Chairperson, hon colleagues, South African science is awash with talent. Our scientists are at the forefront of addressing our immense developmental challenges, from delivering potable water to developing disease- and drought-resistant crops, medicines and leading-edge technology that creates 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.
Kofi Annan, African statesman and former UN Secretary-General, said: "While technology shapes the future, it is the people who shape technology and decide what it 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 individuals whose endeavours have won that highest accolade for science, the Nobel Prize. They don't enjoy the same public recognition as our writers and peacemakers, but their achievements have had an impact on millions of lives worldwide.
Let's briefly acknowledge our Nobel scientists. In 1951, nine years before Albert Luthuli won the Nobel Peace Prize, Max Theiler won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing the vaccine against yellow fever. Next was Allan Cormack, in 1979, for his work in co-inventing the Computerised Axial Tomography, CAT, scanner. Three years later, in 1982, Aaron Klug won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work in molecular biology. And lastly, in 2002, Sydney Brenner shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his work in genetic analysis.
Klug, Brenner and Cormack have also won the Gold Order of Mapungubwe, South Africa's highest award for citizens who have excelled. Another South African scientist to receive this award is physicist Sir Basil Schonland, the founding president of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR.
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.
South African science needs these ambassadors, particularly in the fields where we can play a leading role on international science platforms; for example, astronomy, global change, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and drug and vaccine development.
Astronomy has been the recent trailblazer here. An exceptional example was set by young astronomers Kevin Govender, Thebe Medupe and Dr Enrico Oliver, who used the International Year of Astronomy last year to inspire our nation's youngsters to become astronomers.
Once we have inspired our individuals 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 more threats to academic freedom: the intrusive effect 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, NRF, instituted its now failed disciplinary hearing against the astronomer Professor Phil Charles, the nation's scientific organisations issued statements warning 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 the daily grind.
Is it poor communication or just disinterest that sees many scientific developments, for instance in drought- and disease-resistant crops, fail to reach emerging farmers? It's more likely to be the widespread inertia of the Department of Agriculture's extension services.
Breakthroughs in genetically modified crops are rejected more through misunderstanding of technicalities and mandates, instead of an appreciation of the scientific rigour with which they were developed. The developers of Spunta G2, 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, it will be South Africa's loss. Many countries in Africa and the developing world 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 Professor Charles, of which the international fallout still needs to be resolved.
I've 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 international best practice. This is essential if you want to clear the air and attract top-class scientists to work on South Africa's best scientific platforms, such as the Square Kilometre Array, SKA, and to assure them that they will be treated rationally and with respect.
The NRF's action was indicative of its seeming lack of understanding of the environment in which it serves. Last year, it changed the system of funding research in a manner referred to by an 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. It blames the department's funding cut for this.
The NRF's academic rating system research funding model is under review. Let's hope this ushers in a more productive system. The department's ambitious plans demand nothing less. Getting the funding of research right is critical to what I believe are the true 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 with which to do their research. Get these fundamentals right and innovations will follow.
We welcome the Minister's announcement to focus investment in these areas. I believe the Department of Science and Technology needs to fine-tune its five grand challenges to ensure that programmes are still relevant, affordable and can realistically be achieved by its 2018 deadline.
Are we attracting enough undergraduates to study the subjects needed for research that will make South Africa a global leader in biotechnology 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 the necessary activity and capacity of clinical research in South Africa has drastically declined and is in urgent need of revitalisation.
We must prioritise our science spend to ensure that the NRF has the money it needs to attain its target of 6 000 Doctors of Philosophy, PhDs, a year by 2025. There must be no excuses such as a lack of funds. Cut the millions of rands government spends on frivolity and invest in the nation's knowledge resource base. We will soon be asked to buy new scientific equipment and to 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 take up government's incentives to increase its investment in research and development. 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 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 the discussion should differentiate between "big science" and "big ego" projects.
South Africa is spoilt for choice when it comes to what we can achieve. But we must 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 sky above our arid regions to explore the beginning of time. We must use our proximity to three oceans to play a leading role in the science of global change. Our mineral wealth and resulting beneficiation development must continue to lead the world. We don't need to spend our science funds on "big ego" investments that have little to do with breaking new scientific ground, no matter how politically expedient. Government science spend must invest in fundamental research, not risk taxpayers' money in the commercialisation of proven technology, particularly if that technology is available fairly cheaply and there is plenty of it worldwide.
Government must develop policies that guide skills development, research and innovation in pursuit of its national vision. It must provide an 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. I thank you. [Applause.]