National Research Foundation 2005/2006 Annual Report: briefing
Science, Technology and Innovation
11 October 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 October 2006
NATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION 2005/2006 ANNUAL REPORT: BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr E N
N Ngcobo (ANC)
Documents handed out:
PowerPoint Presentation by National Research Foundation: Part1, Part2,
Part3 & Part4
National Research Foundation Annual Report 2005/2006 (available at www.nrf.co.za)
SUMMARY
The National Research Foundation (NRF) presented its annual report to the
Committee. NRFoffered facilities for researchers to conduct research, and was
responsible for the granting of funds and for creating awareness of research
relating to science and technology. Its four core missions were human resource
development, the generation of research and knowledge, the advancement of
technological innovation and the development of research infrastructure.
Strategic priorities included equity and redress, adherence to quality,
internationalisation of research, a refocus on Africa and an organizational
transformation of the NRF in the National System of Innovation (NSI). A number
of important projects were highlighted. It was noted that although there had
been no rise in grant applications, the size of grants had been increased. 1179
doctoral students were supported. The financial report indicated that NRF had
experienced a deficit due to the accounting methods used to account for the
post-retirement fund. R650 million of the R900 million had been spent on
grants, representing a 33% increase in grants funding. The NRF complied fully
with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act and had also
received an unqualified audit report from the Auditor–General.
Questions by members included the criteria for grants and funding approval
processes, the involvement in indigenous knowledge systems and maths enrichment
programmes at Dinaledi schools. Clarity was sought on transformation and
empowerment of women and disadvantaged people in both the research process and
in the structures of the NRF. The registration of patents, the social impact of
research outputs, and the funding of specific projects, as well as funding from
National Lotteries, were raised. Further explanations were given on the
post-retirement funding obligations. It was noted that a holistic approach was
needed to developing human resource capabilities and skills, and better
communication of the work and availability of the NRF resources.
MINUTES
Opening Remarks by the Chairperson and introduction of new CEO
The Chairperson stated that owing to the demanding parliamentary and
committee schedule, the Committee had not yet had the opportunity to be
formally introduced to the new Chief Executive Officer of the National Research
Foundation (NRF), Prof Mazamo Mangaliso. A formal introduction was necessary as
a basis for further interaction with the Foundation and its executive members.
Members had to be familiarized with the new incumbent’s vision for the
institution. The current meeting would not be considered a formal introduction
of the CEO to the Committee but his presence would be considered as a means to
facilitate the business of the day.
Ms A Canca, General Manager (Chief Director), Department of Science and
Technology, expressed her pleasure at the opportunity to again interact with
the Committee. The current meeting marked the first appearance of the new CEO
and President of the NRF to the Committee.
The Minister of Science and Technology, the Hon. Minister Mosibudi
Mangena, was unable to personally introduce the new incumbent to Members, owing
to a Cabinet meeting, but would undertake a formal introduction as soon as his
schedule allowed.
She explained that Prof Mangaliso had joined the NRF on 1 September 2006 and
the Department was looking forward to a good working relationship with
him. The National System of Innovation
had enjoyed a period of success through the efforts of the NRF. The Department
was confident that such successes would continue under the leadership of Prof
Mangaliso.
The Chairperson welcomed Prof Mangaliso. He expressed his hopes that the
Committee would be able to meet with him after his formal introduction by
Minister Mangena, and requested members to introduce themselves to Prof
Mangaliso.
The Chairperson noted that some members had apologized for their absence
and explained to Prof Managaliso that these members had priority engagements
with other committees.
National Research Foundation Briefing
Prof Mazamo Mangaliso, CEO of National Research Foundation, expressed his pleasure
at the warm welcome the Committee extended to him. He said that the work of the
previous financial year had been completed under the capable leadership of his
predecessor, Dr K Mokhele. He extended his apologies for the absence of the
Chairperson Prof B Reddy, who had been unable to postpone his commitments in
USA to attend this meeting, and Dr Mokhele, who was unable to attend due to
expiry of his contract.
