Professor Nguyễn Thu Anh, inaugural Executive Director of the Sydney Vietnam Institute and Professor of Global Health at the University of Sydney. Photo Courtesy of Thu Anh

In an interview with Việt Nam News, Professor Nguyễn Thu Anh, inaugural Executive Director of the Sydney Vietnam Institute and Professor of Global Health at the University of Sydney, discusses how Việt Nam can build a stronger healthcare innovation ecosystem. She highlights the need for strategic investment, international collaboration, open science and closer links among universities, hospitals, businesses and government, arguing that the country’s future competitiveness will depend on how quickly it can turn knowledge into tangible benefits for society.

When healthcare innovation is discussed, people often immediately think of advanced technologies, AI or new equipment requiring substantial investment. From your perspective as an expert in public health and primary healthcare management, what criteria should really be used to assess the value of a healthcare innovation?

I think we often confuse innovation with advanced technology. In healthcare, the value of an innovation does not lie in whether it uses AI, robotics or the latest technology, but in the tangible impact it has on people’s health.

From a public health perspective, the most important questions are whether the innovation helps more people lead healthier lives, improves access to services, increases efficiency, reduces costs for the healthcare system and narrows inequalities in healthcare.

Innovation is essentially an investment question. We need to compare the social benefits generated with the resources invested. For example, a health data system that effectively connects hospitals, clinics and regulatory authorities could improve the quality of care, reduce duplicate testing and support better decision-making for millions of patients. Such an innovation could be just as valuable as, or even more valuable than, possessing highly advanced technology that cannot yet be effectively integrated into the healthcare system.

Successful innovation is therefore not about having the most advanced technology. It is about finding the technology or solution that creates the greatest value for the community.

For a developing country such as Việt Nam, what strategic role can low-cost, high-impact innovations, such as process optimisation, policy improvements and primary healthcare reform, play compared with investment in cutting-edge technologies?

I do not think this should be seen as a choice between low-cost innovation and cutting-edge technology. A modern healthcare system needs both. However, for a country with limited resources, the most important requirement is a clear investment strategy.

In my view, Việt Nam should adopt a two-tier approach.

At the first tier, we need to select a very small number of fields with the potential to create long-term competitive advantages and invest in them consistently for 10 to 20 years. To go far, we must be willing to concentrate our resources. No country can lead in every field of technology.

At the second tier, for most of the healthcare system’s needs, we should prioritise the adoption of solutions that have already proved effective elsewhere and adapt them to Việt Nam’s circumstances.

One advantage of being a later adopter is that we do not have to pay the price for every mistake. We can learn from the successes and failures of other countries and select the most appropriate technologies instead of simply pursuing the latest ones.

Many countries, for example, have spent decades and billions of dollars developing health data systems, elderly care models and digital health platforms. Việt Nam can learn from their experiences and implement similar solutions more quickly, efficiently and affordably.

The question, therefore, is not which technology is the most advanced. It is which technology can deliver the greatest value to the public within the resources currently available.

You recently said that insufficient funding may not be the greatest obstacle to healthcare innovation. If finance is not the only bottleneck, based on your many years of epidemiological research in Việt Nam, what is preventing healthcare initiatives from moving beyond laboratories and pilot projects into everyday use?

In my view, the greatest bottleneck is not a lack of ideas or even a lack of funding. It is that our research and innovation ecosystem is not yet fully developed. Data are the raw material, technology is the tool, but the research and innovation ecosystem is the engine that creates value.

A strong research ecosystem needs more than money. It requires at least four elements working together.

First, funding must be stable and strategic. Many biomedical studies take five, 10 or even 20 years to produce a meaningful impact. If resources are spread too thinly or scientists are constantly required to pursue short-term grants, it is extremely difficult to achieve major breakthroughs.

For Việt Nam, the priority should not only be to increase investment in research and development, but also to invest more effectively and with greater focus. For a developing country with limited resources but strong political commitment, the wisest strategy is not to spread funding too widely, but to concentrate resources, focus on practical needs and optimise international cooperation.

