its various training and research programs;

• support and implement technology acquisition and transfer for the private sector by providing a range of technical, consultancy and training services;

• implement and develop S&T infrastructure critical to the development of Thailand such as testing and information services, and incubator facilities in the Thailand Science Park and the Software Park Thailand in order to enhance tripartite cooperation between the private sector, academic institution and NSTDA; and

• formulate S&T policy for development through national policy committees.

NSTDA is the largest research institution in terms of funding and labs, and has about 2,000 staff. Priorities are reflected in its Centers (see Box 6) involving biotechnology, ICT, materials and, recently, nanotechnology. For the first 10 years, NSTDA research differed little from that of universities, however, it has recently been primarily aligned with the needs of seven clusters of industries: auto, health, textile, food, electronics, manufacturing and energy. Its programs divide into immediate needs, medium term and platform technologies (genomics, materials and new medicines).

The International Cooperation Department supports NSTDA’s development of R&D and S&T contextual expertise, which is distinguished by the breadth and depth of international activities carried out by its five specialized Centres. Many of these activities support innovative collaborations across traditional intellectual and geographic boundaries, and require new combinations of competencies and technologies. There are several ways to develop bilateral collaborative projects with NSTDA. An informal way is to initiate short‐term projects on certain topics of interest; the other way is to develop an official cooperation for projects that require longer period of time for implementation with more requirements for research personnel, budget and IPR obligations. NSTDA is currently collaborating with Canada (National Research Council), United Sates, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Israel, Russia, Korea, China, Laos (Research Institute of Science), India, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore and Australia. It is providing technical and training support to



Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, and chairs the Sub‐Committee on Human Resource Development of ASEAN COST.

The Minister indicates that Thailand is still trying to understand and effectively support ‘innovation.’ There is general acceptance that an upstream S&T push is not enough and needs to connect with downstream commercialization. The National Innovation Development Fund was upgraded into the NIA, which recently became a public organization. To date, it has focused on individual SME innovators, with innovation policy undertaken by MOST (see Box 7). As a public organization, the NIA can now do policy and has good linkages with the Ministry of Industry and Deputy Prime Minister, as well as MOST.

In terms of research and competitiveness indices (human resources, patents, spending, etc), in ASEAN, Thailand is well behind Singapore and close to Malaysia, however, ranks low internationally. About two‐thirds of research in Thailand is financed by government and one‐third by the private sector; government research funding totals about 16 billion baht (CAD $550 million), half of which is distributed to TRF (1 billion baht), NIA (1 billion baht), NSTDA (5 billion baht) and NRCT (1billion baht). NSTDA wants to increase research spending from 1 to 3% of the government budget and from 0.26 to 1.5‐2% of GDP. Few companies undertake R&D and changing this is a big challenge; the Board of Investment currently offers large incentives, especially for biotechnology, including an eight‐year tax holiday and an additional five for companies located in the science park.

Universities are strong in Thailand (as in Philippines) profiting from their research mostly through industry services, and beginning to set up incubators with funding and licensing offices for commercialization. Some discussions indicated that Thai universities generally lack strength in innovation, despite their research quality, with three exceptions being some university programs in ICTs where research is relatively cheap (requiring no expensive labs or infrastructure). Discussants indicated that

Thailand is under‐producing engineers by a wide margin, and that these engineers quickly rise to management positions, so there is little technical capacity left in large enterprises or SMEs. Although science graduates have increased from 100 to 400 per year, a faster pace is needed as Thailand has only five research workers per 10,000 population compared to about 40 in Taiwan and 80 in Korea. Among ASEAN countries, Thailand compares well and is second to Singapore.

Current priorities for universities include:

• agricultural biotechnology ‐ given the continuing importance of agriculture;

Box 7. Overview of the National Innovation Agency (NIA), Thailand.

NIA has been launched into some major transitions: • taken on the management of the university business

incubator program, which includes 45 universities and over 4000 researchers, at the request of the Higher Education Commission ‐ after 2 years, the program had done nothing for lack of funds (while NIA has money);

• works with business – through 55 networks nation wide ‐ and particularly SMEs in upgrading business capacity in addition to funding support, focusing on bio‐business (biotechnology and natural products), eco‐industries (environment and natural resources, and bio‐materials), and design and branding (design and cultural brand creativity);

• promotes innovative culture through awards, Masters and PhD programs in innovation management and technology publishing (300 students/year), as well as tailored innovation management programs for executives;

• backs interesting initiatives such as organic farming and biodiesel from jatropha oil; and,

• starting (as a just created Public Organization) to work on policy and strategy of the ‘innovation ecosystem’ through soft infrastructure (some German and other collaboration).

They have a small number (40) of very qualified good staff and, within the next year, aim to begin to: • work with financial and venture capital institutions more

directly; • starting an IP evaluation unit to back their popular IP services

(“Service charge: No deal, no fee!”); • starting consultancy services on development of business

models; and • influencing national policy related to innovation systems.



• medical biotechnology – as medical tourism is growing; and • advanced electronics – where Thailand has been good at getting outsourcing contracts because

workers have better skills compared with Vietnam and China.

