T

he presidential election is about to come and as good citizens, we should prepare our choice in the most rational way to vote for the best candidate. Within this rationale, of course we should have certain topics for consideration.

Besides examining the economic views of each candidate, we should also find another crucial point that needs to be scrutinized pertaining to the quality of the candidates. And here I would like to propose the most crucial topic with regard to the prosperity of a country: science and technology.

We all know that the smarter a country, the faster it grows. But how can we say that one country is smarter than another? Let's compare Indonesia and India as a study case for this question.

India has made advancements in its information technology, which was applied in its last "sophisticated election" and its "online workers" in developed countries.

Today in Indonesia, we can find lots of young people hanging out with their last gadgets, updating their status and commenting on photos on Facebook. We also can see many Indonesian students winning the Science Olympiad and robot contests. But I would argue here that India is smarter than Indonesia.

I am not saying that Indians are smarter than Indonesians; I believe that intelligence is beyond race. The term "smart" here means that a country uses its original research in its economy and prosperity.

That the existence of new information technologies has made Indian workers appealing to companies in developed countries demonstrates the use of technology in improving the economy of the country.

But conversely, buying the latest sophisticated gadgets reflects the bad habit of consuming technologies. Although we have bright students in science and technology (the winners of the Science Olympiad), it is reasonable to say that Indonesia has been left behind by India. Generally, we have not used our science and technology optimally to improve our economy.

This is what we and our presidential candidates should be aware of. The next five years should be the time for our struggle in the science race. The future challenges of the world are those that deal with science and technology.

Take, for instance, global warming, which is threatening the world's food production now. Needless to say, Indonesia should be prepared for this. We cannot disagree anymore.

Actually, there is much local and original research being conducted by academics in this country. But many of them are isolated in the laboratory and end up in exclusive scientific journals. By cooperating with industry, those excellent ideas can be used for the improvement of the economy. Industry is the bridge with which scientific ideas can become economic commodities.

In this context, the government has a responsibility to support the cooperation between research and industrial activity. This is what the triple helix is.

In 2008, Etzkowitz Dzisah, a scholar in international development, stated that in knowledge-based societies, the interaction among university-industry-government (the triple helix) is the source of innovation and development.

If we can imagine the form of the double helix in our minds, then we can perceive that the triple helix looks like a thick rope that consists of three strands. The use of science and technology to improve the national economy needs a strong weave between the strands.

And this strong weave can be made and initiated by the leader of our country. So how can we scrutinize the ability of the presidential candidates in weaving the strands?

Thankfully, we can now watch presidential debates on TV at home. An interactive dialogue between candidates and rectors from universities across Indonesia was held on June 15, 2009, and aired by a local broadcaster. The topic was education and research in Indonesia.

Through this live event, we could examine the ability of the candidates in dealing with the topic. But unfortunately, most of the dialogue did not stand in specific areas (questions were scattered around the broad range of education problems).

However, I think it was a good start for them to demonstrate their ability to deal with science and technology. Perhaps in the next election, the General Elections Commission (KPU) will hold science-based debates with science and technology-based development as the main topic. Through this debate, we can scrutinize what kind of policy they will make to improve the economy and solve the problems in this decade.