Recently, the Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Kingsley Ude, reportedly complained about the low economic returns from research investments in Nigeria’s universities, polytechnics, and other research institutions. The minister may be right to an extent.

Section 5 of the National Policy on Education (NPE) states Nigeria’s expectations from its tertiary institutions in general. But sub-sections 87 & 88 spell out, in clear terms, the country’s expectations of universities in particular. It may be argued that the failure to meet these expectations contributes, in part, to Nigeria’s current state of underdevelopment. But that is not all the fault of these institutions.

The government is far more to blame as the policy initiator and the overarching entity that holds the authority and powers to make its policy a reality. For it is an indubitable fact that the government possesses the allocative, legislative, executive, and coercive powers to ensure that its policy for the good of the country is implemented. Unless it lacks the will to do so.

At what was described as ‘a strategic meeting on the commercialisation of scientific research outcomes’ with his counterparts in the states, Ude noted that “too many valuable research outputs remain on laboratory shelves, in technical reports, or in academic journals without translating into products, services, or enterprises that can transform lives.”

There are clear and particular reasons that education in general is a national necessity, as stipulated in Section 18(1) that ‘Government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate opportunities at all levels [for all citizens]’. Furthermore, the government is enjoined in sub (3)( c) to direct its policy toward providing ‘free university education’ for the willing and able of its people.

With respect to tertiary education, it is considered a necessity for human capital and, in turn, for national development worldwide.

Nigeria’s National Policy on Education captures reasons in its various sections. Section 5 (81) states that ‘the goals of tertiary education shall be to contribute to national development through high-level manpower training’; …’ reduce skill shortages through the production of skilled manpower relevant to the needs of the labour market’… promote and encourage scholarship, entrepreneurship, and community service’. University education in particular is expected to ‘make optimum contribution to national development by intensifying and diversifying its programmes for the development of high-level manpower within the context of the needs of the nation’.

Sub-section 87 of the NPE stipulates that ‘University research shall be relevant to the nation’s development goals. Particular attention shall be paid to research and promotion of indigenous knowledge in Nigeria. In this regard, universities shall be encouraged to collaborate with government, industries, and the global community in the conduct of research, and dissemination of results.’ Subsection 88 requires, as a government policy, that ‘university teaching shall inculcate community spirit in the students through projects and action researches’.

Sadly, the government, through its functionaries, is long on talk and miserably short on performance. It is brilliant in the writing of policy documents, but so unpardonably lacking in implementing them to a useful conclusion. This explains the sorry state of the country.

Research is a capital-intensive enterprise; it is also a long engagement that requires unwavering commitment of resources, patience and doggedness. The fruits do not emerge instantaneously. Indeed, higher institutions are generally incubators of ideas that, having been patented, are put to practical use by other institutions purpose-conceived to do so.

Indeed, research, considered strictly in terms of money, is a money-losing enterprise. However, in the long run and in the wider context, the benefits to society are incalculable. For example, it is reported that in the UK, public investment of £3.5 billion in research has been estimated to generate societal benefits of £45 billion.

It is a primary duty of the government, as part of its constitutional mandate, to establish, sustain, and set both standards and agenda of national development for tertiary institutions.  As a key instrument of development, it behooves the government to keep a keen eye on the education sector but also to equip it with the wherewithal to fulfil its objectives. Whereas the government acknowledges the need to support the sector, as expounded in Section 10 of the NPE, the budgetary allocations at all government levels reveal an abysmal lack of commitment to the education of citizens and, by inference, to the development of the nation’s human capital.

The Federal Government’s budgetary allocation to the education sector has seldom reached 10 per cent of its annual budget, despite UNESCO’s recommendation of between 15 and 20 per cent of the annual budget, or, better still, 4-6 per cent of GDP. Yet corruption hinders access to the full amount allocated to the sector.  The inevitable consequence is that tertiary-level institutions do not receive sufficient funding to conduct research that solves societal problems and contributes to national development. Teachers are often on strike due to poor pay, limited resources, poor working conditions, and schools being shut for long periods. Pray, how can the universities and the polytechnics incubate ideas that can be put to commercial use?

Even the many valuable research outputs that Ude claimed ‘remain on laboratory shelves, in technical reports, or in academic journals’ need funding to take them to the level of commercialisation. The private sector will be interested in these findings only if they are considered worthwhile in terms of profitability. But the gestation period needs to be covered by government-guaranteed assistance. That is hardly ever forthcoming.

Besides the 309 universities and 147 polytechnics in the country, there are reportedly no fewer than 66 research institutes established and funded by the Federal Government. These cover health, technology, agriculture, horticulture, and more. And yet, there is little to show for these. But it is not rocket science to make the well-articulated provisions of the NPE bear fruit. Determined governments in other societies are getting it done.

It is not enough to lament. If Mr Ude has cause to lament the low returns on government investments on research, then he needs to dig deep into the remote and immediate causes that will include a credible, vigorous government commitment to the NPE provisions, a complete overhaul of the personnel and machinery of tertiary – level education, and a clearly defined and implemented policy to encourage the private sector involvement. Honest soul-searching within the government will reveal the why and the how of the tertiary institutions’ low contribution to national development. The government’s will to do the needful for the desired result is simply lacking. That does not at all reflect a commitment to national development.