The AIT is an international organisation that promotes technological change and sustainable development in the Asia‐Pacific region through higher education, research and outreach. It collaborates actively with research and education institutes in Thailand and in the region. The institute has a n a ew charter and Five‐year Strategic Development Plan involving a set of thematic programs. AIT’s challenges include its revamping and funding uncertainties; its strengths can perhaps be summarized in terms of:

• a very international staff and student body; • research strength and experience including current theme areas of ICT4D, water management, food

systems, management models, urban and rural systems, and robotics and sensors (intelligent environments, including nanotechnology);

• tailored professional development courses for clients (e.g. IP) as well as regular courses; • knowledge of ASEAN, Asian and Western innovation systems (though the discussions occasionally

slipped back into older S&T terminology); • specialization in new and alternative energies ‐ including biodiesel and bio‐ethanol, and solar and wind

‐ including a rural biofuels program in collaboration with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);

• specialization in disaster preparedness and management, including early warning systems; • involvement in universities and science programs in Laos and Cambodia, centres (offices and

classrooms) in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and a newly opened office in Bandung (and planned in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal);

• long and wide experience in international collaboration (e.g. a CIDA‐funded program on urban environmental management involving 120 institutions in Southeast Asia in joint action research, demonstrations and tracer studies); and

• supportive alumni who now occupy ministerial and other prominent positions.



Thinking regarding innovation systems is, by some accounts, still fragmented in Thailand, but many institutions (MOST, NSTDA, NIA and others) are trying to change this. The rivalry between NSTDA and NIA looks mostly healthy. Several discussions indicated that both researchers and companies tend to be quite comfortable with the present situation, and incentives for public and university researchers were important to develop ‐ i.e. improved salaries, research funding, performance assessments, etc. NIA is only an R&D funder/supporter/collaborator ‐ unlike NSTDA, which is also a major undertaker of R&D ‐ hence, there is greater ease of relationships with businesses. Current policy makers are reluctant to share risk with the research and private sectors whereas NIA can do this. Some say there is no innovation in Thailand and that it should be imported, however, the NIA Director thinks that building up creative industries is a niche that no one else can occupy. Business culture is very technology import‐oriented, and needs to be convinced with success stories. In terms of local systems of innovation, there exists a need for Thailand to innovate its own innovation system rather than continue to copy Western models. Creativity is not taught in the Thai education system, which has been deteriorating over the past three years. Thailand has all the pieces but manages them poorly and manages their interactions even worse; what it can do is learn from the successes of other countries (including Western countries). One of the main points noted is that policy makers tend to think only about the modern sector, not the whole society. Innovation is present at the grassroots in Thailand, however, is suppressed by Thai culture and governance; Western societies are much more equal and less dual. In Thailand, how to ‘open the lid’ is a key question and effort is needed to allow local innovation to prosper.



One example of local innovation is in organic rice farming where, by giving up the use of chemicals, farmers have (surprisingly and quite definitely) realized substantial increases in production, reductions in cost and reduction in labour time. They seek and use micro‐organisms from forests ‐ for best decomposition of biomass, control of insects, etc. ‐ and propagate these organisms. In some areas, these strategies have all come from farmers, but, in many areas, it has been helped by researchers from the universities who can engage research and lab support, and some technical assistance for the farmers (who generally will not themselves ask for help). Innovation at the local level does not get enough consistent attention, though there are particular successes, such as organic farming and biodiesel. The modern sector innovation system managers overlook these innovations and their potential linkages with research and business development (e.g. food supply chain for both national and export markets). Continuing failure to connect the modern and traditional/rural systems, and a lion’s share of attention and resources to the former results in a widening gap and is, at some point, dangerous. Strategies suggested were to:

• keep the whole picture in view and always ask the question of what this means for local communities; and

• focus on the ‘integration’ of the two systems – it does not take much to foster local innovation and, in doing so, the links with the research/academic and business/SMEs becomes forged.


Regional ASEAN collaboration was described as more diplomatic than real, largely for (important) solidarity reasons; ‘ASEAN help ASEAN,’ with flagship programs, including food safety and open source. Interactions with China are increasing.

With respect to collaborative activities in ASEAN, discussions indicated particular interest in:

• mapping Thai and other country innovation systems, identifying main weaknesses and bottlenecks; • developing more appropriate indicators and undertake comparative studies of S&T and innovation

with other ASEAN countries, as these have real impact over time on policy making; and • investigating how to redirect funding and effort to innovation and commercialization as a lot of money

(estimated at 100 billion baht/year) is spent on technology transfer, however, most of this is on license fees and buying technology.

IDRC could work with Thai institutions and others in ASEAN, with the Thai institutions funding nationally relevant components and some activities (technical assistance and training) in other countries. Thailand has particular interest and experience in collaboration with Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, thus one suggestion would be a collaborative program with these four countries; it is also interested, if less experienced, in Philippines and Indonesia. NIA is interested and involved in countries including Laos and Cambodia, and several countries are very interested in the NIA model. Thailand has some strong institutions that could potentially help manage and/or administer multi‐country activities.18

5. Singapore


• Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR) • National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) • Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National University Of Singapore

18 The EEPSEA/AERC model was mentioned as one proven approach.




The National Research Foundation (NRF)19 was set up on 1 January 2006 as a department under the Prime Minister's Office. The terms of reference of the NRF are:

a. To provide Secretariat support to the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC), chaired by the Prime Minister;

b. To coordinate the research of different agencies within the larger national framework in order to provide a coherent strategic overview and direction;

c. To develop policies and plans to implement the following five strategic thrusts for the national R&D agenda: i. To intensify national R&D spending to achieve 3% of GDP by 2010 ii. To identify and invest in strategic areas of R&D iii. To fund a balance of basic and applied research within strategic areas iv. To provide resources and support to encourage private sector R&D v. To strengthen linkages between public and private sector R&D

d. To implement national research, innovation and enterprise strategies approved by RIEC, and to allocate funding to programmes that meet NRF strategic objectives.

