BRIN at a Crossroads: Structural Reform or Continued Stagnation?
Asep Saepudin Jahar
(Rector of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
On November 10, 2025, President Prabowo Subianto inaugurated Arif Satria as Head of the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) and Amarulla Octavian as his deputy at the State Palace in Jakarta, based on Presidential Decree No. 123/P of 2025 concerning the Dismissal and Appointment of the Head and Deputy Head of BRIN. This inauguration was not merely a routine leadership change but a signal that significant challenges must be addressed if BRIN is to truly become the backbone of national research and innovation.
The idea of establishing BRIN originated from Law No. 11/2019 on the National Science and Technology System, which mandated the creation of a national research body. Initially formalized through Presidential Regulation No. 74/2019, BRIN was still integrated with the Ministry of Research and Technology. In 2021, through Presidential Regulations Nos. 33 and 78, BRIN was separated from the ministry and became a non-ministerial government institution directly accountable to the President, while assuming nearly all government research and development functions under a single umbrella. In this configuration, Laksana Tri Handoko was inaugurated as Head of BRIN in April 2021, after previously leading LIPI.
Challenges of the Previous Era
During Handoko’s tenure, BRIN’s major agenda was institutional integration: four non-ministerial government institutions—LIPI, BPPT, BATAN, and LAPAN—along with research units across various ministries were merged into research organizations under BRIN. The objective was to overcome decades of fragmented research spread across institutions with differing agendas, standards, and work cultures, which often resulted in program duplication and minimal synergy.
However, after institutional integration was relatively complete, BRIN entered a phase that many perceived as stagnation. Institutional centralization was followed by centralized decision-making processes and layered bureaucracy. The dissolution of the Eijkman Institute and its merger into BRIN are one example. The decision was made centrally without a well-prepared transition plan, resulting in only about 40 civil servants out of approximately 120 researchers and staff being absorbed into BRIN, while the rest were forced to leave.
In practice, researchers reported complicated access to facilities, slow procurement processes, and unclear research priorities. The integration that was expected to trigger collaborative leaps instead tended to hinder researchers’ performance. This is not merely anecdotal. In May 2025, the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) assessed that various BRIN research and innovation activities had not delivered optimal benefits for the public, MSMEs, industry, or other ministries and agencies.
BRIN’s total budget in 2025 amounted to Rp5.8 trillion, but only around Rp2.01 trillion was allocated to research and innovation programs, while the remainder was absorbed by salaries and operational costs. If an institution designed to drive innovation spends most of its energy financing bureaucratic machinery, it is difficult to expect a dynamic research ecosystem.
At the same time, the classic issue of research funding has shown little substantive direction toward impactful innovation. UNESCO data indicate that since 2016, Indonesia’s research spending has remained below 1% of GDP—specifically around 0.2–0.3%. In 2020, the figure remained similar, with the latest World Bank data showing a ratio of only 0.28% of GDP. This is far below the global average of 1.8%, lower than the developing countries’ average of 1.1%, and significantly behind developed countries at 2.8%.
Yet research funding significantly influences economic growth acceleration. Concretely, a 1 percentage point increase in research and development spending as a share of GDP is positively and significantly associated with faster economic growth. In other words, low research funding risks trapping Indonesia in the middle-income trap due to weak innovation capacity.
In addition, the number of reputable researchers remains very limited. According to UNESCO data in 2023, Indonesia has only 110 researchers per one million population, far below Malaysia and Singapore, which have 712 and 7,400 researchers per one million population, respectively. If research spending is thin and researcher numbers are limited, institutional integration alone is clearly insufficient. This reality risks stagnation in research reform due to limited human resources.
Toward BRIN’s Excellence
From this point, the leadership transition becomes an important momentum to improve inherited governance issues. At least three major problems burden the new Head of BRIN. First, low research funding is increasingly pressured by budget cuts. Second, governance is perceived as overly centralized in Jakarta, limiting flexibility of regional research units. Third, uneven research capacity in both quantity and scientific reputation.
These three aspects are interconnected and determine the effectiveness of the national research system. Therefore, the new leadership must prioritize the most urgent reform agendas.
The first agenda is internal reform targeting bureaucratic stagnation. BRIN needs procedural improvements, including shortening procurement timelines, accelerating funding decisions, and granting broader autonomy to research organizations and laboratories within the national priority framework. Without this, researchers will remain consumed by administration rather than scientific work.
Funding schemes must also be redesigned to be more flexible and multi-year. Impactful research cannot operate under a single fiscal-year framework. BRIN and the Ministry of Finance must develop instruments enabling cross-year funding with evaluations based on scientific achievement rather than mere budget absorption.
Internal reform also requires clear accountability and avoidance of politicization. The new Head of BRIN must ensure that national research directions are determined by scientific evidence and long-term strategic interests, not five-year political cycles.
The second agenda is strengthening the research ecosystem by restoring collaborative spirit. Centralization must not mean monopoly. BRIN should function as a connecting hub for universities, industry, and regional governments, not as a barrier to initiative.
The new head of BRIN has emphasized research based on regional needs and priorities in food, energy, and water. The challenge lies in translating this vision into real collaborative mechanisms, such as co-funding schemes with regional governments and state-owned enterprises, or thematic research consortia involving universities and local businesses. Without expanding networks, centralization merely consolidates structure without strengthening capacity.
If reforms are implemented cohesively within two to three years, tangible impacts may begin to emerge. Strengthening infrastructure, human resources, and facilities must go hand in hand with tighter collaboration among universities, industry, communities, and international partners. In this way, research will not remain theoretical but deliver public benefit and strengthen BRIN’s credibility as a productive national research institution.
Reorganizing the System
Beyond structural reform, the new head of BRIN must also restructure researcher performance evaluation systems to be fairer, more transparent, and impact-oriented. Evaluations have tended to emphasize administrative aspects and output quantity rather than quality and relevance. Going forward, evaluation systems must encourage intellectual courage, interdisciplinary research, and publications that address real societal challenges.
BRIN must also strengthen talent regeneration and mobility mechanisms. More open recruitment schemes, researcher exchanges with universities and industry, and national postdoctoral programs will accelerate human capital development. Without a clear and competitive career path, research institutions will continue losing top researchers to overseas institutions or non-research sectors.
Organizational culture must place researchers as primary assets, not merely project executors. Open, participatory, and trust-based leadership is essential to restoring collective morale after integration. Dialogue between leadership and researchers must be expanded to ensure policy remains grounded in field realities. A healthy work climate will allow BRIN to become fertile ground for long-term scientific creativity and innovation.
At the external level, science diplomacy must be strengthened so BRIN is not isolated from global knowledge flows. Strategic partnerships with international research institutions, active participation in global consortia, and access to world-class facilities will accelerate technology transfer and enhance Indonesia’s scientific reputation. Without global connectivity, the national research ecosystem will struggle to compete amid rapid technological and geopolitical developments.
Ultimately, the success of BRIN’s reform will not be measured merely by regulatory change or organizational restructuring but by its ability to produce knowledge that drives social and economic transformation. If research can offer solutions to national challenges—from food security to energy transition—BRIN’s legitimacy will grow naturally. At that point, institutional transformation will carry real meaning: not just administrative reform, but a revival of science as the foundation of Indonesia’s future.
Published in Media Indonesia, Friday, January 30, 2026.