COMMENT In an interview published in February 2014 at the now defunct FZ.com , the director of for the International Council for Science’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Prof Emeritus Dr Mohd Nordin Hasan, puts his finger on the same issue that has perturbed me for a while - how we do not know the logic that drives the production of science and technology policies produced in Malaysia, whether for the planning of more science or for the development of science education.

Further, he speaks to what has been missing in the representation and critique of science and technology - the engagement of scholars who can illuminate connections that scientists, themselves too wedded or self-interested in the work of science production, may not heed.

After all, the issue of separation of powers attributed to state governance is also applicable to the production of critical inquiries and interdisciplinary-problem solving such as I have discussed in a previous article. In fact, it is not always clear as to the rationale governing the choices behind ‘priority’ areas, unless you take the policy plans and reverse engineer the arguments in relation to what we know about the history of science and technological developments in Malaysia.

One might concede to a bigger plan within these policies - for producing the required skill-set and knowledge to lift Malaysia into a higher-income bracket while improving the competitiveness of its labour force.

Despite efforts to improve interest in, and passion for, science at the school level through science camps, science clubs, science fairs, and enrichment activities targeted at school-going children, it is not always clear as to where this pipeline is leading to, given the incommensurability between attempts at producing more 'creative' and intellectually critical younger generation and the practices of a still rather exam-centric system, where the achievements of a child in other areas of scientific creativity are less rewarded.

In my view, there are too many leaks in the policy pipeline when considering the deployment of science in society from multiple directions and needs, from schools to research centers and industry, as the connections between desire and needs are not clearly rendered in the policies.

Such discrepancies have partially been highlighted by researchers mulling over the problem of 'skilled-labour shortage' in Malaysia. There are no shortage of science-based or science-education organisations that have voiced their concerns about the direction in which scientific research, and the education of a newer generation of researchers, are going.

There has even been a recommendation to send the kids to the workforce so they are acclimatised to the demands and needs at an earlier age.

However, I have not read any recommendations about including the same students in university research groups or to allow them to take courses at the university during school breaks, or as extra credit, because the current education programme available to the masses (as opposed to those who could afford to attend schools with different systems) is too inflexible to accommodate such requirements.

Moreover, much of science and technology policy studies in Malaysia are concentrated on capital gains and the adjustments that must be made by the industry, and the government's role in making that happen.

There is insufficient study about the problems of scientific practice within Malaysia, the prioritising of certain research over others (and the rationale behind such choices), the problem of research in relation to the ranking system of the universities, how funding is obtained and disseminated, science curriculum, disciplinary prestige, long-term scientific strategies, and even about the decades of neglect in communicating science.

Landscape is changing

However, I note that the landscape is changing in the latter case as social media such as Facebook is allowing groups to commune and discuss problems they observe with regard to scientific understanding in society (with varying degrees of success) and new generations of scientists are increasingly interested in communicating their work to people outside their immediate communities.

The rhetorical and broad-strokes one reads in policy reports do not provide sufficient indication as to how all the proposed programs are supposed to be implemented (and one does not even hear much about these programs once they are proposed and published).

In addition, the policy suggestions appear strained and often lack insight into the actual manner in which scientific knowledge, and knowledge in general, operates, perhaps hinting on the narrowness of ‘expertise’, and therefore of insights, from those involved in the process of drafting the policy.

On the other hand, the lack can be an indication of the censoring of such insights. What one needs is a debate of these policies with more stakeholders involved, rather than merely a one-directional dissemination, as is largely the case now.

We need feedback from educators, scientists, and others engaged in the studies of scientific practice. Otherwise, these policies are not given the due weight and thought as they should be, and funds are wastefully spent without proper direction and expectations.

Therefore, it is vital to consider the people tasked with drawing up these policies: a search reveals the use of private consultancy firms, and also science experts (who might or might not be practicing scientists) that might have strengths in industrial strategising and the content knowledge of the field they have trained or worked in, but, as had been pointed out, lack the capacity to have a holistic view of how such plans can be implemented from a sociological perspective.

Further, they also lack the historical insight that a scholar dedicated to understanding the evolution of scientific and technological ideas, concepts, and practices are able to provide. In developed countries, national science agencies are beginning to include anthropologists, sociologists, historians and even philosophers to ensure that different problems of scientific production are laid bare and interrogated, even if there are still be some shortcomings.

Involve students in the process

Moreover, why not involve students, from undergraduates to graduate students, in the process, so that they too get a better picture of the national development schemes? After all, it is not unknown for senior researchers to draw their references from their more junior counterparts and students.

Cross-disciplinary teams of people not only produce policies with more vitality, but also provide greater level of creativity and flexibility built into these policies not only at the planning, but also implementation, stage. Further, one must know that science is not only of consequence for technological applications, but has a role to play in shaping the minds of society.

Otherwise, why would a prestigious international organisation such as CERN that had played such a leading role in all areas of developments in nuclear and particle physics, as well as in the transfer of technology from basic science to applied science and medicine, bother with artist residencies?

The National Science Foundation of the United States has sociologists and historians of science in its employ. High-end technology and design firms have brought together scientists, philosophers, science fiction writers, and artists to help them envision the future of how people would live and what products they might consume.

At the risk of being left behind, Malaysia needs to reflect deeply into its rather outmoded idea of what science and technology is, and who should be allowed in the shaping of the latter’s discourses and practices.

CLARISSA AI LING LEE is a recent PhD from Duke University, specialising in science and technology studies and comparative media studies. She researches and writes on issues relating to science, history of science and technology, and science policy. She blogs at scandalousthoughts.wordpress.com