Singapore emphasizes evidence‐based decision making and learning from other countries. A*STAR is bringing its institutes together into a huge modern complex called Fusionopolis – the ultimate in interaction and coordination.

Box 9 demonstrates the institutional coordination of Singapore’s R&D sector.


A*STAR20 covers pretty much the whole range of technologies (see Box 9). Priorities include:

• water – recycling and desalination; • new and renewable energies – fuel cells and hydrogen (‘clean and green’); • biomedical – pharmaceuticals, services and delivery, advanced biotechnology, medical technologies; • ICT – mobility, new media; and • electronics, chemicals and engineering.

19 http://www.nrf.gov.sg/Index.htm 20 Phillip Yeo retired from A*STAR this spring; see http://www.a‐star.gov.sg/astar/index.do for current incumbents.

http://www.nrf.gov.sg/Index.htm

http://www.a-star.gov.sg/astar/index.do



Box 8. Chart of Singapore Government R&D sector institutions, including funding.

Cabinet

National Research Foundation (NRF)*

$5 billion


Current thinking with respect to innovation enablers and challenges include:

• Human capacity‐building is fundamental, however, while there is substantial capacity in science and engineering in Southeast Asia, it is generally focussed on research rather than innovation – i.e. bringing knowledge/invention into application.

• A next step is product development, especially in SMEs – this is recognized throughout the region at the policy level and is a big area for Singapore collaboration with Middle East countries; how to do it, however, is still a key question.

• Universities are typically mainly technical development institutions, however, they need and typically

lack incubators or research technology centres for help in all stages of commercialization ‐ IP, negotiations, royalties, etc. They also often lack incentives to go beyond research.

• Feedback from technology demanders is often weak, perhaps less so in small countries that cannot

afford much unapplied research, and can be part of the function of incubators. Typically needed and missing are (present & prospective) market analyses prior to setting research priorities, and connections with and involvement of potential buyers.

• Venture capital is needed and is sufficient only in Singapore and Malaysia; keeping other interests out

of financing is an issue for some countries.

Ministry of Education (MOE)

$1.05 billion

Ministry of Trade & Industry (MTI) $7.5 billion

Academy Research Fund

(ACRF)

A*STAR $5.4 billion

Economic Development Board (ECB) $2.1 billion

New Institutes

Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC)

PM Chairs

Public/private universities, hospitals, polytechnics, other think tanks and institutions

A*Star research institutes Private labs, corporate research units



• Innovation can be taught; the National Institute of Education, for example, is in the middle of

delivering a Masters programs to half of Singapore’s 14,000 secondary school teachers and, in the process, is teaching them how to teach innovation (orientation, components, steps, etc.), so that the next generation of Singaporeans will all have this instinct. Changing of culture is important and few countries can do it in this way, but there are unique alternative approaches elsewhere (e.g. Philippine science high schools).

• University courses in ‘techno‐entrepreneurship’ and innovation are springing up.

♦ ICTs

ICT development has been a high priority in Singapore for at least 25 years and is managed by a full array of institutions; the Agencies under the Science and Engineering Research Council are indicative:

• Data Storage Institute • Institute for Infocomm Research (I²R) • Institute of Chemical & Engineering Sciences • Institute of High Performance Computing • Institute of Materials Research and Engineering • Institute of Microelectronics • Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology • A*STAR Computational Resource Centre

Box 9. A*Star Organization Chart




International R&D collaborations are most effectively driven by research institutions, and their individual researchers and research groups. A*STAR encourages its research institutes to collaborate with other similar institutions, and welcomes contact from others to explore collaboration opportunities in areas of common interest; A*STAR is able to help identify good people in specific areas.

Institutes seek external as well as A*STAR funding, and many achieve this due to international reputation and networking; they also recruit everywhere ‐ wherever the talent is. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does fund some training and technical experts for less advanced countries.

A*STAR itself has agreements on cooperation in S&T with agencies in several countries ‐ including China, Japan, Korea, Canada and Germany ‐ that aim to foster research collaborations, the exchange of researchers and students, and joint symposia, seminars and workshops. A*STAR also represents Singapore on S&T matters at international forums, including the ASEAN COST and APEC Industrial Science & Technology Working Group (ISTWG). At the time of writing, Singapore had participated in 31 ISTWG projects, which included seminars, workshops, exhibitions and researcher networking events, as well as hosting the APEC Coordinating Centre for Good Clinical Practice.

In the industrial park there is collaboration with many countries and multinationals. Singapore’s history is of wide interest in the region ‐ described as moving from improving production processes, to importing technology and research capacity, while increasing science and engineering education to focus on domestic research and innovation.

Discussions with individuals working regionally on STI issues suggested:

• in most countries, focus on policy makers on one end of the spectrum, and youth/education/culture of innovation and risk taking on the other;

• an initial activity to consider would be comparative country studies of innovation systems and policies, i.e. mapping the systems and identifying strengths, weaknesses and priorities; and

• focus might then shift to priority sectors such as agricultural and medical biotechnologies, or biofuels or IP management, or innovation needs for universities.