The Chairperson noted that the Corporate Strategies and Annual Reports were
important documents and the Chairperson was supposed to introduce these
documents to parliament, as well as to account for both the successes and
failures of the organization. The absence of the Chairperson was a breach of
procedure, and another senior member familiar with issues within the
organization should have been present. He said that the new CEO could not take
responsibility for introducing such an important document and could not be
expected to answer questions Members may have. The Department of Science and
Technology (DST) was to accept responsibility for this oversight as it was
responsible for making the necessary arrangements. Such oversights created
problems in terms of the mechanisms employed by parliament and stipulated by
the Public Finance Management Act for interrogation of reports
Prof Mangaliso noted that the document circulated to members differed from the
one to be presented, but stated that the numerical information would remain
exactly the same, and the presentation today would include additional clarification
around the conceptual thinking and the context.
Prof Mangaliso thanked the Committee for its acceptance of his nomination, and
pledged that all efforts would be made to strengthen the collective work of the
Committee and NRF in order to advance the cause of science and technology in
South Africa.
Prof Mangaliso announced that the NRF had a responsibility to contribute to the
further development of South Africa’s technological and innovation status
globally and to ensure that obstacles to technological advancement were
removed. He expressed his confidence that the NRF team had the ability, as well
as the willingness, to invest effort in the exercise of their duties and
appreciated the support received from the Committee. The NRF was unique as it
encompassed and crosscut across all disciplines, and was a catalyst for the
transformation process across institutions of higher education. A synergy
between the work of the Committee and the Foundation should be created in order
to propel the country to higher levels of excellence.
As a new member of the NRF team, he was impressed by the amount of work that
had been done with the limited resources at its disposals. The foundation would
want to see a growth in its resources to accelerate the success of its existing
programmes and work. An increase in the output of PhD degrees in all
disciplines had been identified as a driver of the development of research. The
current output of PhDs lagged behind international trends. Ambitious targets
had to be set encompassing a 15 year period, and adequate resources had to be
committed to nurturing more PhD candidates from undergraduate level and
retaining them in the higher education system.
The Chairperson commended the presenter for highlighting the extent to which
the work of the previous year adhered to the stated objectives of the Strategic
Plan.
Ms Magdal Pienaar (Manager: Corporate Governance Unit) outlined the NRF’s
2005/2006 annual report to the Committee. She explained that the NRF had a
facilitative role, providing facilities for researchers to conduct research.
The foundation was also responsible for the granting of funds and for creating
awareness of research relating to science and technology. South Africa had to
increase its international competitiveness regarding the production of PhDs as
well as the number of researchers produced. A knowledge economy was dependent
on people who not only were armed with technical skills but also had high
intellectual abilities. The production of high levels of PhD’s served as a
platform for the transformation of the economy.
The four core missions of the NRF were human resource development, the
generation of research and knowledge, the advancement of technological
innovation and the development of research infrastructure. These were
complemented by the strategic priorities, which included equity and redress,
adherence to quality, internationalisation of research, a refocus on Africa and
an organizational transformation of the NRF in the National System of
Innovation (NSI).
A number of important projects were highlighted. “Big Science” initiatives such
as the South African Large Telescope (SALT) and the Square Kilometre Array
(SKA) would further promote astronomy research internationally as well as
demonstrate South Africa’s technological competencies.
Statistics revealed that the number of grants taken up by black students had
remained stagnant. This meant that although the number of applicants did not
rise, the size of grants awarded increased, to ensure that the number of people
already in the system, was retained. 1179 doctoral students had been supported,
but the current level of undergraduate and postgraduate studies would not
produce increased levels of doctoral candidates.
Mr Bischen Singh, Executive Director:Finance, NRF,
presented a brief financial report to the Committee. The NRF had experienced a
deficit due to the accounting methods used to account for the post-retirement
fund. The foundation had spent R650 million of its R900 million on grants. This
amounted to a 33% increase in grants funding. The NRF complied fully with the
requirements of the Public Finance Management Act. The audit committee reviewed
the Treasury’s checklist on the PFMA at regular intervals. It also complied
with the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) and annual financial
statements were based on these requirements. The NRF had also received an
unqualified audit report from the Auditor–General.
Discussion
Prof I Mohammed (ANC) commented that the NRF often granted funding to well
known researchers regardless of the strength of proposals made, and that often
the research interests of heads of departments (HODs) would take precedence
over other research areas. He asked whether this problem was being addressed
and noted that this question had arisen also in the past.
Dr Andrew Kaniki, Executive Director: Knowledge.
Management and Strategy, NRF,
responded that the grant process relied on the peer review mechanism,
which included South African and international experts. The NRF was constantly
analysing the grant process to ensure that funding was granted on the proposed
research rather than the reputation of the researcher. Reports were also rated
during the review process. Auditors paid particular attention to the review
process arrived at its conclusions, to establish the fairness of the granting
and review process.
