GROUNDUP

National Research Foundation cuts hurt South Africa’s scientists

By GroundUp 3 May 2018

University of Liverpool Faculty of Health & Life Sciences (via Flickr - CC BY 2.0)

Researchers need to hold public officials accountable.

First published by GroundUp

Budgetary constraints have forced the National Research Foundation (NRF) to slash funding in key programmes. Recent cutbacks threaten to reduce research in the short term and drive more young researchers out of the public sector. The massive cuts have been criticised, but there are also other questionable changes to resource allocation.

The NRF assesses researchers and assigns them a rating based on research output and impact. The NRF has argued that the number of rated researchers has expanded too rapidly for funding to be maintained at previous levels. The NRF says its Incentive Funding for Rated Researchers programme encouraged research but was “never created as a primary vehicle for funding research”.

But an environment has developed where many of South Africa’s public sector researchers have come to rely on the NRF’s modest funding to maintain research programmes. The grant pays for students, buys supplies and covers maintenance expenses. Now some researchers have seen their funding cut by up to 90% with little warning. Evidently there have been problems with strategic projections, long-term planning and communication. Most researchers became aware of the changes only in late 2017.

The NRF funds postdoctoral scholars through its Free-Standing, Innovation and Scarce Skills Postdoctoral Fellowships. Funding is allocated based on a proposal and the research and teaching profile of the applicant, among other criteria. Although applications were accepted for postdoctoral research both at South African institutions and institutions abroad, the NRF appears to have decided that for 2018 funding would only be allocated to researchers based at domestic institutions.

In April, I received official feedback on my application, 10 months after it was submitted. Although the review panel (consisting of technical experts) had recommended the fellowship be awarded, the NRF funding committee had decided against it due to “budgetary constraints and competitiveness of the programme”.

This is the same reason given for cutbacks to the rated researchers programme. It is at least commendable that relatively detailed feedback is provided to applicants.

Postdoctoral researchers are both producers of research and trainees. The NRF has in effect decided not to support a single young researcher for training at an institution abroad. Such decisions have implications for promising science careers, particularly of young black scientists who rely heavily on this funding. Future international collaboration, essential in modern science, has also been undermined.

The NRF’s measured outcomes are dominated by how many researchers it funds. This may have encouraged a shift in favour of lower-rated B and C-rated researchers over A-rated researchers, or domestically-based postdoctoral researchers over those based overseas, because the individual grants are cheaper. Those of us on the outside just do not know what processes have brought about the recent changes. When it comes to key decisions about resource allocation, the concern is whether individual researchers are being supported and communicated with in a manner that is fair and makes strategic sense.

The NRF’s 2020 strategy claims it “will enable the organisation to intensify and strengthen African and global networks to position South Africa in the international arena in order to drive the knowledge economy”.

The mission of the strategy is “to contribute to the knowledge economy in South Africa by attaining at least 1% of the global research and development (R&D) output by 2020”.

The overriding problem is a lack of resources. We need a greater percentage of GDP allocated to research. The previous Minister for Science and Technology, Naledi Pandor, argued for 1.5%, but with essential services under financial pressure this is going to be difficult.

What is achievable is for the NRF and the Department of Science and Technology to communicate better and be transparent about decision-making.

The NRF needs to clarify whether the cuts this year were a once-off adjustment because of budgetary shortfalls or if the cuts will apply well into the future.

Scientists — as well as the public — should be made aware of the extent of funding shortages and what this means for public investment in scientific study and research for the future.

The research community needs to hold public officials accountable and defend the public institutions that support research. We should not be waiting for funding cuts that affect us directly before organising and taking action in the public interest. DM

Emile Engel is Commonwealth Rutherford Fellow at the Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies, University of Bath

Views expressed are not necessarily GroundUp’s

Gallery

While we have your attention...

An increasingly rare commodity, quality independent journalism costs money, though not nearly as much as its absence can cost global community. No country can live and prosper without truth - that's why it matters.

Every Daily Maverick article and every Scorpio exposé are our contribution to this unshakeable mission. It is by far the most effective investment into South Africa's future.

Join our mission to become a Maverick Insider. Together we can Defend Defend Truth.


ANALYSIS

A depressed 2019 voter turnout – SA democracy’s big enemy

By Stephen Grootes

When threatened the Central African Horror Frog will break the bones in its toes and force them through its skin Wolverine-style to create makeshift claws.