In the course of Malta's evolution, there have been a number of contrasts that can leave anyone quite perplexed. One of them is that while we have made great advances in the fields of medicine, IT, engineering, the digital world and science, we have managed to render our politics terrible.
We have scaffolded our scientific endeavours for success. We fund scientists, support higher education, train the next generation of experts and insulate scientific enterprises as much as possible from political manoeuvring. The scientific enterprise also features highly trained individuals who operate based on facts, cooperate internationally, and work together in a collegial manner. None of that is true for our politics, as I shall presently point out.
Further to a consultation document launched in 2011 in connection with a vision for science education in Malta, today we have in place a science strategy based on a vision of science education that envisages the development of decision-making and problem-solving competencies and skills using an evidence-based approach. Thanks to that vision, we have managed to build a solid knowledge and skills base throughout early childhood education and compulsory schooling in order to empower learners to consider careers in science and related areas at further and higher education levels.
We have a Malta Council for Science and Technology that effectively manages national funds for research and innovation through the development and operation of programmes, which in turn create vehicles for research across the public, academic, and private sectors. A portfolio of funding programmes provides researchers with the opportunity to translate their ideas into tangible projects and eventual products or services. We have a close collaboration that brings the worlds of business and science closer than ever.
In a world where advancements in technology and scientific discovery are increasingly determining the economy of the future and the quality of life of any country, business and science in Malta have become inseparable to better understand and address the ambitions of our country in all of its economic, environmental, and social senses.
In the background of all this, we had a Peer Review of the Maltese Research and Innovation System under the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility commissioned by the European Commission. Tangible results of that review are policy attention mainly placed on digital innovation, a topic that stands high on the Maltese government's agenda, and great inroads in research and innovation. Digital innovation has strongly contributed to the economic dynamism of Malta in recent years. As a result of the National Research and Innovation Strategy 2014-2020, research and other types of innovation are continually at the forefront of the national policy agenda.
But while all that is going on in Malta today, there is a growing sense that the political system is broken and that its ineffectiveness is a major threat to our competitiveness. So are Maltese politics broken? The answer may be yes, and the troubled political environment could be among the most important threats to our competitiveness. The growing reality is that despite our nation's scientific prowess, our politics are terrible.
While we boast of having distinguished scholars and young scientists recognised and identified by world-renowned scientific institutions and publishers Stanford University and Elsevier, we are shamed by having had a former prime minister branded by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project as the world's most corrupt politician. We splash out unnecessary millions of euros on unnecessary or flawed national projects, more often than not smacking of corruption or bad governance, while we cut vital funding to the university by €1.1 million, endangering the very existence of research and innovation.
Our nation is also a leader in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, neuroscience, genetics, semiconductor development, and many other areas. Indeed, our institutions of higher learning attract talented students from around the globe and are considered among the best in the world. In contrast, our political operations are crumbling. Our scientific culture explicitly encourages new thinking and innovative practices and rewards successful innovators. Experts who develop new approaches receive accolades that glorify their creativity. The opposite is true in public affairs. Innovation is not rewarded, and efforts to improve political performance are derided as misguided leadership.
Right now, Malta is plagued by political extremism, polarisation, and hyper-partisanship. There is massive public cynicism and a lack of confidence in leading institutions. We have difficulty addressing basic problems, especially those involving the nation's long-term needs. How can we explain this seeming disparity between our scientific successes and political failures, and can we continue to be successful in the scientific realm if we leave our political problems unaddressed?
This uneasy relationship between science and politics continues, especially as the government has expanded its support for research and development, particularly in the life sciences. At the same time, charges of politicisation, combined with a disregard for scientific evidence, have heightened tensions between the scientific and political communities. Highly publicised debates about stem cell research and evolution fill the air.
In the coming years, science will raise social and ethical implications and political questions. Policymakers will continue to sort out competing claims and political needs in addition to the scientific evidence needed to make and implement public policy. Yet, as scientific advances create more ethical dilemmas, political intrusion may grow and disturb science.
A greater engagement of scientists in politics could help change this scenario. Science should become a central piece of policymaking.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer