Date: 20/04/2010
Source: the Democratic Alliance
Title: DA: Shinn: Speech by DA shadow deputy minister of science and technology, on South African scientists

South African science is awash with talent. Our scientists are at the forefront of addressing our immense developmental challenges - from delivering potable water, developing disease and drought-resistant crops, medicines and leading-edge technologies that create new industries.

I believe that if our scientists were more widely acknowledged - and their work made more accessible - the majority of South Africans would not struggle to understand the value that science and technology delivers to their doorsteps.

African statesman and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan said: "While technology shapes the future, it is people who shape technology and decide what it can and should be used for."

Let us not forget that it is individuals - often working in robust teams - who transform good ideas into scientific achievements.
South Africa has produced scientists whose endeavours have won that highest accolade for science - The Nobel Prize.

They don't enjoy the public recognition of our writers and peacemakers, but their achievements have had worldwide impact on millions of lives.

To briefly acknowledge our Nobel scientists: in 1951, nine years before Albert Luthuli won the Nobel Peace Price, Max Theiler won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing the vaccine against yellow fever. Next, in 1979, was Alan Cormack for his work in co-inventing in the CAT Scanner.

Three years later, in 1982, Aaron Klug won the Nobel Prize for chemistry for his work in molecular biology. And lastly, in 2002, Sydney Brenner shared the prize for Physiology or Medicine for his work in genetic analysis.

Klug, Brenner and Cormack have also won the Order of Mapungubwe (Gold) - South Africa's highest award for citizens who have excelled. Another South Africa scientist who received this award is physicist Sir Basil Schonland, the founding president of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

Other South African scientists have been awarded different categories of the Order of Mapungubwe - and we commend the Presidency for acknowledging the importance of their achievements.

SA Science needs its ambassadors - particularly in the fields where we want a leading role on international science platforms - astronomy, global change, bio-technology, nanotechnology and drug and vaccine development.

Astronomy has been the recent trailblazer here. An exceptional example was set by young astronomers Kevin Govender, Thebe Mdupe and Enrico Oliver who used the International Year of Astronomy last year to inspire our nation's youngsters to become astronomers.

But once we have inspired them to become scientists we must be careful that our institutions and bureaucratic attitudes do not push our investment in scientific talent to other countries. We need to appreciate that scientists flourish when they work in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and rigorous debate.

Two weeks ago the Academy for Science in South Africa warned of three new threats to academic freedom - the intrusive affect of government regulations, the excessive influence of private-sector sponsorship of universities and the limitations of freedom of speech within universities.

When the National Research Foundation instituted its now-failed disciplinary hearing against internationally renowned astronomer Professor Phil Charles, the nation's scientific organisations warned of our national scientific facilities falling victim to totalitarian control and of a bureaucratic blunder that jeopardised our standing in the international science community.

I believe one of the main impediments our scientific community faces is political meddling. In many cases the stumbling block to delivering the benefits of science to the majority of South Africans is the bureaucratic cadre class in all spheres of government and in our institutions.

One of South Africa's top scientists in local government is battling to decide whether to leave the land of his birth to join an international foundation where he will be responsible for delivering to the developing world what he struggles to deliver at home. Having his managers undermined by cadres with political agendas is part of his daily grind.

Is it poor communication or just disinterest that means many scientific developments - for instance, in drought disease-resistant crops - fail to reach emerging farmers because of the widespread inertia of the Dept of Agriculture's extension services?

Breakthroughs in genetically modified crops are rejected, more through misunderstandings of technicalities and mandates, than of an appreciation of the scientific rigour with which they were developed.

The developers of SpuntaG2 - our moth-resistant potato - are appealing its rejection by the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms because of these misunderstandings.

If our bureaucracy fails to recognise the value of our scientific breakthroughs this will be South Africa's loss. Many countries in Africa and the developing world - with similar challenges to ours - are snapping up our inventions and scientific expertise - particularly in the fields of medicine and agriculture.

The scientific entities under the Department's control are not without their bureaucratic or ham-fisted impediments to a contented and productive scientific community.

I mentioned earlier the NRF's action against Prof Charles, the international fallout of which still needs to be resolved. I have asked the Minister to initiate an impartial enquiry, headed by an international scientist, to review the NRF's operations and suggest remedies to ensure it operates according to best international practice.

This is essential if we want to attract top-class scientists to work on South African-based scientific platforms, such as the Square Kilometer Array. And to assure them they will be treated rationally and with respect.

The NRF's action is indicative of its seeming lack of understanding of the environment which it serves. Last year it changed the system of funding post-graduate researchin a manner, referred to byan eminent scientist, as ‘a crashing of gears'. It brought many projects to an abrupt halt, illustrating a lack of understanding of how research programmes work.

The NRF's academic rating system and research-funding model are under review. Let's hope that this will usher in a more science-friendly and productive system.

Getting the funding of research right is critical to what I believe are the two fundamentals for South Africa to succeed as an innovative nation -developing scientists with the appropriate knowledge to focus on our opportunities and an investment in the right instruments and infrastructure on which to do their research. Get these fundamentals right and the innovations will follow.

I believe the Department of Science and Technology needs to fine-tune its Five Grand Challenges to ensure their programmes are still relevant, affordable and can realistically be achieved by its 2018 deadlines, and revise funding accordingly.

Are we attracting enough undergraduates to study the subjects needed for further research that will make South Africa a global leader in bio-technology by 2018? Or to become oceanographers to work on the new Southern Ocean research vessel due for delivery in 2012?

We want to be a leader in pharmaceuticals but the Academy of Science's recent review says that the necessary activity and capacity of clinical research in South Africa has drastically declined and is in urgent need of re-vitalisation.

We must prioritise our science spend to ensure that the NRF has the money it needs to attain its target of 6 000 PhDs a year by 2025. There must be no excuses about lack of funds. Cut the millions of rands government spends on frivolity and invest in the nation's path to a knowledge resource base.

We will soon be asked to buy new scientific equipment and improve the infrastructure at our research facilities. This must be done - perhaps with the help of innovative financing and tax breaks. The private sector must also up its investment in the nation's science and technology assets.

Let me say that the Department of Science and Technology stands head and shoulders above other government departments in the way it manages its programmes and spends taxpayers' money. Its governance processes are role models for other departments.

Perhaps this management efficiency should encourage Cabinet to re-consider placing the dysfunctional Medical and Agricultural research councils under science and technology's care.

There is tough competition for our science funds. A recurring debate is whether South Africa should invest in Big Science projects, such as the SKA. I believe we must differentiate between Big Science and Big Ego projects.

I believe we need to spend our science funds on Big Science to inspire us to explore the unknown in knowledge and human endeavour.

South Africa is spoilt for choice when it comes to what we can achieve. But it is time to focus our Big Science spend on fields where we can exploit our geographic uniqueness to play a leading role in international science projects.

Our scientific investments must use the wide-open skies above our arid regions to explore the beginning of time. We must use our proximity to three oceans to make a unique contribution to the science of global change. Our mineral wealth and resulting beneficiation developments must continue to lead the world.

What we don't need to spend our science funds on are Big Ego investments that have little to do with breaking new scientific ground - no matter how politically expedient.

Government's job is to invest in fundamental research - not risk taxpayers' money in the commercialisation of proven technology. Government must develop policies that guide skills development, research and innovation in pursuit of its national vision. And it must provide the enabling environment for our scientists and innovative entrepreneurs to stretch their imaginations to solve the problems we see around us and usher in the open opportunity society.