Second, we need open science and knowledge sharing. A country with limited resources cannot develop effectively if every institution keeps its data to itself or repeatedly undertakes work that has already been done elsewhere. We need to promote data sharing, research collaboration and deeper participation in international scientific networks.

We should also make effective use of research infrastructure that already exists around the world. Rather than immediately investing our limited and extremely valuable resources in every expensive laboratory, piece of equipment or technology platform, we can strengthen agreements with leading research centres. These partnerships would allow Vietnamese scientists to work overseas and gain access to equipment, data and international expertise.

In many cases, this is a faster, more effective and less costly way to strengthen national research capacity.

Third, we need to develop and retain talent. Ultimately, a research ecosystem is an ecosystem of people. If young researchers cannot see a clear career path, or if success is measured only by the number of papers published rather than real-world impact, it will be difficult to build a strong research workforce.

We need to move gradually away from a “publish or perish” mindset and assess the actual impact of research on the healthcare system, communities and the economy. At the same time, Việt Nam should make better use of its network of overseas Vietnamese experts and foreign scientists through flexible forms of collaboration, rather than relying solely on the domestic workforce.

Fourth, we need to connect all the links in the innovation chain. This is perhaps our greatest weakness at present. We have universities, research institutes, hospitals, businesses and regulatory agencies, but they are not yet connected strongly enough to form a unified ecosystem.

As a result, good research does not necessarily become a product. A good product may not be tested in a hospital. A model that succeeds on a small scale may not become national policy, while a sound policy may not be implemented widely enough to benefit the public.

I often call this the “last kilometre” between scientific discovery and social impact. It is the most difficult kilometre to travel without government support and involvement.

That is why I believe Việt Nam needs more than additional research or funding. It needs a genuine innovation ecosystem in which universities, hospitals, businesses, investors, government and Vietnamese experts around the world work together to turn knowledge into practical solutions.

In the current era, competitive advantage no longer belongs to whoever has the most ideas. It belongs to whoever can turn ideas into tangible impact most quickly. That is what Việt Nam needs to build over the next five to 10 years.

As someone with a PhD in Medical Anthropology, how do you assess attitudes towards risk and the culture of experimentation in healthcare today? Could the administrative approach to research sometimes be one of the greatest obstacles?

Caution is essential in healthcare, but we sometimes confuse caution with resistance to innovation.

In my view, one of Việt Nam’s greatest advantages is that we are a later adopter. This allows us to learn from both the successes and the extremely costly mistakes of countries that came before us.

Many countries have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare technology systems, only to encounter difficulties because their data systems were not interoperable, their processes were unsuitable or healthcare workers did not use the technology. Việt Nam has an opportunity to learn from these experiences instead of repeating the same mistakes.

I believe we need to develop a culture of controlled experimentation. Not every initiative will succeed, but every trial can offer valuable lessons. Innovation does not require us to eliminate all risks. It requires us to manage risks scientifically.

Having studied and worked in several countries, what lessons do you think Việt Nam can learn from their models for connecting universities, hospitals, businesses and government, particularly in making the best use of the country’s limited resources and enabling all parties to contribute to development?

I believe this is the most important lesson we can learn from successful innovation ecosystems around the world.

Universities generate knowledge. Hospitals understand practical needs. Businesses help develop products and bring them to scale. Government creates the policy environment, supports the market and underpins innovation.

New technologies often involve high costs, long payback periods and considerable uncertainty. If everything is left entirely to the market, many innovations with significant social value will never be tested.

The role of government is to create conditions that enable businesses to innovate. This includes supporting research and development, protecting intellectual property, developing technical standards, establishing regulatory sandboxes, introducing policies on data, safety and insurance, and using public procurement to support new solutions.

When these components are connected effectively, knowledge can move from the laboratory to the market and create real value for society.

The story of CSIRO’s Wi-Fi technology is one of Australia’s most successful examples of translating research into economic and social value.