The presentation had highlighted the NRF’s preoccupation with wise investments
of the funds at its disposal. Funding decisions were guided by the extent to
which grant applications corresponded with national goals and NRF’s research
and development strategy. The Department of Science and Technology also offered
guidance on which research areas were to be focused on.
He continued that HODs had to establish partnerships within their departments
but that the approaches towards grants and research would vary greatly. In this
context, the NRF had to ensure that it formed partnerships with institutions to
ensure that higher education institutions were driven by national goals.
Dr Kaniki further explained that annual institutional reviews had highlighted
challenges within the ratings process. The system continued to be improved
annually. He emphasized that the ratings process had to be reviewed in a
holistic and collaborative manner. Steering committees comprising key
stakeholders of Higher Education South Africa (HESA) had been established to
monitor and improve the efficacy of the review process. This committee would
meet the following week to set up a country review, guided by the country’s
higher education process.
The Chairperson stated that a recent lecture delivered by the Chief Justice of
the Constitutional Court, Judge Pius Langa, had demonstrated the need for
various strategies of transformation.
Transformation could not unfold in a vacuum and had to challenge the
varied biases within society. Similarly, the processes used for ratings must be
diverse.
Prof Mangaliso added that opportunities existed for a revision of
existing processes. The questions that had been raised by the Committee were
not a criticism of the work of the NRF, but were pointers to establish whether
the work of the foundation was consistent with the broader vision for the South
African society. Processes and outcomes should eventually be accountable to
these broader goals. He assured the Committee that all issues raised would be
critically examined.
The Chairperson commented that this meeting would familiarise the NRF
with the thinking of public representatives, thus assisting the CEO to align
NRF goals with the expectations of society. He emphasised that the issues
around the grant of funding and consideration of applications were critical. He
recalled the problems experienced in by the NRF in that its ratings of research
had sometimes proved to be undemocratic. The restructuring of the NRF’s
management structures may have impacted on efficacy of this process, and, if
so, he urged that such problems be tackled immediately.
Mr B Mnyandu (ANC) commented that the presentation had not mentioned any
activities around indigenous knowledge systems (IKS). He asked how much the NRF
had contributed to research in this particular area, what its attitude was
towards indigenous knowledge systems, and in what ways its work was truly
African.
Dr Andrew Kaniki answered that a National
Strategy on Traditional Knowledge Systems had been established in the
Department of Science and Technology. DST had provided the NRF with R10 million
over the past few years to explore indigenous knowledge research. Problems relating
to the take up of such research had been experienced and it was discovered that
a different process of rating had to be developed for research proposals in
this particular field, which was then developed through interaction with the
DST. At the same time, the DST had instituted a review of the IKS programmes as
managed by the NRF and a national office for IKS would also be established.
There had been an increase in the study of IKS. A database of completed and
ongoing research had been created. The DST had access to this database. The NRF
and DST were concerned with the actual use of the information resource in order
to establish the social impact of such research. No specific estimates had been
established yet but he could assure the Committee that important work had been
done in this field. Funding processes in the field had been reviewed under the
guidance of the National office of IKS.
Prof Mangaliso stressed the importance of the utilization of indigenous
knowledge systems in the research process. Research methods had to reflect the
particular culture of society. Existing accepted theories had to be challenged
and the methods of research had to be reinvented in order to develop an
“African way” of practising and studying science. African researchers had for
many years applied Western theories and practices that were not suitable for
the study of an African context.
He continued that the developmental role of language was central to IKS. He
stressed the importance of mother tongue education and suggested that the
debate on this issue should be continued. He noted that he had been schooled in
Xhosa, Afrikaans and then English at three levels of education and explained
that the use of different languages in each phase of educational development
posed particular challenges for learning. He reiterated that mother tongue
education had developmental advantages.
Mr Mnyandu requested clarification on what was meant by the “book entry” of
NRF’s post-retirement funds. He asked if the R56 million reflected the total
payments made to members and how the deficit was accounted for.
