The technological breakthroughs are catalysed for economic prosperity and now, it is high time to set up ten more research institutes to address global technology demand, the former Executive Director of National Institute of Fundamental Studies Professor Saman Senaweera said. Professor Senaweera , who is one of the top rated Agriculture scientists in the world currently serving for University of Melbourne Australia.
In an interview with Lankasara he expressed his views about Sri lanka’s current crisis and future prospects that can be reached through science and technology.
Q As a key administrator of the country’s foremost scientific institute, how do you see Sri Lanka’s intention for science & technology?
A The National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) was established in 1981 under a special Act of Parliament to promote basic research in the country. At that time, the Head of the State realized that fundamental research was critical for technological discovery and thus the development of the country.
Countries like India, Pakistan, Korea, and China followed this path and have achieved great success.
Regrettably, our successive leaders failed to perceive this necessity; perhaps a lack of comprehension diverted their attention away from these thoughts. Investment in science is less than 0.2% of GDP, compared to other countries is the lowest in the region. This amount of spending on science is negligible, and spending on basic science is almost non-existent. If a country is to progress, it needs to invest in science, R&D, and high-quality basic science.
Q You are saying that there are certain levels of applied research but no adequate basic research. Pl elaborate this
A Everyone in a bureaucratic position only understands application science; and quick results. The result of basic science takes a long time and takes ages to develop into the application or R&D outcomes. Therefore there is no priority funding from the government for basic research; thus fundamental scientists are struggling, and they have no voice or support in the system. I strongly believe this political system should be changed, but I do not see leadership with this vision. Further, very good fundamental scientists are switching to applied research because there is no funding support for it. Therefore, the strengthening of basic science research in the country is important; this will bring many benefits including economically socially and culturally. For example, some of the fundamental science-led projects at NIFS created many opportunities. Now it is a matter for the leadership to capitalize on such developments for long-term benefits. There are many institutes dedicated to applied science research but hardly any for basic research except NIFS. Now, it is high time to set up ten more institutes like NIFS to address global technology demand. Technological breakthroughs are catalysts for economic prosperity.
Q How a country benefits from basic research?
A – All major breakthroughs in the world have occurred as a result of fundamental research. If we only invest in applied research, such innovation is unlikely to emerge in this system. Science education and knowledge development of fundamental science are critical. There you will find the fundamentals of everything. There are two classic examples at NIFS; a research team worked on microbial nitrogen fixation for nearly 20 years, focusing on the fundamental aspects of how microbes fix nitrogen. They accidentally identified special characteristics, some of the microbes capable of forming filmed substances, and later discovered that these proteins have adhesive properties. They also discovered a variety of similar microbes that can transfer nutrients from the soil to plants on a constant basis. After 20 years, the entire concept was brought together for a patent, which is now commercialised and nationally adopted. This product is known as a biofertilizer in the market, and it can reduce nitrogen use in rice cropping systems by 20%. In the end, both the government and the Institute benefit greatly from this. At the same time, there is a significant environmental benefit because of the significant reduction in nitrogen fertiliser use leading to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
The NIFS battery research programme is another example. Initially, the team focused on the unique properties of Sri Lankan minerals. Years of scientific research led to the discovery of unique characteristics in our graphite, which were subsequently utilised to create rechargeable graphite batteries. NIFS developed and subsequently patented all the required technology to manufacture the battery. At the same time, we were in the process of establishing a state-owned enterprise when the project proposal was formulated, and feasibility studies were conducted. Viyathmaga’s intrusion gravely jeopardised the entire progress made on this project. Everyone wanted to be part of the project, and as a result, the project’s progression was halted. According to initial estimates, it would cost $300 million to move forward with this project, with an expected annual return of ten times that amount annually. I’ve seen a large number of similar potential projects in NIFS as well as other institutes around the country. I am convinced that if the government makes the proper investments in these areas, there is a tremendous opportunity to bring dollars into the country. It is also beneficial to conduct a postmortem to determine why these projects failed; my observations are very consistent with poor leadership, particularly political; the Board and the chairman acted like bullies. This is an unfortunate occurrence; this was the case for the entire country; people from the Viyathmaga bucket wreaked havoc throughout the nation. Prior to that, I never encountered any politics within NIFS; everything ran smoothly. I believe this is natural when the wrong individuals attempt to run an institution. This must not occur; only qualified individuals should be entrusted with positions of leadership. These organizations should be run by a scientist with good credibility, not NGO people or politicians.
Q Are there dedicated institutions working on basic research?
A NIFS is the only organisation in the country that conducts fundamental research. Universities do some basic research, but there are no other institutions like NIFS. Further, it is high time to set up a few fundamental research institutes connected with NIFS and Universities. This undoubtedly makes a significant contribution to the country’s advancement of scientific discoveries. Additionally, this will open up opportunities for the creation of knowledge, which is crucial for the nation’s economic and technological advancement.
Q As a former head of NIFS how did you optimize the promotion of basic research to the country?