6. Malaysia

There were few meetings in Malaysia and most of the following section is derived from secondary sources.


• Malaysia Academy of Sciences (ASM) • CABI21 Southeast and East Asia Regional Centre • Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)

21 CABI started as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), but has become an international organization called simply CABI.




In spite of a well‐organized and coordinated government structure, the inclusion of “innovation” in MOSTI’s name and function, and major recognized success in the region, discussions indicated that coordination is an issue and the execution of some major projects like the multimedia super‐corridor and Bio Valley had been thin relative to expectations. Some funding for enterprises has recently been changed into a public‐private science fund, with less being available for companies. Public‐private partnerships are encouraged, however, ‘marriages’ are typically difficult. Most university researchers, who are generally comfortable with the status quo, do not proactively pursue university‐private sector collaborations.

ASM22 is an advisory group, in the British model, of 120 senior scientists and experts (Fellows). In principle, it is independent of government, but it is also under MOSTI and independence does not appear to imply full; ASM recently recruited a new Executive Director, however, the person selected was turned down by MOSTI. Fellows are elected by the existing Fellows of the seven participating sciences: medical, engineering, biological, mathematical and physical, chemical, information technology, science & technology development and industry; one Fellow is elected for each discipline each year. ASM’s Council is composed of 12 Senior Fellows (elected for one year, and named Academicians by law and granted life pensions) and reports to the MOSTI Minister weekly. Dato’Seri Dr. Salleh Mohd Nor was President in 2004 and is now Vice President.

In addition to advising Government, ASM manages programs in publication, science excellence and awareness, and international collaboration aimed at:

22 http://www.akademisains.gov.my/index.php

Box 10. Malaysia Government S&T Institutions

Ministries Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Learning Tourism Board Govt. Agencies Information and Technology Information Centre Institute for Nuclear Technology Research Agriculture Research and Development Institute Standards & Industrial Research Inst. of Malaysia Forest Research Institute Industry‐Government Group for High Technology Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) (http://www.mosti.gov.my/MostePortal/website/index.jsp)

Malaysian Centre For Remote Sensing National Science Centre National Biotechnolgy Division Science, Technology and Innovation Division National Oceanography Directorate ICT Policy Division Strategic and Commercialisation Division Human Resource Management Division Information Technology Management Division Science And Technology Information Centre

Departments National Space Agency Department of Chemistry Malaysia Malaysia Nuclear Agency Malaysian Meteorological Services Department Standard Malaysia Atomic Energy Licensing Board Government Owned Companies MIMOS Bhd. Multimedia Development Corporation SIRIM Bhd. Technology Park Malaysia Corp. Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia Biotechnology Corporation Astronautic Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd. Natl. ICT Security & Emergency Response Centre Malaysia Network Information Centre Subsidiary Company Of Khazanah Malaysian Technology Development Corporation Statutory Bodies Malaysia Science Academy Non Government Organization Malaysian Industry Group High Technology Inno Biologics Sdn. Bhd.

http://www.mosti.gov.my/MostePortal/website/index.jsp

http://www.akademisains.gov.my/index.php



• providing advice to Government on matters related to science, engineering and technology, which are of national importance;

• fostering a culture of excellence in science, engineering and technology in Malaysia; • assisting in upgrading the technological capability and competency of Malaysian industries; • promoting public awareness on the importance of science, engineering and technology in everyday

life; and • facilitating and coordinating international collaboration and cooperation.


Research activities are focused towards meeting the industrial needs in new and emerging fields of science, engineering and technology in the context of national interest (see Box 12).

New biotechnology perspectives and priorities include:

• conservation of biodiversity, i.e. inventory and tissue culture of endangered plant species; • labelling of GM foods (for the service industry), which is now becoming law in Malaysia where GM

organisms are well controlled; • genetic modification of forest products for faster and more efficient growth; • research on carbon sequestration of trees, above and (importantly) below ground; • new and renewable energy prospects, particularly biofuels (including more rapid biomass conversion

as well as production), but also solar, mini‐hydro and wave/current; • water use and conservation where IDRC is seen to be particularly well placed; and • mangroves and coastal ecosystems management.

Discussions pointed particularly to biofuels in terms of technologies/applications, and to innovation policies, institutions and processes in both Malaysia and less advanced ASEAN countries.


Priorities of MOSTI and Malaysia remain unidentified by this study. From one MOSTI meeting, thinking about national and local innovation systems is very active, but also in relatively early stages. One of the lead authors of the frequently referenced Millennium report ‐ Innovation: Applying Knowledge to Development ‐ is Dr Lee Yee‐Cheong, Academy of Sciences Malaysia.

♦ ICTs

Box 11. Thematic priorities for S&T funds in Malaysia

Science Fund Technology Fund Innovation Fund Biotechnology

ICT Industry

Biotechnology

Sea to Space

Nanotechnology

Advanced Materials

Advanced Manufacturing

Alternative Energy

Pre‐commercialization

IP acquisition

Enterprise Innovation Fund (EIF)

eIRPA

Brain Gain

Community Innovation Fund (CIF)

eHCD

National Biotechnology Division

Malaysian Biotechnology Corporation

Malaysian Life Sciences Fund

Bioinformatic Tools

National Biotechnology Policy (PDF)

Pintar Biotek

Contract Manufacturing and Contract Research in Biopharmaceuticals



The restructuring of MOSTI had resulted in the transfer of responsibility from the former Ministry of Energy, Communication and Multimedia for:

• formulation and implementation of national policy on ICT; • formulation and implementation of national information security policy; • encouraging R&D and commercialization in ICT; and • development and promotion of ICT industries.

