The draft Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation was a key topic discussed by deputies at the 9th National Assembly session. Dong noted that numerous businesses are looking forward to a sandbox mechanism to implement innovative products, services, and business models. If well-designed, the sandbox mechanism in the law could be a breakthrough in institutional reform.

"Why is a sandbox mechanism needed? Existing laws often contain unreasonable regulations, which are both too strict or too loose, thus hindering new business ideas,” he said.

Citing the 2008 Road Transport Law, he said the law stipulated that taxis must charge fares according to the meter. "At that time, we thought meters were the best solution, protecting consumers from being overcharged. As technology advanced, fares could be calculated based on electronic maps. However, this calculation method couldn’t be applied because the law strictly required meters," he explained.

In 2016, the Ministry of Transport allowed a pilot application of transport connection technology. From 2016 to 2024, when the new Road Law was issued, the problem was basically resolved, but not completely.

A decade of waiting 

He noted that it took nearly a decade to address an outdated regulation through new legislation, illustrating why businesses are "impatient" for a sandbox mechanism.

He cited another example involved the Law on Credit Institutions, which classifies all payment services via accounts as banking activities, which means they must be licensed. When technology advanced, telecom providers saw the potential for customers to transfer money via telecom accounts. However, due to the law’s restrictions, this couldn’t be implemented.

In 2021, the Prime Minister issued a decision allowing telecom accounts to pay for small-value goods and services (mobile money). And it took nearly a decade from when the technological, economic, and social conditions were ready to the time the approval was granted.

Dong said he appreciates the draft law which mentions the sandbox mechanism, but concurred with the National Assembly’s Science and Technology Committee’s review that the sandbox regulations "still require waiting, and waiting for a long time, and are unable to be fast”.

He suggested rethinking the sandbox mechanism, emphasizing that it should originate from businesses, the source of innovative ideas and new technologies. It is necessary to consider whether to experiment with institutions, legal regulations, or technology.

New mechanism for scientists: invent once, earn for life

Commenting on the draft Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation, Le Quan, a National Assembly Deputy from Hanoi, pointed out several issues.

First, regarding profit sharing of scientific and technological product commercialization, the draft law stipulates a minimum 30 percent share for scientists, a minimum 30 percent for individuals involved in the transfer process, and the remainder for other activities.

Quan called this a bold and innovative proposal, akin to a "contract 10" mechanism for scientists. "If scientists conduct research and collaborate with businesses for technology transfer, it can generate significant income. 

“Some songwriters create one hit and earn royalties for years. Similarly, a scientist who develops a solution benefiting society—like a new medicine or crop variety—could enjoy stable lifelong income. This benefits both the nation and the individual," Quan said.

However, he suggested clearer regulations for specific cases. For normal public sector projects, the minimum 30 percent share is reasonable. But for projects involving national security, defense, or private sector collaboration, profit sharing should be based on negotiated agreements.

Second, Quan noted that under the draft law, the number of tasks and responsibilities assigned to science and technology organizations is higher that assigned to education institutions.

In reality, university lecturers, especially at elite institutions, are actively engaged in research and are scientists themselves, blurring the distinction between scientists and educators.

Thus, he recommended that the draft law adopt a unified approach: "Whoever is capable should do it."

The third issue that Professor Le Quan raised was investment in basic sciences. This draft mentions basic sciences, but it is still necessary to point out that the State should ensure research funding for basic sciences because in higher education institutions and in basic faculties, teachers are more interested in research.

“Basic sciences must produce elites. This industry cannot charge high tuition fees, but must provide scholarships. Therefore, I think this draft law should boldly prioritize ensuring funding for basic scientific research activities,” Quan said.

Nguyen Thao - Tran Thuong