Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia

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: asro@idrc.org.sg
Web: www.idrc.org.sg

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 i
International Development Research Centre 2007

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 ii

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 iii

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
2.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda............................................................................. 17
3. Philippines..........................................................................................................................................................19
3.2.      Institutions and coordination ....................................................................................................19
3.3. Science, technology and innovation agenda............................................................................ 22
4. Thailand .............................................................................................................................................................23
4.2. Institutions and coordination .................................................................................................. 24
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
6. Malaysia .............................................................................................................................................................32
Annex A. Regional Councils and Research Organizations............................................................................................36

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

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 & RISTEK RISTEK institutes (i.e. National Research
Technology (RISTEK) LIPI, BPPT) Council (DRN)

Philippines Dept. of Science & Technology DOST DOST NRCP
(DOST)
Councils R&D institutes

National Research Council (NRCP; basic
research)

Vietnam National Council for Science & MOST MOST centres & Vietnamese Academy of
Technology Policy (NCSTP) institutes Science & Technology
(VAST)
Mnistry of Science &
Technology (MOST)

Thailand Ministry of Science & National Science & Technology NSTDA centres NRCT
Technology (MOST) Development Agency (NSTDA)

National Innovation Agency Thailand Research Fund (TRF)
(NIA)
National Research Council (NRCT)

NIA

Malaysia Ministry of Science, Technology MOSTI MOSTI departments & Malaysia Academy of
& Innovation (MOSTI) agencies Sciences (ASM)

Prime Minister’s Office

Singapore Research, Innovation and Agency for Science, Technology & Research A*STAR councils & National Academy of
Enterprise Council (RIEC) (A*STAR) institutes Sciences (SNAS)

National Research Foundation NRF Government, private
(NRF) companies, universities
Economic Development Board (EDB)

Academic Research Fund (ACRF)


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

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 Box 1. Terminology used in this report.
(ASRO) and its Innovation, Policy and Science (IPS) Innovation – for the purposes of the ITS program
Program Area to initiate a study of NIS in six initiative, innovation is defined as the use of new ideas,
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) technologies or ways of doing things, in a place where (or
countries in 2007.  An initial literature and desk study by people for whom) they have not been used before.
was produced by Randy Spence, and was followed Science and technology (S&T) – the term science and
by meetings with policy makers and other thinkers in technology, as well as scientific and technical knowledge,
each country.  These colleagues then came together refers to the full range of social, natural, medical and life
in Singapore on September 10 and 11, 2007, at the sciences, as well as physical and engineering disciplines.
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), to Policy‐relevant research – The term “policy‐relevant” is
discuss the issues and findings of the study, and, as a used here to refer to the range of possible actions that
result, decided to pursue some further areas of could be generated with respect to the organization,
behaviour and action of numerous organizations or
collaboration in national innovation policies and
individual actors implicated in innovation, science and
systems. technology, including government agencies, private
sector firms, entrepreneurs, associations, non‐
IPS works through its Innovation, Technology and government and civil society organizations, universities,
Society (ITS) Program Initiative, whose prospectus legal institutions, international donor organizations, etc.
situates the study, starting with the terminology Source: ITS Prospectus, IDRC 2005, see footnote 1.
presented in Box 1 and including the following
1
excerpt :

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.

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

(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
3
knowledge through research, is a predominant activity in innovation.   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
6
and practitioners in Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Bangkok and Hanoi. 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
8
each country.

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.


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

Policy Funding R&D/Innovation Advisory

Indonesia Ministry of Research & RISTEK RISTEK institutes (i.e. National Research
Technology (RISTEK) LIPI, BPPT) Council (DRN)

Philippines Dept. of Science & DOST DOST NRCP
Technology (DOST)
Councils R&D institutes
National Research Council
(NRCP; basic research)

Vietnam National Council for MOST MOST centres & Vietnamese Academy
Science & Technology institutes of Science &
Policy (NCSTP) Technology (VAST)
Mnistry of Science &
Technology (MOST)

Thailand Ministry of Science & National Science & NSTDA centres NRCT
Technology (MOST) Technology Development
Agency (NSTDA)
National Innovation
Agency (NIA) Thailand Research Fund (TRF)
National Research Council
(NRCT)
NIA

Malaysia Ministry of Science, MOSTI MOSTI departments & Malaysia Academy of
Technology & Innovation agencies Sciences (ASM)
(MOSTI)
Prime Minister’s Office

Singapore Research, Innovation and Agency for Science, A*STAR councils & National Academy of
Enterprise Council (RIEC) Technology & Research institutes Sciences (SNAS)
(A*STAR)
National Research Government, private
Foundation (NRF) NRF companies, universities
Economic Development
Board (EDB)
Academic Research Fund
(ACRF)

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


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
9
discussion and collective action; 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.

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   • ICT access, costs, usage/services
• innovation in and for the BOP • new and alternative energies
• low R&D and innovative culture in industry including biofuels
• university roles, incentives, incubators • agricultural biotechnologies
• IP management and services • medical biotechnologies and new
• private‐research‐public institutional linkages medicines
• innovation financing and venture capital • water management, various
• international linkages and collaboration • global warming and climate
• fostering a culture of innovation in society change
• nanotechnology

♦ 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
10
ongoing basis.

♦ Regional approaches

10
An example is the regular assessment of telecommunications regulatory environment indicators in Asia by LIRNEasia:
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
11
administration.  Participating country councils could provide counterpart contributions; 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
12
high priority.  In this context, the experience of LIRNEasia 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/.


• 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
14
to spectrum, interconnection, tariff/price regulation, anti‐competitive practice and universal service.

• 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


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


Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia

Ähnlich wie Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia (20)

Mehr von iBoP Asia

Mehr von iBoP Asia (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Research Councils and Support Organizations in Southeast Asia