Following the restructure, The National Information Technology Council (NITC)23 Secretariat was transferred to MOSTI. The ICT Policy Division was established on 1 March 2005 comprising of five units, namely, Policy and Strategic Unit, ICT Technology Studies Unit, Assessment and Monitoring Unit, ICT Acculturation Unit and the NITC Secretariat.


Multi‐country collaboration on innovation systems institutions was suggested, with some preference for technology focus (ICTs and energy), as each country has different institutions, policies and needs.

23 National Information Technology Council Malaysia (NITC ‐ MOSTI) (http://www.nitc.gov.my/)

http://www.nitc.gov.my/



Annex A. Regional Councils and Research Organizations Regional Council are highlighted below. In addition, a networked group of national and regional economic and social research and research support organizations were included in this study, and discussions took place with three; the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore and Thailand Development Research Institute in Bangkok. The following information is compiled from websites, and meeting discussions with three of the economic and social research councils. Regional Councils APEC Industrial Science & Technology Working Group (ISTWG) http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/working_groups/industrial_science_and_technology.html ISTWG’s objective is to fulfil the APEC vision for the 21st century, that is of being a dynamic and prosperous Asia‐Pacific region built on the development and application of industrial science and technology that improves the quality of life while safeguarding the natural environment and achieving sustainable development. ISTWG's activities are focused on the implementation of three major initiatives: the APEC Agenda for S&T Industry Cooperation for the 21st Century; the Mexico Declaration; and, the Cleaner Production Strategy. Its longer‐term work is spelled out in the 2006 ISTWG Medium‐term Workplan (MTWP) and includes:

• connecting research and innovation • human capacity building in S&T for the new economy • establishing an APEC S&T policy forum • expanding APEC cooperation in key technologies for the 21st century • prevention and control of infectious diseases • science, technology, and innovation to meet the environmental challenge

New project proposals seeking 2007 funding were discussed at the 30th ISTWG meeting held in March 2006 in Manila, the Philippines. As a result of discussions members agreed to build a roadmap for converging technologies to combat emerging infectious diseases, building human capacity for natural resources development and its environmental impact in APEC region, and training for management and technology of industrial waste resources. A Science‐Industry Linkage Forum was held in conjunction with the 31st ISTWG meeting. The forum identified emerging challenges faced by research and innovation, and outlined some of the responses that were introduced by Australia for discussion. The discussion and information exchange helped members look into related policy issues for viable decision setting such as: • The increasing complexity of innovation policy and of commercialization challenges, particularly if considered as

part of a broader approach to innovation systems. • The considerable variety between policy approaches among APEC economies, and to consider exploring proposals

to further progress the area of 'connecting research and innovation'. • The importance of a differentiated set of policy tools and mechanisms to take into account how the needs of firms

differ depending on size, capacity and ability to position themselves globally; the exchange of best practice should address this diversity.

Key Contacts: • Lead Shepherd: Dr Yasuyuki Yagi, Director, International Affairs Office, Science & Technology Policy and

Environment METI, Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry, Tel: (81 3) 3501 6011, Email: yagi‐[email protected] • APEC Secretariat, Mr Timothy Hsiang, Director (Program), E‐mail: [email protected]

ASEAN Committee on Science & Technology (ASEAN COST) ASEAN COST was formed in the late 1970s with the objective to strengthen and enhance the capability of ASEAN in science & technology, so as to promote economic development and achieve a high quality of life for its people. It has 9 sub‐committees that manage, coordinate, evaluate and implement projects in various areas, as follows:

• Food Science and Technology • Meterology and Geophysics • Microelectronics and Information Technology • Materials Science & Technology

http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/working_groups/industrial_science_and_technology.html





• Biotechnology • Non‐conventional Energy Research • Marine Science & Technology • Science & Technology Infrastructure and Resources Development • Space Technology and Applications.

ASEAN Science and Technology Network (ASTNET; http://www.astnet.org/) ASTNET is the comprehensive, information‐rich and vibrant infrastructure set up by the ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology (COST) that is envisioned to underpin:

• Good governance, wise policy and proactive planning for its regional cooperation programmes; • Competitive basic and applied research and development; • Widespread basic, tertiary and continuing education; • Human resource development, and • Technology transfer.

