Culture shift; research for people’s benefit

by Professor Athula Sumathipala

Two elections went without much fuss unlike in the past, particularly without any post-election violence. The new cabinet of ministers have sworn in, especially with a Minister for Science and Technology and the parliament has started its business. However, cannot be ‘business as usual’.

During the inauguration of the first session of the tenth parliament, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake reiterated the role of science, technology and research in nation building. He stated that “we believe that the area where our economy can undergo a significant transformation is science and technology. If we examine the developed countries around the world, each has invested a substantial portion of its annual budget in new research”.

He also went on to say that “our goal is to make a significant leap in the field of scientific research. This is why we have established a dedicated Ministry of Science and Technology and appointed former Professor Chrishantha Abeysena from the Ragama Medical Faculty, who has vast experience in the field”. We have also appointed individuals like Prof Gomika Udugamasuriya, who has conducted major research in the United States and brought international recognition to Sri Lanka, as the Advisor to the President on Science and Technology. We expect this transformation in science and technology to bring about a major impact”.

The two-thirds mandate received by the President was ensured by the floating voters paving the way for a new political culture. The strong powerful message via a two-thirds mandate is not only for the politicians. It sends a strong signal to the government officials, and it does not stop there. It’s an equally strong, message for intellectuals, academic, and scientists.

It is also important to realise that the positions given to people in top research institutions are not privileges to be abused based on personal agenda, and the issue of zero tolerance for corruption and abuse of power is equally applicable to them too. Similarly, the message to the researchers is not just ‘publish or perish’. It’s not going to be business as usual and therefore the new slogan is, culture shift – research for peoples benefit; research for service and product development.

Research & Development, Innovation and Technology Transfer

The post-industrial knowledge economy of today clearly displays the close correlation among economic growth, innovation and indigenous research capacity. University-based research has been the most effective driver of such economically-relevant innovation. As a result, leveraging the public investment in universities and other institutions to stimulate innovative research and development (R&D) is now a critical need for a country to remain competitive in the global arena.

Most high-ranking universities in the world are not just teaching universities but they have transformed into to research universities. However, Sri Lanka needs a paradigm shift to make research and innovation core components of and not just in postgraduate education, but also in undergraduate to produce individuals with both a creative vision for innovation as well as sufficient intellectual breadth and depth to realise that vision. There is a clear association between a country’s health, research and development investment.

What is a strategy?

To me, a strategy is about capturing opportunities arising in a dynamic world, as scientific opportunities cannot always be foreseen. The flexibility to respond to novel ideas with solid potential is therefore crucial for success. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented window of opportunity for research worldwide. Sri Lanka requires innovative R&D contributions to re-stabilise the economy, to ensure national security and for sustainable development in strategically important areas.

Therefore, a ‘culture shift’ is a must if research is for peoples benefit.

Culture shift – what does it entail?

Any culture shift demands change in thinking, feelings and behaviours; the triad. According to the cognitive theory thoughts are central to any feelings or behaviour. The way people think determine how they feel and behave. Therefore, ‘attitudes’ which is a significant component of thinking need to change for any modification in thinking or behaviour to happen.

What is success?

At the end of the day what we all want, either as individuals or as a society is ‘success’. It’s also crucial to understand that success is not a destination but it’s a journey But how do you define success?

The definition of ‘success’ is determined by one’s attitude towards ‘success’. Does it mean personal success or material gains for one’s own benefits or does it mean the public good arising from one’s efforts? Therefore, the resulting vision, strategy, focus all heavily depend on the attitude towards success, which is the driving force.

But that success should essentially be beyond “self”. Hence if one gets his attitude wrong, the resulting vision, strategy, focus all can be directed towards a ‘success’ which may even be a destructive one. The classic example is the LTTE separatist war, the war that brought destruction to every one irrespective of the language one spoke. Similarly, where knowledge is power and that too can cater to a destructive end.

Success in research

For a researcher, an institution where he is affiliated may have a proud history, may be a place of research excellence with a reputation for cutting edge research, an institution supporting future research leaders. But what does it mean to an ordinary citizen? What would such an institution offer for them? The ‘so what’ question, for the ordinary citizen.

It’s high time to reflect on this – research for whose benefit?

An academic or research institution can be a place that can offer a degree, a job, better life, promotion, good marriage, patent, opportunity to see the world through academic travel, publications, a thesis to hang dust in a library. However, let’s question over selves – what is there beyond us and for public good.

Serious reflection on what is beyond us is an urgent need; that is what the culture shift – research for people’s benefits demands. A paradigm shift in the way we look at the benefits and impact of research one does. In simplest term, impact is making a difference to people’s lives.

Why beyond us? Because we are products of free public education, we use public funds for research, and even public knowledge; the knowledge is also on most occasions is something others have left behind and we are enriching them through research.

