 |
Why do most scientific research topics fail to meet real-world needs? Pictured: Visitors at the Techmart Vietnam 2005 in Ho Chi Minh City. |
Every year, a scientist can produce numerous machines and devices funded by the budget. However, most inventions from scientific research are rejected by reality. Why is that?
Over 80% of scientific topics are shelved!
A few years ago, a group of scientists from the Mechanical Engineering Department of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology successfully created a rice paper production machine. This project was funded by the state budget. The machine cost 470 million VND, significantly lower than the price of imported machines, which is around 110,000 USD. However, when a food processing unit in Ho Chi Minh City purchased it, they were shocked to find that the machine only operated reliably for a short period before becoming unstable, producing more defective products than good ones, ultimately rendering it useless.
Recently, the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Science and Technology approved a project for a cane harvester that does not strip leaves, developed by a company over two years with funding from the department, approximately 1 billion VND. The project was deemed successful by the approval council, with a selling price of 200 million VND, excluding the tractor valued at 250 million VND. However, this machine could only operate on flat terrain, and it was ineffective for the approximately 100,000 hectares of cane cultivated in the traditional raised bed style prevalent in the Mekong Delta. Furthermore, according to a council member who has worked in the agricultural machinery sector for many years, the machine frequently malfunctions, making it unreliable. Consequently, the Department of Science and Technology allocated an additional 120 million VND for the developers to create a specialized cane leaf stripping machine.
In contrast, two years ago, China began mass-producing (and was willing to sell to Vietnam) a complete cane harvesting machine that cuts the stalks and leaves while stripping them clean for only about 50 million VND, and it is very versatile across various terrains.
On a broader scale, although there is no official statistic, some leading scientists estimate that only 10%-20% of technical inventions can be applied practically, with this percentage decreasing for higher-level projects. This does not even include social science research, which is often very vague and difficult to apply in practice.
Causes: Disconnect from reality and inadequate mechanisms
Explaining why most scientists’ inventions are met with rejection, Dr. Dinh Son Hung, Deputy Director of the Ho Chi Minh City Institute of Economics, acknowledged that scientific projects often have a certain disconnect from reality. When conducting research, scientists do not thoroughly survey the actual conditions and lack in-depth engagement.
The testing process often occurs under ideal conditions, overlooking many everyday details, making it understandable that the products are “out of sync” with “real life.”
Several years ago, some scientists from the Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology developed a waste treatment system.
The project was successfully approved and installed in Lai Vung District, Dong Thap Province. However, this machine system, worth over 1.5 billion VND, only operated for a few days before becoming silent and eventually turned into scrap.
The main reason was that the type of waste present in the local area did not match the types of waste tested by the researchers, rendering the equipment ineffective. Projects like this would not pass approval if the review board were more precise in their evaluations.
According to Dr. Dinh Son Hung, regarding project oversight, the criteria for choosing council members and evaluating projects are still not rigorous or clear, and assessments often lean towards subjectivity.
Professor Dr. Nguyen Thuc Loan (Institute for Energy Development Research), former Head of the Cybernetics Department at the State Committee for Science and Technology (now the Ministry of Science and Technology), believes that the main cause is the system itself.
Research funding is already low and is often “divided among many“, “lost along the way” at various “checkpoints“, with many expenses not documented, leading to little money left for actual research, and consequently, the quality of research is not as expected.
Projects and initiatives are often executed based on directives and quotas rather than as responses to urgent or long-term needs of life.
Due to a lack of support and the absence of a “conductor,” research results often fail to commercialize as products without the oversight of economic managers, and labor is improperly utilized (engineers doing manual labor…).
The compensation system is not commensurate, so currently, less than one-third of Ph.D. holders are involved in scientific research, while more than two-thirds become mere “teaching workers.”
Professor Loan emphasized: “A nation that wishes to develop strongly must have breakthroughs in science and technology. To have an advanced scientific foundation, it is essential to have policies for training, attracting, and effectively utilizing human resources. Economic success relies on the outcomes of applying scientific and technological advancements, especially high technology, in practice.“.
