​Trillions in Budget, Snack Chips Output: Audit of BRIN Science Policy

​By: Tri Lukman Hakim, S.H.

Founder KunciPro Research | Global-Indexed Socio-Legal Researcher (ORCID ID: 0009-0003-4829-1185)

​At the Presidential Palace recently, President Prabowo Subianto reviewed an innovation exhibition showcasing the work of 150 researchers from the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN).

Across social media platforms, the public held high expectations: What groundbreaking technology would Indonesia's consolidated, multi-trillion-rupiah national research body display?

​In the public imagination, a premier national agency absorbing thousands of senior scientists should showcase breakthroughs in cyber sovereignty, localized artificial intelligence (AI) architecture, or renewable energy innovations.

​However, reality presented a stark contrast. Under the media spotlight, the highlighted products sampled by officials were purple sweet potato chips, roof tiles, and footwear.

​This stark mismatch triggered immediate public skepticism and sarcastic discourse across social platforms. How could a massive state institution with a trillion-rupiah state budget (APBN) make basic processed food the centerpiece of a presidential exhibition?

​1. The Expectation Gap: High-Tech Aspirations vs. Low-Tech Reality

​The public reaction does not stem from a dismissal of agricultural research, crop breeding, or appropriate technology for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Diversifying food resources and supporting local farmers carry genuine economic utility.

​The issue lies in positioning basic food processing as the flagship output of a top-tier national research institute.

​Across Indonesia, high school and undergraduate students frequently engineer IoT-based flood detection systems, robotic prototypes, and waste treatment innovations on minimal crowdfunding and teacher mentorship—without the benefit of a 6 trillion rupiah national budget.

​When self-funded students attempt technological leaps, the public rightfully expects an institution like BRIN to deliver outputs beyond local community-level technology competitions.

​2. Science Communication and Digital Sovereignty

​Examining this phenomenon through the sociology of technology reveals a structural breakdown in how national research is communicated to the public.

​Amid ongoing global debates surrounding data privacy breaches, cybersecurity threats, and reliance on foreign digital infrastructure, the Indonesian public demands high-tech innovations.

Citizens look to state-funded research to address pressing modern challenges, such as data sovereignty, pharmaceutical independence, and advanced industrial manufacturing.

​When state communications emphasize basic food processing over advanced technological sovereignty, a severe expectation gap emerges.

While breeding superior sweet potato varieties is valid agricultural science, framing it as the peak achievement of national R&D portrays the agency as stagnant focused narrowly on physical consumption rather than modern scientific advancement.

​3. The Bureaucratic Quick Win Trap

​The root cause of this output gap lies in a classic bureaucratic pathology: the pursuit of immediate, tangible "quick wins" for political leaders.

​In bureaucratic and political spheres, high-tech R&D such as secure local social media architecture, national cybersecurity frameworks, or molecular pharmaceutical synthesis is abstract, high-risk, and time-intensive. These projects require years of sustained investment with significant margins for failure.

​Conversely, physical products like processed chips, roof tiles, or shoes offer immediate, photo-ready tangibility. They can be held, sampled, and photographed in front of news cameras.

​To project an illusion of immediate public utility, national R&D exhibitions fall into the trap of superficial packaging, prioritizing low-risk, low-tech deliverables over strategic scientific leaps.

​Conclusion

​Public frustration is not directed at sweet potato chips or roofing technology itself. Rather, it reflects a desire for Indonesia an emerging global economy to see its primary scientific institution pursue ambitious research goals.

​For Indonesia to achieve genuine technological independence, national science policy must move past superficial political displays.

The nation requires an R&D framework that prioritizes high-impact scientific innovation, cyber sovereignty, and long-term technological capability, rather than settling for low-tech, quick-win deliverables.