A I began working as executive director of the NIFS in 2018 and left the position in 2021. Even though it was the country’s most turbulent time, I was initially well-supported. As a scientist conducting basic research, I too did my best to advance fundamental science. NIFS also worked vigorously on a science dissemination programme, which is led by one of the most experienced and qualified groups. We were able to bring fundamental science to schools and the general public through this programme. However, similar strategies were not observed at the Ministry of Education’s higher levels. Additionally, we launched a number of initiatives at the Institute, such as specialised graduate conferences, academic metrics systems, the hiring of adjunct professors, an instrument pool, a research office, increased research publications, increased public outreach initiatives, the development of our own e-platform, a new website, setting up four national research centres, the introduction of a 150Kw solar power system that will supply half of the institute’s electricity needs, and numerous workshops and training programmes for enhancing postgraduate training. All of these initiatives aided in raising the institute’s visibility, which was amply demonstrated by its ranking. When I first joined NIFS, the ranking was 37 (webometrics); three years later, it had risen to 17. I consider this a major accomplishment. When I left NIFS, the AD ranking, which is another ranking system, the institute was number two in the country. Even though my time was extremely limited, I was able to influence the institute’s growth trajectory in a noticeable way.
Q What are the main constraints that block the involvement of science and technology for the development of the country?
A The major constraints are the politically motivated board, government policies, and funding, especially the institute’s chairmanship. Every month, the government makes changes to its policies; there were four ministers during my tenure as director. I do not say all politicians are bad; there were good visionary people who knew the ground reality. Equally, some ministers had no clue what they did. When these weak personalities are in decision-making positions, there is not much you can do to make anything progress. It has become the whole culture of Sri Lanka. As far as I’m aware, this institute was led by a number of charismatic individuals. After me, there were two directors, and I hope they won’t face the same difficulties that I faced. NIFS’ Act is a very powerful document; as CEO, the director has a major role in managing the institute. The board is supposed to moderate the operation, not take control of the director’s responsibilities. During my time, when things were terribly and illegally manipulated by the Board, I had to seek legal advice from the Appeals Court. The allocation of science funding at the policy level needs to receive more attention. Leadership should be given to young people, which is hardly seen in this country. Politics is the main sticking point; if we want to improve these organisations and advance the country, this Institute should be free of political clowns and power-hungry thugs who manipulate people using politicians as their safety blanket.
Q We are experiencing governments appointing politically affiliated persons as heads of such institutions. Comment on that.?
A As I mentioned earlier, this kind of development is extremely harmful to the development of this institute. In the current system, young, talented, and dynamic individuals do not ask for top government positions. When these positions become available, especially chairmanships, only political clowns jump into them and abuse and misuse their power. I had one negative experience, and the Viyathmaga influence was felt throughout the entire nation. I had the chance to work with two chairmen; they were responsible and qualified for the position. As a result, we were well-supported and able to make good progress. Although the ideological makeup of previous boards was varied, politics was never discussed in the boardroom or institute. Sadly, the majority of Viyathmaga people are extremely homogeneous, and this was true for the NIFS Board. Placing Viyathmage clowns in positions of power was the main cause for the current catastrophe the nation is facing.
To deal with such challenges, the government must establish a national watchdog. Such organizations should be led by people who have a proven track record, with credibility in their discipline. Especially, boards and chairmanships should be chosen with care; in particular, when selecting a chairman for an institute, he or she should fit into the organization’s subject area and have a strong, positive, and dynamic reputation. In many cases, I’ve witnessed completely inexperienced people being posted to the chairmanship. In such scenarios, most of these organizations will fail, and finally, the blame goes to the government. Therefore, successive governments should try and identify well-qualified, disciplined and ethical people to run and or lead all the public institutions in the country; otherwise, institutional failure will lead to economic collapse in the country as we see in current times.
Q What are the key areas that those institutions like IFS should focus on their research these days?
A I believe that NIFS should prioritise fundamental research. It should continue to fulfil its mandate to train graduate students in the interim. If there is a significant advancement in fundamental research, consideration for developing applications should be given. In this way, we might only see a few high-quality patents and commercialisation, which will be high-value commercial applications, rather than hundreds of low value patents and commercialisation. Additionally, IFS has established a track record of research in fields such as theoretical physics, natural chemistry, plant taxonomy, soil fertility, and energy. It is wise to make these areas stronger. Furthermore, a high-power review panel, not the minister’s choice, should evaluate NIFS. There weren’t many reviews during my tenure, and those that were, were very ordinary, ministerial picks which made the review process look and feel like a joke. Such an institute ought to be assessed by an international team with expertise in both science and the vision and mission of the institute.
Q We see a big silence from scientific community despite the country suffers with gigantic issues in many aspects. Why and how they get involved in ?
A The Covid pandemic and the Black Sunday attacks are just a few of the significant catastrophes that hit the nation. Despite all of these, I have yet to witness academics assuming a leadership role to move the nation forwards; they are divided like politicians. There are a lot of university academic staff members, with more than 2000 PhDs nationwide. Accademics should put forth a good master plan to move the country forward. This will put a lot of pressure on the government and also encourage everyone to unite behind them. As the highest paid government employees in the country, these individuals ought to work together to advance the nation, putting aside their politics and minor differences.