Therefore, we have a moral and ethical obligation to think beyond us. It’s not only the politicians who should be transparent and accountable. We academics too are answerable to the public. This is the salient feature not recognised enough by the academia.

This is the culture shift I am talking about. Therefore, in the journey towards a ‘culture shift’, the ethos and the attitudes are crucial. Bad attitude is like a flat tire, you cannot go anywhere without changing it. Hence attitude change is central to everything.

Please also do remember change is generally resisted and challenging the ‘norm’ may be faced with significant animosity, especially from ego centric, self-centred, especially insecure personalities and power brokers.

In order to achieve an attitude change, it has to come within. Such an internal change will ignite the change externally. It’s a synergistic process. That is where agents of change are needed, it’s a prerequisite for a culture shift.

Hence to make this ‘culture shift; research for peoples benefit’, the agents of change should be scientists and researchers themselves. We need far sighted future research leaders, to be role models and genuine and committed research leaders. Such leadership attributes will count much more than academic brilliance. Hence a serious reflection of the attitudes of scientists of our time is demanded by the prevailing circumstances; especially in the current context.

In doing so we need to realise that, an action without a vision is drudgery and vision without action is only dreaming. Never dream, because those can easily be forgotten, instead we should have targets. Hence such a vision coupled with action can change the word.

We should remember any such change especially, a culture shift in research for peoples benefits need good teams and ethos to ignite transferable and sustainable changes. In such teams we need visionaries, theoreticians, but also pragmatists and activists. All these attributes will be rare in one person, and that is why we need teams. However, in a team; a true leader is different from a manager or a boss. Leaders manage the future and managers manage the day to day ‘mess’.

However, a ‘boss is even different to a manager. A true leader is a coach, a mentor, relies on goodwill, generates enthusiasm among the team members, say we, develop people, give credits to others and share benefits while accept the blame and defeat. They bind team members together. However, a ‘Boss’, demand and rely on authority only, says I, use people, take credit for success but blame others for failures, and thinks only about ‘my way’, and are ego centric and self-centred people.

The art of science is very much different from science. Most of the scientists are generally very good at their science. But what they lack is the art of science. That is the art of delivering scientific benefits by communicating about them to policy planners for public good and converting them into products and services. Ironically the conceptual frame work is non-existent in majority.

That is why there is plenty of research describing the problem (descriptive research) but no intervention research to rectify the problem. There is so much of descriptive research on CKDU (chronic kidney disease of unknown origin) but people continue to suffer from kidney failure and finally die short of their life. There is a load of research on human and elephant conflict but people continue to die being attacked by elephants. People still have to talk about monkeys challenging human life.

That is why a culture shift – research for people’s benefit is needed. But what should be the process.

The new government has a Ministry science and technology. However, is it only the duty of the Minister, the Ministry officials and the scientist and the far-sighted research leaders? No, the public also has an equal duty and responsibility. Why?

The public has an equal responsibility as they should not be expected to be passive recipients of the benefits. But a critique may say ‘do the general public have any insight into the word research’. Such an attitude is also a serious misperception that needs to change if one is expected to have a tangible culture shift. But is it a utopia?

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) or community engagement in medical research is firmly established in the West. It is now extending as a fundamental element of health research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). It place public contributors at the centre of research and its outcomes, and helps ensure that its scope, processes, and evaluation are more relevant, appropriate and beneficial to the end users of research. There is overwhelming research evidence that the public frequently prioritise themes topics for research that are different to those of academics and health professionals. Research evidence also demonstrates that the quality and appropriateness of research is enhanced and the likelihood of successful recruitment to studies increased, and implementation of the findings is improved when the public are involved and engaged in research.

It is a process of active partnership between researchers, professionals, and members of the public in prioritising, designing and delivering research. It is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them”.

The above is an absolutely essential component if one is serious in making this culture shift- research for peoples benefit.

Beyond any doubt what so ever we have brilliant researchers’ world leading in terms of conventional indicators of ‘success’ entirely from and academic point of view. However even that is also fragmented and patchy. There has to be an overarching research culture but even that will not deliver as it will be ‘business as usual’.

Finally it also demands not working in silos but in a truly respectful and mutually beneficial partnership. In such an ethos plagiarism (taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.) should be thoroughly condemned as it is a moral violation of research ethics. Patents will never be the sole protection against plagiarism. The silent good majority should be educated and empowered. Such a collective effort with public engagement and involvement will pave the way for the culture shift- research for peoples benefit which is a slogan of a minority right now. But it can be made ‘infectious’.

So once again let me reiterate – we need a culture shift – research for people benefit

Let’s work collectively not just to make Sri Lanka the granary of Asia, but also the intelligence warehouse/hub of Asia.