The aim of ASTNET is to create an ASEAN‐wide electronic based technology information network. It will also be a gateway to interconnect ASEAN S&T information resources to internal S&T and industrial databases. It is expected to support administration, monitoring and coordination of plans and programs of ASEAN COST so as to improve the efficiency of cooperation and coordination among ASEAN member countries. CABI Southeast and East Asia Regional Centre24 Please see Malaysia section above. Pacific Science Association (PSA; http://www.pacificscience.org/) PSA is a regional non‐governmental, scholarly organization that seeks to advance science, technology, and sustainable development in and of the Asia‐Pacific region, by actively promoting interdisciplinary and international research and collaboration. PSA is composed of both national member organizations (typically National Academies of Science) and individual member scientists. Since our founding in 1920, the PSA has been based at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawai'i. PSA facilitates interdisciplinary and international research and collaboration in the Asia‐Pacific region, with a focus on key issues and problems in the region in order to engage science in the service of human needs, and improving both the environment and quality of life of the region’s peoples. PSA serves as a catalyst for scientific and scholarly collaboration; develops scientific capacity within the region; fosters effective communication between scientists, policy makers and the public; actively involves the Pacific Island states in regional and international scientific activities; and promotes the “Science of the Pacific.” Contact: Pacific Science Association at the Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817 Telephone: 808‐848‐4124, Fax: 808‐847‐8252, Email: [email protected] Science Council of Asia http://www.scj.go.jp/en/sca/index.html

• China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) • Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) • Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Indonesian Ministry of National Education • Science Council of Japan (SCJ) • Korean National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST) • Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Institute for

Environment and Development (LESTARI) • Mongolian Academy of Sciences (MAS) • National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP), Philippine Social Science Council (PSSC), Philippine

Association of Marine Science (PAMS) • Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) • Thai Academy of Science and Technology (TAST), Science Society of Thailand (SST) • Vietnam Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Ministry of Health (MOH)

Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS; http://www.twas.org/ ) TWAS is currently chaired by China and networks national science academies.

24 CABI started as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), but has become an international organization called simply CABI.

http://www.pacificscience.org/


http://www.scj.go.jp/en/sca/index.html

http://www.twas.org/



Research Organizations Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore (ISEAS; http://www.iseas.edu.sg/) The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies is a regional research centre dedicated to the study of socio‐political, security and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geo strategic and economic environment. The aim of the Institute is to nurture a community of scholars interested in the region and to engage in research on the multi‐faceted dimensions and issues of stability and security, economic development, and political, social and cultural change. The intention is not only to stimulate research and debate within scholarly circles, but also to enhance public awareness of the region and facilitate the search for viable solutions to the varied problems confronting the region. In a world increasingly dominated by the forces of globalization and regionalization, networking has become an imperative. The Institute is strategically placed to assist international, regional and local scholars and other researchers in this networking process by serving as a centre that provides a congenial and stimulating intellectual environment, encouraging the fullest interaction and exchange of ideas in an unfettered ambience. ISEAS is dedicated to long‐term reflective analysis and investigations in the best traditions of scholarship. The Institute also seeks to stimulate thinking on and exploring solutions to some of the major salient issues in the region. To achieve these aims, the Institute undertakes the following activities: conducts a range of research programmes; holds conferences, workshops, lectures and seminars; publishes research journals and books; and generally provides a range of research support facilities, including a large library collection. ISEAS is a co‐ordinator and member of many international and regional networks of research institutes and researchers and is a member of the APEC Study Centres Consortium. Large Research Programs include:

• ASEAN‐India Study Programme • ASEAN‐China Study Programme • ASEAN‐Japan Study Programme • ISEAS Trade Policy Unit • ISEAS Energy Forum • Malaysia Study Programme • Gender Studies Programme • The FEALAC Academic Network (FAN) Project

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/) As countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific enter a new phase of their development, the importance of public policy has become increasingly recognised. The problems faced by policy makers range over a wide spectrum of issues which are unique to countries in the region. In the regional context, these are further complicated by religious, ethnic, historical and political variables which add to the complexity of governance. Charting public policy within these varied settings and meeting the demands and expectations of different constituents, national and international, require public servants who are trained to look at the issues from the vantage points of several disciplines. To achieve its vision of becoming a centre for public policy research, education and discourse, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy has actively pursued the establishment of centres of excellence, in order to attract leading academics and potential alliance partners to study Asia’s role in and contribution to globalisation as well as the issue of national competitiveness in Asia. It is hoped that research in these two areas will bridge the gap between current knowledge and the knowledge required to meet future challenges. The School has established two such research centres, creating a forum where international thinkers, including academics, practitioners and politicians, can come together.

• Asia Competitiveness Institute The School has established the Asia Competitiveness Institute to lead research on competitiveness in Asia. Headed by Professor Neo Boon Siong, the Institute aims to become a thought leader on competitiveness in Asia and in doing so influence regional policy‐making in this area with the ultimate objective of raising living standards through productivity‐driven economic growth. It will enable Singapore to provide expertise and intellectual leadership and give Singapore a voice in the strategic areas of development for the region. As such, the Institute has received strong support from the Singapore Government, particularly from the Ministry of Trade and Industry. It has established formal ties with the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School, headed by competitiveness expert Professor Michael Porter. It will engage in rigorous research and in‐depth data collection in a bid to become a repository for data on national competitiveness, tracking competitiveness at the sectoral (industry) and country level. Researchers from the Institute will

http://www.iseas.edu.sg/

http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/



selectively undertake consultancy projects to advise governments or companies on competitiveness and economic planning at the country/sectoral level.