Mr Singh responded that the NRF had made a decision to not enrol new members in
the retirement fund subsequent to 1995. In terms of the accounting rules, the
NRF was still obliged to provide benefits to those members who had enlisted
prior to 1995. Benefits included post retirement access to health care benefits
and medical aid coverage. The NRF could have utilized certain accounting rules
that allowed it to reserve an amount of money on the balance sheet, to then
extract it, and finally retain the funds in the bank. This book entry had
satisfied the Auditor General and reflected generally recognized accounting
practices of accounting for contingent liabilities that could be incurred. The
NRF did not have the money to place on reserve in the bank nor to make the
level of payments, and therefore opted to curtail such expenditure by
buying-out some members when funds were available to do so. No new benefits
were available after 1995, as the NRF could not continue to fund post
retirement medical aid. The Foundation was not willing to reserve the limited
funds it received for grants for this purpose. NRF had approached the DST and
was also still awaiting the final decision by the National Treasury on this
issue. The Ministers of Science and Technology, and Finance had also had
discussions around this issue.
Mr Mnyandu asked whether rural schools participated in the Maths Enrichment
Programme, and how many of these schools benefited.
Dr Kaniki answered that the emphasis lay on the Dinaledi schools, which were
mainly located in rural and underdeveloped areas. This project aimed at
re-attracting young people to the learning of maths and encouraged interactions
with particular institutions. It was essentially focused on disadvantaged
schools than advantaged schools. He could not off hand recall the actual number
of these schools.
The Chairperson suggested that the NRF interact with the Director-General of
the Department of Education, who had raised significant challenges to the
success of the Dinaledi project at a recent meeting with the Chairperson, and
had requested the Committee’s assistance. The Chairperson suggested that a
workshop cold be held to devise support strategies for these schools. He asked
for a report back after the discussions.
Mr Mnyandu commented that it was striking that South Africa had the largest in
situ-derived African wildlife cell culture collection in the world , and asked
for further clarity, especially in light of the debate around genetic
modification.
Professor Paul Skelton, Managing Director, African Institute for Aquatic
Biodiversity, NRF, explained that the National Zoo, as a new national facility,
was faced with the challenge of transforming itself into a research facility as
opposed to its former role of a predominantly entertainment facility. This
change in paradigm would be more focused on Africa and to the preservation of
the continent’s heritage resources. The NRF would be directing the collection
to ensure that it had an increasingly African focus. The in situ-derived
wildlife cell culture referred to one of the fundamental strengths of the
national facilities in the biodiversity sector. Continued research on genetics,
in particular on molecular genetics, relied heavily on short-lived collections
and were thus not geared towards handling long term issues. The national
facilities provided a repository where long-term issues could be handled, and
the zoo and the cell culture would fulfill this potential in terms of tissue
banking. The collection had been developed in a genetic laboratory at UCT and
NRF had not previously had the resources or the willpower to maintain this
collection. The zoo, as a national facility, was now offering the nation an
opportunity to preserve these collections for future research, thus promoting
the NRF’s ability to service the needs of the country.
The Chairperson commented that knowledge would be of no use if it was isolated.
Part of the problem of indigenous knowledge based systems was that those who
had possessed such knowledge had died without passing the knowledge on. All
knowledge should be viewed as outreach to the broader society. He suggested the
NRF develop a communications strategy, endorsed by government and policy makers,
around the transformation of these national facilities.
Professor Skelton responded that NRF remained conscious of the fact that public
funds were utilised. This meant that the entire approach of the national
facilities was to make such resources widely available to the research
community for the benefit of all. DST was driven to communicate such issues and
to make resources known and available.
Mr Mnyandu noted the increase in the funding, and requested clarity on patent
outcomes.
Mr Singh responded that patents were tangible outcomes that could be
registered. Programmes funded for industrial development had produced more
patents than the research at national facilities. A clear distinction had to be
drawn between the different types of patents.
Professor Skelton added that the number of patents was not alarming. The
specific statistics referred to were patents produced at national facilities.
He explained that the nature of research at national facilities was not at the
industrial edge of research but more focused on the pure sciences. Patents were
therefore not a major outcome of such research. Research funded outside of the
national facilities, particularly in industrial processes, produced higher
patents. He stressed that NRF funded research has led to a significant increase
in patents produced.
Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) said that Parliamentarians must pay particular attention to
how the marginalisation of the past was being redressed in the areas of
research and development. The use of the term “black” often camouflaged the
real progress and he requested clarity on the trends.
Ms Pienaar expressed her agreement that the existing aggregation may have
limited use. However, the information required by the member was difficult to
obtain as many were not willing to talk about specific race issues. She added
that last year, a member of the Committee had already raised questions about
the use of the terms “black” and “white” in a post apartheid South Africa. She
stressed that such aggregations were necessary to assess the extent of the
transformation process. The NRF would try to refine its systems of measurement.