In the 1980s, a CSIRO research team led by John O’Sullivan studied radio signals emitted by black holes in space. The project did not achieve its original scientific objective, but in the process, the team developed powerful signal-processing algorithms that could separate useful signals from interference.

In the early 1990s, while researching indoor wireless networks, the scientists realised that Wi-Fi signals reflected by walls, ceilings and other objects created a problem similar to the signal interference they had studied in space. The algorithms originally developed for astronomy were subsequently adapted for wireless data transmission and became part of the foundation of modern high-speed Wi-Fi.

CSIRO did not stop at publishing its research. It quickly filed patents in Australia and the United States, while the spin-off company Radiata developed some of the first commercial products based on the technology. In 2001, Cisco acquired Radiata for approximately US$295 million, demonstrating the commercial potential of technology originating in publicly funded research.

CSIRO also contributed to the development of international Wi-Fi standards, helping its technology become part of the global ecosystem. When major technology companies used its patented technology without paying licensing fees, CSIRO received support from the Australian Government in protecting its intellectual property rights.

As a result, the organisation earned more than A$430 million in licensing revenue, which was reinvested in scientific research and innovation.

This is not simply the story of one outstanding invention. It demonstrates how fundamental research, intellectual property, a spin-off company, international standards and public policy can work together to transform a scientific discovery into technology used in billions of devices worldwide.

Given Việt Nam’s limited domestic resources, how can Vietnamese scientists, particularly the younger generation, use international research networks to access knowledge, data and resources instead of starting from scratch? At the same time, how can Việt Nam move beyond simply participating in international research projects and gradually become a source of valuable initiatives?

In my view, Việt Nam’s greatest opportunity lies not in technology itself, but in its ability to build connections. We have a young population, rapidly growing digital capabilities, increasingly internationally integrated universities, a dynamic private sector and a highly successful global community of Vietnamese experts.

When these resources are connected effectively, the pace of innovation can increase very quickly.

Young scientists need to participate proactively in international networks to gain access to knowledge, data, research methods and resources. However, the goal should not simply be to join projects initiated by others.

The greater ambition should be for Việt Nam to contribute new research questions, perspectives and solutions to the world while retaining ownership of its intellectual property.

Việt Nam does not have to remain merely a recipient of technology. It can become a place where global solutions originate, are tested and refined and, in certain fields, are led.

Innovation ultimately depends on people. As the leader of the Sydney Vietnam Institute, what changes should universities and hospitals make to train a new generation of doctors and researchers who possess clinical expertise, scientific thinking, interdisciplinary skills and an innovative mindset?

First, I think we need to reconsider the role of universities. A university can no longer simply be a place that trains human resources. It must become an innovation platform that connects researchers, students, hospitals, businesses, investors and policymakers to address real-world challenges together.

At the same time, we need to fundamentally reform education as AI develops at an extremely rapid pace. Although AI still has limitations and remains imperfect, it is becoming an indispensable part of learning and working environments.

The important task is to use AI effectively to help learners acquire knowledge more quickly, develop critical and creative thinking, and turn knowledge into practical solutions. AI can support learning and decision-making, but it cannot replace human judgement, empathy, responsibility or leadership.

I often say that knowledge is gradually becoming a widely available commodity. What will remain scarce is the ability to ask the right questions and turn knowledge into action.

Việt Nam also needs to invest more strategically in research infrastructure. It will be difficult to build internationally competitive capabilities if resources are spread across too many fields. Achieving breakthroughs requires us to make choices and invest deeply enough to make a difference.

Instead of having many reasonably capable research centres, Việt Nam should develop a small number of internationally recognised centres of excellence in fields where it has strategic advantages.

Finally, we need to train a new generation of experts who can work across disciplines and understand technology, data, policy, economics and innovation. The greatest breakthroughs of the future will not emerge from a single discipline, but at the intersection of science, technology, policy and business.

I believe Việt Nam does not have to choose between catching up and taking the lead. If it can build an ecosystem that effectively connects universities, research institutes, hospitals, businesses, government and the global network of Vietnamese experts, the country can become a leader in selected strategic fields rather than remaining a follower. VNS