• Centre On Asia And Globalisation Envisioned as an intellectual nexus, the Centre will draw a critical mass of world‐class scholars from Singapore and around the world. Headed by Prof Ann Florini, the Centre will provide a research framework that will facilitate collaborations across disciplinary boundaries, focusing on issues of particular importance to Singapore. The Centre on Asia and Globalisation will also be hosting regular strategic dialogues involving China, India, and other countries both within and external to the region as well as forge substantive partnerships with major policy research centres throughout the world. Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), Malaysia (http://www.isis.org.my/) ISIS was established on April 8, 1983. It is registered under Malaysia's Companies Act 1965 as a Company Limited by Guarantee. An autonomous and non‐profit organisation, ISIS Malaysia is engaged in a wide range of activities focusing on objective and independent policy research and fostering dialogue and debate between the public sector, the private sector and academia. In general, its programmes are directed towards five central areas of national interest:

(i) National and International Economic Affairs; (ii) Defence, Security and Foreign Affairs; (iii) Strategies for Nation‐Building and National Unity; (iv) Policies on Science, Technology, Industry, Energy and Natural Resources.

Bureaus and Centres: • Bureau of Foreign Policy and Security Studies • Bureau of Economic Policy Studies • East Asia Economic Centre • Centre for China Studies • Centre for India Studies (CIS) • Centre for Japan Studies • Administration and Finance Division • Information Services Division • Public Affairs and Conference Services Division • Publications Division • Bureau of Environment, Science, Technology and Natural Resources

The Bureau of Environment, Science, Technology and Natural Resources (BEST) was formed in 1990 to conduct policy research in the areas of science, energy, natural resources and the environment. Activities in Science and Technology are built upon ISIS' central role as the Technical Secretariat for the formulation of Malaysia's Action Plan for Industrial Technology Development, completed in 1990. Current work focuses on the policy framework for the development of technologies, technology reviews, technology planning, forecasting, and benchmarking, and information infrastructure. Members of the Bureau are directly involved in several national‐level committees and groups dealing with science and technology development, including the National Council for Scientific Research and Development (MPKSN) and the Malaysian Industry‐Government Group for High Technology. Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Indonesia (http://www.csis.or.id/) CSIS is an independent, non‐profit organisation focusing on policy‐oriented studies on domestic and international issues. It was established in 1971. CSIS’s mission is to contribute to improved policy making through policy‐oriented research, dialogue, and public debate. This is based on the belief that long‐term planning and vision for Indonesia and the region must be based on an in‐depth understanding of economic, political and social issues including regional and international developments. CSIS research and studies are channelled in various forms as independent input to government, universities and research institutions, civil society organizations, media, and business. CSIS undertakes research in economics, politics and social change, and international relations, with topics selected on the basis of their relevance to public policy. Inter‐disciplinary studies are encouraged. In the area of foreign policy CSIS’s research is complemented and strengthened by its relations with an extensive network of research, academic, and other organizations worldwide. In the wider Asia‐Pacific region, CSIS is actively involved with regional and international networks of ‘track‐two’ institutions and think‐tanks that interact with intergovernmental activities. This includes hosting the Indonesian National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (INCPEC) for the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), the Indonesian Member Committee for the Council for Security Cooperation in Asia Pacific (CSCAP), and the Secretariat for the ASEAN ISIS. CSIS is also a founding institute of the Council for Asia Europe Cooperation (CAEC). Through its active participation in ‘track‐two’ activities, CSIS takes part in efforts to promote regional cooperation (ASEAN, Asia Pacific) and intra‐regional cooperation (ASEM).

http://www.isis.org.my/

http://www.csis.or.id/



CSIS has a longstanding commitment to public education through a variety of avenues, including an intensive seminar program, lectures and conferences, and a bookstore. The CSIS library is regarded as one of the best in Indonesia, and an outstanding resource for students, government and diplomatic personnel, the business community, and members of the public. Departments:

• Economics • Politics & Social Change • International Relations • Regional Partnerships

In the wider Asia‐Pacific region, CSIS is actively involved with regional and international networks of non‐governmental ‘track‐two’ institutions and think‐tanks that interact with intergovernmental activities. This includes hosting the Indonesian National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (INPEC) for the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), the Indonesian Member Committee for the Council for Security Cooperation in Asia Pacific (CSCAP), and the Secretariat for the ASEAN ISIS. CSIS is also a founding institute of the Council for Asia Europe Cooperation (CAEC). Through its active participation in ‘track‐two’ activities, CSIS takes part in efforts to promote regional cooperation (ASEAN, Asia Pacific) and intra‐regional cooperation (ASEM). Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI; http://www.info.tdri.or.th/) The Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) was established in 1984 to conduct policy research and disseminate results to the public and private sectors. TDRI is Thailand's first policy research institute; it was conceived, created and registered as a non‐profit, non‐governmental foundation and is recognized as such by the Royal Thai Government. The Institute provides technical and policy analysis that supports the formulation of policies with long‐term implications for sustaining social and economic development in Thailand. The Institute's research works usually are funded by users of TDRI research, mainly various local and foreign donors. In its earliest period, the Institute was funded by the following fundamental supporters—the National Economic and Social Development Board, the Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the United States Agency for International Development. The Institute's activities are broad in scope. To meet its objectives, the Institute established six research programs and a non‐program research project. Each program is staffed with highly qualified scientists and policy analysts. The six TDRI Programs are: Human Resources and Social Development, International Economic Relations, Macroeconomic Policy, Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Technology Development, and Sectoral Economics. Examples of research projects (in STI related areas)