The Chairperson noted that the particular Committee member referred to was a
member of a party that was opposed to transformation. He continued that focus
should be placed rather on the processes of the institution rather than
personalities. Important challenges faced South African society that could not
be brushed aside.
Mr Nxumalo commented that that the figures in the report did not reflect the research
outputs of previously disadvantaged people. If this was not addressed, the
seriousness of enhancing research and development could be questioned.
Dr Kaniki answered that the aggregation requested by the member was available.
There had been a steady increase in the research undertaken by the various
groups of people. In some institutions of higher learning there was increasing
concern among academics, and NRF itself, that good African researchers were
moved from pure research to managerial positions, in order to fulfill structural transformation
requirements. The education systems were producing higher numbers of good
academics, but they did not always remain as academics.
Ms B Ngcobo (ANC) asked to what extent had the NRF re engineered itself in
order to start promoting the empowerment of women within the institution as
well as research and development.
Prof Mangaliso answered that women were not represented enough in higher
positions within the faculties of science and engineering at tertiary institutions.
This was a significant challenge that needed to be addressed. Hard work needed
to be done to produce female engineers. Outreach programmes encouraging women
to study these subjects had to be developed.
Ms Ngcobo said that the NRF had expressed a desire see the lives of all South
Africans improve, particularly in light of its activities around the promotion
of scarce skills, and asked for some indication of work done in the areas of
scarce skills development.
Dr Kaniki responded that that in terms of empowering women in research, various
programmes had been instituted that were part of the granting system of the
NRF. The Thuthuthuka programme had a specific programme of encouraging women to
undertake research. The NRF also collaborated with higher institutions to
encourage the enrolment of women at tertiary institutions.
In terms of
the granting process, women applicants with a good research proposal would be
granted extra points as an encouragement to access research funding. Additional
programmes emanating from the core initiatives of the foundation were
complimentary to those initiatives from higher education institutions.
Mr P Thompson, Executive Director: Human Resources, NRF, added that the NRF had
made steady progress regarding the representatively of women in research and
within the structures of the foundation. The representation of women had risen
by 2% annually, but was still not sufficient. Women formed the majority of the
population and therefore representivity within the organization as well as the
field of research should reflect this. The NRF could not retain those
individuals it had trained, and therefore a number of retention strategies had
been developed. He stressed that the Committee should be convinced of the NRF’s
commitment to further transform itself institutionally
Ms Ngcobo asked for an indication of the social impact of the research outputs,
and also asked whether the output of high quality PhDs would be retained in the
country, or whether an exodus of PhD
graduates was likely.
Prof Mangaliso mentioned that the ability of the NRF to retain PhD graduates
had assisted in reversing the “brain drain”. A continuing challenge was the
high levels of black African academics in international universities. A
strategy had to be developed to attract these intellectuals to South Africa
where their skills could be utilized for the development of South Africa. These
academics were also regarded as role models to younger generations.
At the top level of decision making, when a women left the organization,
another woman tended to replace her, thus leading to female empowerment. There
was a clear effort to maintain the status quo if not improve it. NRF currently
had a vacancy at executive level, as well as a vacancy at the vice presidency.
NRF would like women to apply and be appointed.
Ms Ngcobo noted the NRF’s cash flow problems to higher education institutions,
who were responsible for the management of such funds. She asked if mechanisms
were in place to ensure that funds, when granted, were used optimally. She also
asked how frequently NRF’s audit committee convened.
Mr Singh replied that the number of audit committee meetings held was indicated
in the report. This committee usually met four times each quarter, but had met
six times, due to special meetings, in the last quarter.
The Chairperson commented that the Committee was continually concerned of the
limited impact the restructuring process of the NRF had on the functioning of
its systems. The efficiency of the organization had to be ensured. In this
regard, the annual report was a core document to establish what had been
achieved as well as to understand the challenges the organization faced. This
would allow the development of strategies to tackle such issues. The proposal
by the Chairpersons’ Forum that a minister be held responsible for the
presentation of its annual report to Parliament would ensure that deficiencies
were accounted for at executive level.
He added that although the report was very substantial and interesting, the
Committee had insufficient time to analyse it thoroughly, having received it
only three days before this meeting. Members could therefore not provide
constructive ideas and suggestions for improvement on the NRF’s work. The
Chairperson’s Forum wanted annual reports to be submitted to Parliament as
early as August, which would allow Members to analyse reports prior to the
presentations. This proposal would become operational within a two-year period.
