THIS is what I always tell my students: “Decisions on science are not solely made based on scientific facts but politics, emotions, ethics, religious norms and trade issues.”
To understand this better, read the article on how nuclear energy reduces the CO2 footprint which we publish on page 3 of this issue.
France reduced its CO2 emission from 500 grams per kWh to 70 grams after going nuclear in 1973. But this has not convinced many other countries to follow suit including Malaysia.
Other sectors in science, such as genetically modified foods (GM) and new breeding technologies suffer the same fate. While France made science-based decision on power generation, the country banned GM crops. And here is one reason among the many.
The green activists made a deal with President Nicolas Sakorzy to trade off GM technology for nuclear energy. The deal was either nuclear energy or GM crops. It was a blackmail tactic of the greenies and the French government bowed to the pressure.
I do hope in science, sound decisions will prevail over ideology, emotions and bad press. In Malaysia, we have policies that are not possible to implement like the Amended Food Safety Act that calls for labelling of GM foods. It has been on hold since 2010 because it is almost impossible to enforce it. I remember when I was involved in the consultation process on labelling of GM foods – the proposal from Ministry of Health was – zero threshold. However, I countered that it will not be possible to implement and enforce. I presented a paper on this. Today, even with three per cent threshold, we are not labelling GM foods yet. [ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”2,3″ ihc_mb_template=”1″ ]
Then we have the Biosafety Act and its regulations. Due to its stringent and tedious procedures, scientists have given up working on GM technologies, although import of GM grains is allowed in the country.
And now we have the roadmap towards zero single-use plastic by 2030.
While everyone agrees on the hazards brought by single-use plastics, a zero ban is not practical. It should be zero waste and not zero usage.
Is it possible for our researchers to find a solution in the name of bioplastics in another 11 years? Biodegradable plastics that offer the same functionality, that degrades 100 per cent in a landfill and that is cost effective – these are just some of the properties that need to be ironed out.
Malaysia has never provided research grant for the same project seamlessly for more than five years. Our research priorities shift so very often and grants are given in bits and pieces and this does not allow the research to see the light of day in terms of achieving commercialisation. Here, I am talking about high-end technology, and not aromatherapy and health supplements.
Will our research environment provide the impetus to scientists to develop bioplastic that is economically viable that meets all the industrial applications?
I feel, many of our policies are based on ideology and rhetoric instead of facts. Our education policies are good examples as well.
It is indeed scary to think about the future of science and technology in this country. A recent article in The Star newspaper (23 March 2019) reported that there are lesser jobs for graduates; decline in demand for high-skilled jobs; and most entry jobs for graduates are sales and marketing.
This is not surprising as we have become a technology user and not an innovator. Can we still hope that this will change?
It is acceptable for skilled Malaysians to work overseas but when the time comes for Malaysians to be forced to become menial labourers outside our shores, perhaps, that will come as a rude shock to us.
I hope we will wake up to this reality sooner than later. It is time for science, rational- thinking and far-sightedness to prevail. [/ihc-hide-content]