• Employment Impact of Adoption of New Technology in the Electronics Industry • Enhancing Public Participation in and Reducing Negative Impacts of Free Trade Agreements • Manpower Development Plan for the Enhancement of Country’s Competitiveness • Regional Plan: Manufacturing (Economic) Sector • Kasetsart University Research Capacity Building • The Joint Research under the Projections for the Asian Industrializing Region (PAIR) ‐‐

Forecast for Thailand (PAIR‐Forecast‐Thailand) and FTA for Thailand (PAIR‐FTA‐Thailand) • Reviewing the Poverty Impact of Regional Economic Integration in the Greater • Mekong Sub‐Region

Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS; http://www.pids.gov.ph/) The Philippine Institute for Development Studies was created on September 26, 1977. PIDS was established to respond to the critical and growing need for research for planning and policy formulation. In general, PIDS research is envisioned to help government planners and policy makers in the executive and legislative branches of government. Its primary clientele consists of the network of agencies which make up the National Economic and Development Authority. PIDS was established by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1201. PIDS is organized as a nonstock, nonprofit government corporation. It has a Research Program, Outreach Program, and Dissemination and Research Utilization Program. Roles and Goals:

1) To develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated research program that will provide the research materials and studies required for the formulation of national development plans and policies;

2) To serve as a common link between the government and existing research institutions;

3) To establish a repository for economic research information and other related activities.

http://www.info.tdri.or.th/

http://www.pids.gov.ph/



List of Research Projects: • biotechnology • Economic Perspective for Agricultural Biotechnology Research Planning • Economic Methodology for the Prioritization, Planning & Allocation of National Research, Development &

Extension Program for Corn & Other Major Commodities ‐ Agricultural Biotechnology Research Program Area • Science and Technology for Development • science and technology • Economic Methodology for the Prioritization, Planning & Allocation of National Research, Development &

Extension Program for Corn & Other Major Commodities ‐ Agricultural Biotechnology Research Program Area • Dealing with Technology Policy • Streamlining the Science and Technology Sector for the Country’s Development Goals • Science and Technology for Development • Science and Technology and Economic Growth • Agricultural Technology, Extension, and Women in Rice Farming in the Philippines • Technology Choice • Science and Technology for Development • Science and Technology and Economic Growth • technology diffusion • Agricultural Technology Acquisition, Development and Dissemination in the Private Sector • Department of Science and Technology • Institutional Analysis of R&D Expenditures: Government and Public Sector • Streamlining the Science and Technology Sector for the Country’s Development Goals

National Center For Social Sciences And Humanities Of Vietnam (NCSSH; now the Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences, VASS; http://www.jpvn.org/viet‐or/NCSSH.html) NCSSH has responsibility for organizing and carrying out research projects, training scholars at a high level of specialization, defining the directions and policies for developing the social sciences and humanities in the whole country, and for expanding academic exchange with other countries. NCSSH concentrates on fundamental research in the social sciences and humanities, on international issues, and on relations between countries of the region and the world. It supplies the analytical foundations for forming foreign and domestic policies of the State, for choosing optical solutions for developing the economy, culture, and society, and for developing the branches of the social sciences and humanities themselves. Another fundamental area of activity of NCSSH is carrying out basic socio‐economic investigations of all the regions of the country, forming a scientific basis for researching both the universal trends and distinctive characteristics of all aspects of Vietnamese social life. Together with the development of research fields, NCSSH also is gradually building up an organizational structure and a staff of researchers. The Center currently has 16 institutes, 7 research centers, a museum of ethnology, and various research support offices. The total staff of NCSSH is 1,300 people, of whom 930 are researchers. The remainder are research support staff such as administrators, information personnel, librarians, etc. In 1995, the number of scholars with academic degrees includes: NCSSH is continuously expanding international cooperation as well as exchanging intonation and materials with hundreds of research institutions and with individuals in many countries. NCSSH is ready to cooperate with foreign research institutions and scholars to carry out joint research projects and to organize workshops on topics of common interest. Research Organs 1. Institute Of Philosophy 13. Institute Of Southeast Asian Studies 2. Institute Of State And Law 14. Institute Of Religious Studies 3. Institute Of Economics 15. Institute Of Psychology 4. Institute Of World Economy 16. Institute Of Social Sciences In HCMC 5. Institute Of Sociology 17. Vietnam Museum Of Ethnology 6. Institute Of Literature 18. Center For Chinese Studies 7. Institute Of Han Nom Studies 19. Center For Japanese Studies 8. Institute Of Folklore 20. Center For North American Studies 9. Institute Of Linguistics 21. Center For CIS And East European Studies 10. Institute Of History 22. Center For Family And Women Studies 11. Institute Of Archaeology 23. Center For Human Geography 12. Institute Of Ethnology

Research Service Organs 1. Institute Of Social Science Information

http://www.jpvn.org/viet-or/NCSSH.html



2. “Vietnam‐Social Sciences" Review (In English) 3. "Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi" ("Social Sciences") Publishing House

Contact:

President: Nguyen Duy Quy, Professor, Dr. Vice‐President: Do Hoai Nam, Professor, Ph.D. Vice‐President: Le Huu Tang, Professor, Ph.D. International Cooperation Department 36 Hang Chuoi Str., Hanoi ‐ Tel: 84.4.8259067 ‐ Fax: 84.4.8259071, E‐mail: thong@ir‐ncss.ac.vn Director: Nguyen Duy Thong, Ass. Prof. Vice‐Director: Nguyen Van Ku