Mr Singh responded that the NRF had complied with the requirements of the
Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The Act stipulated that a report had to
be produced within the first five months of the end of the financial year. The
NRF had complied with this rule and was ready for the presentation on the
original date of 12 September. He was not sure where the confusion originated
and why the report had not been distributed to Members beforehand.
The Chairperson raised questions regarding the funding of SKA and SALT for the
completion of the baseline work necessary for the functioning of these
programmes. The international status of such projects enabled funds to be
generated from various donors, and he asked why these projects needed so much
funding from the state.
Mr Singh answered that the NRF was not limited to government funding. The NRF
Act allowed for the lobbying of additional funders. The SKA project was an
international project and was worth one billion euros. This large amount of
money posed a capacity challenge to the NRF as its internal structures had to
be strengthened to manage such funds. Equipment within national facilities had
to be maintained and upgraded and thus the rise in the annual expenditure and
funds needed. For example a CT scanner used at iThemba LABS recently needed to
be replaced at the amount of R6 million.
The Chairperson expressed his surprise that the NRF partially depended on funds
from the National Lotteries, as he believed that it was inappropriate to rely
on such funding. He asked for an indication of the nature of this assistance.
Mr Singh replied that the NRF had discussions with a range of potential
funders. The R30 million donated by the National Lotteries Fund was a once-off
payment, for the funding of the SKA and KAT projects.
The Chairperson commented that the innovation process had to be adequately
managed and the importance of strong management had been highlighted during a
recent visit to Japan. He felt that an innovation workshop should be arranged
for all stakeholders in the innovation process to create a better understanding
of the term itself. Many regarded innovation as merely technological in
character, rather than simply a creative destruction of an old order. He
stressed that DST and the Innovation Fund had to take leadership in this regard.
The Committee also had a significant role to play in leading innovation.
The Chairperson requested clarification between the Human Sciences Research
Council (HSRC) and the NRF.
Ms Pienaar answered that particular science councils were focused on performing
research. Unlike these, the NRF mainly focused on funding research as well as
conducting research in national facilities collaboratively. HSRC, the Centre
for Scientific Research (CSIR) and the NRF reported directly to the DST while
the rest of the science councils were accountable to their line departments.
The Chairperson said that research regarding human capital development was
mostly the focus of organizations such as the CSIR. An institution like the NRF
was well positioned for practical development of human capabilities and skills.
A more holistic approach needed to be developed in order to produce higher
levels of skilled people, rather than a mere rise in PhD graduates. South
Africa could learn from the programmes adopted by technologically advanced
countries such as South Korea and the added investment in the skills
development of their population. Such investments ranged from pension schemes
designed to secure family security, as well as important investments in the
education system.
Dr Kaniki responded that the NRF aimed to leverage the research training
capacity of science councils, government and industry. The CSIR had refocused
itself to performing research and therefore it was critical to develop the
institutional capacity of such research institutions in order to develop the
research skills of students at both graduate and undergraduate levels.
Prof Mangaliso expressed his commitment to cooperate with the Committee to
further strengthen the capacity of the NRF. NRF and DST would jointly develop a
holistic strategy for the advancement of science and technology, which would in
turn ensure that the rise in the number of PhDs was embedded in the whole of
society.
Prof Skelten added that science platforms such as SKA and KAT symbolized the ability
and commitment of South Africa to the advancement of science at an
international level. This would attract international funding and cooperation.
Prof Mangaliso commented that the Chairperson had raised important points of
discussion regarding the national innovation process. He pledged to familiarize
himself with the work of the innovation funds of the NRF. He committed the NRF
to ensure that the issues raised by Members would be acted upon and reported
back in the tabling of the next Annual Report.
Ms Canca commented that the DST had established a Science and Youth
Directorate. A Youth into Science strategy had also been finalised and work had
begun in the development of a human capital development strategy. The public
participation process would commence in due course.
The Chairperson noticed the need for an effective communication system to raise
awareness of and spread information about the processes and projects of both
the DST and the NRF. During the Committee’s recent trip to Japan, a Japanese
scientist had stressed that such a mechanism would simultaneously coordinate
the processes of the national innovation system, and DST should take
responsibility for the development of such a mechanism, and should create
better communications mechanisms between itself and the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.