How should scientists — and their academic associations — respond when politics impinges on science? The easy answer is to duck the challenge, especially if the government has staked out its preferred position and is intolerant of dissent.

The Academy of Science of South Africa (Assaf) has a record of non-confrontation and even supplication to the government.

Assaf’s most notable failure was over Aids. In 2000, when president Thabo Mbeki set up his infamous “panel” on HIV Science, Assaf was silent then and after the panel resulted in a predictable stalemate between Aids denialists and South Africa’s leading scientists.

When the (then) United Nations Commission on Human Rights was falsely informed that Assaf along with other South African organisations supported Mbeki’s efforts, Assaf declined to issue a corrective statement, apparently worried about government retaliation.

It was only years later that Assaf engaged with Aids policy and then obliquely. Its 2007 consensus report on nutrition, HIV and TB was clear that HIV caused Aids, but focussed on the need for more research on the relationship between nutrition, prevention and treatment.

In its celebratory “20 years of Eexcellence”, the then president of Assaf noted that Mbeki had critiqued the consensus report, but had taken “issue not with the report, because he realised the report was not condemning the government, but was saying that science had failed to provide a basis for knowing how nutrition affects this infection”. 

Not “condemning” government, even when it needs to be “condemned” appears to be a strategic given, even a point of pride, for Assaf.

The first time Assaf stuck its head over the parapet regarding Mbeki’s Aids policies was this year when it critiqued him for repeating his Aids denialist nonsense about HIV and Aids. Now that Mbeki has no political power, it was presumably OK (and easy) for Assaf to issue the kind of statement it should have issued 20 years ago.

Assaf was bolder in 2020 in support of the president of the Medical Research Council (and Assaf member) when she was attacked for critiquing aspects of the South African government’s response to Covid-19.  In this case, however, Assaf focused its response on the acting director-general in the Department of Health, whilst showing respect for the minister of health and unbridled enthusiasm for the president. On Covid-19, as on Aids, Assaf appeared reluctant to criticise serving government ministers.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine this year posed another challenge to Assaf. In March, soon after Russia launched its invasion, Assaf informed its members that it was “deeply saddened by the tragic events following the Russian invasion… and the consequences for human life and settlements” — but nonetheless opted “not to issue a statement on the crisis in Ukraine at this time”. 

Assaf insisted it had not been swayed by a reported instruction from the South African government that they “should not engage in any action of any kind, which could be construed as a political commentary or political reaction to the developments in Ukraine”. But Assaf’s supplication conforms with the general pattern of not criticising positions taken by the president or senior ministers.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Assaf justified its fence-sitting at the time on the grounds that it had previously decided — in the context of debate over Palestine — “not to issue a statement unless questions of science and the work of scientists were at the centre of the concerns of an Academy such as ours”.

We responded in Daily Maverick by pointing out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had destroyed universities (and of course the work of scientists) and that Academies around the world had roundly condemned the invasion — as had thousands of Russian scientists.

We concluded that if the Academy “does stand for science, then it must rethink its fence-sitting and condemn the Russian invasion in solidarity with Ukraine, as scientists and as democrats and anti-imperialists”.

Assaf responded to this and other calls for it to issue a statement by hosting a couple of webinars, one on science and war, and the other on the effects of the Ukraine war on South Africa’s economy.

On 5 October 2022, Assaf released its annual reports. By then it was clear that Russia’s invasion had entirely upended university life and disrupted scientific research. By the Academy’s March 2022 criteria, a statement was surely warranted. Yet Assaf continued to duck the issue.

The chief operating officer’s report simply noted that the Council of the Academy was “very sympathetic to the plight of victims of all conflict, including Ukrainians” but had decided not to issue a statement supposedly because the Academy “had never engaged in conflict issues previously”.

This terse statement belies the political nature of Assaf’s decision. We had earlier written to Assaf to tender our resignations over its failure to condemn the war in Ukraine. Assaf replied by reiterating that it had not “engaged in aspects of war and conflict in other instances” and that it would be “disrespectful to the other countries” if it were to “issue a statement on the Ukraine-Russia conflict now”.

Assaf was, we were informed, “in the process of engaging with the Ukrainian Academy to invite them to a joint webinar to discuss the impact of the war on science and academic activities” believing that “this is the best way of solidarity and we as an Academy can engage with them under the current circumstances.”

Assaf’s position mirrors the “whataboutist” logic of the South African government’s position on Ukraine — a position that has been thoroughly interrogated and critiqued by Greg Mills and Ray Hartley.

Just because Assaf failed to comment on earlier conflicts that have so thoroughly disrupted scientific teaching and research does not mean that it should continue making the same mistake. It should certainly not continue to mirror government-speak aimed at appeasing Vladimir Putin in referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the “Ukraine-Russia conflict”.

In their response to us, Assaf also chose to racialise the issue by adding that it is “predominantly people of European ancestry” — i.e., “white” people — “who are pushing for Assaf to make a statement”.

Is this supposed to give us pause, implying that it is racist to denounce the Russian invasion? This racialisation of debate is, of course, commonplace in South Africa, but should be beneath Assaf. 

On Wednesday 12 October Assaf is holding its annual general meeting. The issue of the Russian invasion and onslaught on scientists in Ukraine (and in Russia itself) is not on the agenda.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian scientists are probably trying to figure out how to respond to Assaf’s invitation to discuss the impact of the war. Should they take a deep breath, take time out from the war effort and try and explain to our seemingly moronic Academy that yes, the war has been bad for science? 

Or should they just tell the Assaf to accept the obvious and condemn Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine?

Assaf has a long and shameful history of political cowardice. Perhaps, two decades from now, it will muster the courage to condemn the war in Ukraine, just as it has now mustered the courage to speak out against Aids denialism. DM