Mới đây mà đã đến thời điểm gần cuối năm! Mấy bữa nay chủ trang web bận rộn túi bụi ở Thái Nguyên, nơi mà tôi rất háo hức ghé thăm lần đầu. Có nhiều điều để viết ra, nhưng tạm thời tôi phải nghỉ lấy lại sức để tiếp tục một loạt bài kế tiếp. Thời gian ở Thái Nguyên tôi có dịp làm quen với nhiều đồng nghiệp rất dễ mến. Nhưng ngạc nhiên hơn là còn có dịp tiếp chuyện với phóng viên của tờ Vietnam News. Chủ đề của bài phỏng vấn là giáo dục đại học và nghiên cứu khoa học, xoay quanh những bài trước đây trên rải rác báo chí Việt Nam. Bài phỏng vấn bằng tiếng Anh (và tôi cũng làm biếng dịch sang tiếng Việt :-)). Phóng viên nói là dùng vài ý trong bài phỏng vấn để lồng vào một bài rộng hơn với tiêu đề “Lack of funds undercuts university quality” (nôm na là vì thiếu tiền nên dẫn đến chất lượng giáo dục đại học kém). Tôi thì nghĩ do tiền là một yếu tố, nhưng yếu tố quan trọng hơn là cơ chế và con người. Xin chia sẻ cùng các bạn. (Sẵn đây xin thông báo cùng các bạn quan tâm là ngày 27/12/2012 tôi sẽ nói 3 bài về cách viết bài báo khoa học ở Khu Công nghệ cao TPHCM, và ngày 7-9/1/2012 sẽ nói về cách xây dựng đề cương nghiên cứu ở Hà Nội). N.V.T

An interview with Vietnam News

Reporter (Thu Huong): There are obviously too many reasons and factors affecting the quality of scientific research in Vietnamese universities: low-paid, working environments, financial support, corruption. From your perspective, what do you think must be fixed immediately? What's the most critical factor affecting the quality of scientific research in Vietnamese universities?

N.V.T: It is now clear that scientific research in Vietnam needs a major reform. At present, we have many institutes and research groups scattered around the country, and their scientific productivity is widely believed to be low, because among others there is little collaboration among them. From my perspective, re-organization of research units is the most important priority for Vietnam. Modern research is a collaborative effort which requires specialists from various disciplines to work on a specific problem. This is true because scientists from different disciplines work best when they interact within a good environment. Therefore, we need few world-class multidisciplinary institutes, and a number of specialized key laboratories. These big institutes and satellite laboratories should be granted academic automony to pursue research areas deemed to have the greatest relevance to society.

Reporter: Can you talk about the scientific research environment at the Garvan Institute where you're working?

N.V.T: The Garvan Institute of Medical Research is a premier non-profit medical research institute in the world (and in Australia). The Institute’s reputation for excellence is largely reflected by its high quality scientists who team up to work in 5 research programs, including cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, immunology, and neurobiology. At present, the Garvan Institute employs about 500 scientists and technical staff, who each year publish around 250 original papers in leading international journals.

The Garvan’s success can be attributed to its great scientific environment, which is characterized by brilliance of the scientific leadership, intense collaboration, and supportive technology. Because most faculties of the Garvan Institute are world class scientists, they are in a good position to select research directions that are likely to yield the greatest impact on human health. Intramural and extramural collaborations provide excellent opportunity for broadening research areas and increasing scientific productivity. Moreover, the Institute has continuously invested heavily in modern technology which in turn plays a very important role in keeping the Institute’s leading edge in new scientific frontiers. The Garvan Institute is also a good employer, in the sense that it attracts and retains good scientists by offering competitive salaries and flexible package (eg health insurance, superannuation, publication award, etc) to scientists and technical staff. I think the Garvan is an interesting model that Vietnam should consider in the establishment of new research institutes.

Reporter: You spoke to Tuoi Tre newspaper about the quality of Vietnamese scientific papers in Southeast Asia, only after Singapore and Thailand? Is that the case while it seems we are falling behind most of the universities in Southeast Asia? Do you think the policymakers have been focused too much on getting the numbers right, not on implementing the actual changes in policies?

N.V.T: There is no doubt that in terms of scientific research, Vietnamese universities are lagging behind other leading universities in Asia and ASEAN region. The number of international peer-reviewed publications from Vietnam is lower than that from a leading university in Thailand (eg Mahidol University, Chulalongkorn University) and in Malaysia (eg University Malaya). However, my analysis showed that the quality of research of Vietnam (as measured by citation index) is equivalent to that of Singapore and South Korea, but higher than other ASEAN countries.

I think it is fair to say that policy-makers in Vietnam have been busy in the building of infrastructure for research, and as a result, they have paid little attention to scientific output and research quality. For a long time, scientists and professors in Vietnam are neither under pressure nor encouraged to publish their research in international peer reviewed journals. That partly explains why the presence of Vietnamese presence in the international scientific arena is very modest. There are, however, positive signs from the Government. In a recently released strategic plan, the Minister of Science and Technology has announced that international peer-reviewed publication will be used as a metric of scientific output. With this new development, I expect to see a rapid increase in scientific output from Vietnam in the coming years.

Reporter: Do you think if the professors and teaching staff in Vietnamese universities have more money, then our scientific research quality can be improved? Is money and financial problems the main obstacle in scientific research?

N.V.T: The short answer to your last question is No -- I do NOT think spending more money on scientific research will automatically improve the scientific output. Vietnam now has about 9500 professors and more than 25000 PhDs. However, the number of international peer-reviewed publications is only ~1300, suggesting a very low productivity. During the past 5 years, the State budget for scientific research has continuously increased, but the scientific productivity has not changed. Therefore, spending more money on science has not necessarily translated into improved scientific output.

Indeed, while money is critically important, people is even more important in scientific research. We can pour a lot of money in research, but if we do not have high quality researchers, the money can potentially be misspent and there will be no improvement. I strongly believe that at present (and in the near future) we need to build a critical mass of high quality scientists to ensure a successful investment in science and technology.