Sunday Times 2
Exodus of scientists from research institutes to universities – A national malady
There is a tendency for qualified and experienced research officers to leave the three key research institutes – the Tea Research Institute (TRI), the Rubber Research (RRI) and the Coconut Research Institute (CRI) after obtaining post-graduate qualifications, preferably at the PhD level, to join national universities, leaving a huge void in the research institutes.
Obviously, one cannot expect the research institutes to deliver the research obligations in the absence of the qualified research personnel and this is a core weakness research institutes are confronted with at present. Scientists are the bedrock of research institutes and no crop research can survive in the absence of qualified and experienced research personnel. Given below are the number of vacancies available in the research cadres as of October 1, 2020. See table.
It is abundantly clear from table 01 that TRI, RRI and CRI are heavily understaffed in research positions. All in all, 81 research vacancies exist at present. The most vulnerable is the tea sector that brings in billions in foreign exchange to the country. It is difficult to imagine how the TRI performs research activities in the absence of 16 key research personnel.
The RRI is the most affected institute with 42 cadre vacancies to be filled. The sad episode is that the three research institutes have five heads of department vacancies and it is this category that has a distinctive demand from universities. As a result of research officers with PhD qualification leaving the research institutes, these institutes are reported to be on the verge of collapse. They find it difficult to retain their research officers to conduct research. The research positions are dwindling at a precipitously accelerated rate and it will be nigh well possible to retain them, as universities have resorted to headhunt them at the expense of the research institutes. In the same predicament is the CRI which saw 23 scientists leaving the institute in recent times.
Impact of monolithic trade union
It is to be noted here that prior to 2000, the salaries, allowances and other perks of the research institutes were the second highest next to the Central Bank and therefore research institutes had a distinct advantage to recruit the cream of the cream passed out from universities. But this scenario changed with the emergence of the powerful university academic staff trade union commonly known as FUTA – the Federation of Universities Teachers Association. This monolithic trade union flexed its trade union muscle in seeking redress for grievances over the salary, allowances and other perks of the academic staff.
FUTA’s bargaining method has been aggressive and its political links with governments enabled it to enhance the emolument packages, surpassing the research staff. The Salaries and Cadre Commission and the General Treasury when granting higher emoluments to university academics were unmindful and clueless of the deleterious impact the research institutes will have to undergo due to their short-sighted thinking. Could anyone just imagine the sense of frustration and deterioration of morale of the scientists when the university academic staff with the same qualifications draw three times their salaries and allowances? This huge salary and allowance anomaly could only be rectified by allowing the same benefits to the miniscule staff of scientists. If the Government has a modicum of decency and concern for the research community, this is the ideal time to rectify this anomaly during the debate of the second reading of the budget.
Age of retirement
Another matter of serious concern is the compulsory age of retirement for the research staff and the academic staff of the universities. In case of academic staff, the age of retirement is 65 whereas scientists will have to retire from service at the age of 60. In the research institutes, several scientists have left the services on the verge of their retirement to take up academic appointments. At a time when there is a severe dearth of scientists in the research institutes, the retirement age of the scientific staff should also be brought on par with the academic staff of the universities.
Rubber industry
If the rubber industry could be broadly termed “Hamlet” in the literally parlance, obviously the Rubber Research Institute (RRI) could be synonymously called the “Prince of Denmark” because the rubber industry and the RRI is inseparably intertwined. In essence, the RRI should also be equally blamed for neglecting its onerous tasks towards the development of the rubber industry, though some of the major lapses are beyond its control.
What has the Rubber Research Board (RRB) done all these years to improve these agronomic practices and to stop the heavy exodus of scientists from the RRI? If the chairperson and the board cannot deliver their services as expected from the statutory enactment and regulations, they should honorably step down allowing capable persons to govern the RRB as a strategic organisation. RRB board members can be political appointees, but once they are appointed to policy making body of the RRB, they have a cardinal duty to serve the board with professional integrity and a sense of foresight to develop the rubber industry. May be the RRB has been resting too much on the past laurels and is under the delusion that everything is hunky-dory. This is far-from the truth.
Vacant post of director, RRI
For the past two years, the RRB has pathetically failed to select a qualified scientist with a proven track record for the vacant position of director. The post of Director, RRI is a highly recognised position both locally and internationally. Utmost care must be taken to select a candidate strictly in terms of the scheme of recruitment, as the RRB allegedly has a checkered history of manipulating marks at the interview in contravention of the scheme of recruitment by the previous Chairmen and Board of Directors to give personal and political favours to their acolyte in the past.
The post of director of RRI has been held by eminent scientists from its inception. The names of Dr. O.S. Peiris, Dr. A. de S. Liyanage, Dr. L.M.K. Tillekaratne and Dr. Asoka Nugawela cannot be easily ignored for the exceptional manner in which they had discharged duties as the Director of the RRI. If my failing memory serves me correct, Dr. S.W. Karunaratna, Dr. N. Yogaratnam, Dr. (Mrs) Chandra Samaranayke, Dr. N.E.M. Jayasekera, Dr. Nihal Samarappuli, Dr. (Mrs.) Lalani Samarappuli, Dr. T.K. Jayasinghe, Dr. Priyani Seneviratna, Dr. A. Coomaraswamy, Dr. Nandalal Fernando, Dr. Senaka Perera, Dr. Sunil Fernando, Dr. (Mrs) Karnika de Silva et el had rendered an invaluable service to the RRI. Had they been in service, they would have decorated this prestigious position by ending their career as the Director of the RRI.
The inordinate delay (nine months) and studious silence in filling this post despite the fact that the interview had been held for this position on February 28, 2020 may insinuate a ruse to select a stooge, ignoring the time-tested scheme of recruitment.
The aphorism that “justice should not only be done but manifestly seen to be done” is totally relevant in the exercise of filling this vacancy and it is the present chairperson’s responsibility to ensure that the most qualified scientist to be appointed. Many would suspect that something fishy has been going on for the past ten months. If any brash intervention is made to instal a square peg in a round hole, that would result in disastrous consequences.
(The writer is a Productivity Specialist and Management Consultant)