Brian Jeffrey
Discussion on the New Science and Technology Law
During the 9th National Assembly session, the draft law concerning Science, Technology, and Innovation was a major focus among lawmakers. It was highlighted that many businesses eagerly await the establishment of a sandbox mechanism to facilitate the experimentation of new products, services, and business models. When effectively structured, this mechanism could significantly advance institutional reforms.
Dong pointed out the necessity of a sandbox mechanism, as existing regulations can often be overly stringent or too lenient, impeding innovation.
He provided an illustration from the 2008 Road Transport Law, which mandated taxi fares be calculated using meters. Although this seemed consumer-friendly, advancements in technology enabled fare calculations via electronic maps, yet the strict legal requirement hindered its implementation.
Since 2016, a pilot for transport connection technologies was approved. By 2024, when a new Road Law is set to be enacted, many of these issues will have been addressed, although not entirely resolved.
This lengthy period to update outdated regulations has left businesses eager for an efficient sandbox approach.
Another example he mentioned was the Law on Credit Institutions that treats all payment services through accounts as banking activities, necessitating licenses. Despite advancements allowing telecom companies to facilitate money transfers, the law’s constraints delayed these developments.
In 2021, the Prime Minister authorized small-value purchases through telecom accounts (mobile money), but nearly a decade passed from when the technology was ready until the law was updated.
While Dong expressed support for the proposed law’s inclusion of a sandbox mechanism, he echoed concerns from the Science and Technology Committee that the timeline for such regulations remains frustratingly long.
He recommended starting the sandbox concept from the ground up, based on business needs, to foster innovation more efficiently.
Perspectives on Commercialization and Research Funding
Deputy Le Quan from Hanoi shared insights on the draft law’s approach to profit-sharing from scientific advancements. The proposal suggests a minimum of 30 percent of profits for scientists and another 30 percent for those involved in the transfer process, with remaining profits allocated for other functions. He regarded this as an ambitious strategy, similar to the “contract 10” model for scientists, facilitating significant income for those who engage in technology transfers.
“Just as a successful songwriter enjoys repeated royalties, a scientist behind a groundbreaking development could reap lifelong benefits,” he noted, emphasizing the mutual advantage to both society and individuals.
He, however, pointed out the need for more distinct guidelines, especially in cases related to national security or collaborations with private entities, suggesting profit shares in these instances should be negotiated.
Furthermore, Le Quan remarked on the distribution of responsibilities within the draft law, noting that science and technology organizations appear to have more assigned tasks compared to educational institutions. He highlighted the active participation of university professors in research, advocating for a more integrated approach: “Those equipped should take on these roles.”
Finally, Quan addressed the significance of investing in fundamental sciences, urging the State to ensure robust funding for such research. He underscored the importance of nurturing elite scientists, proposing that scholarships be prioritized to support basic scientific studies, given the constraints of higher education funding.
“To build a strong foundation in basic sciences, we must ensure adequate financial resources are allocated.”
