Only one research body managed to avoid a government funding cut, reports Lesley Cowling
The Foundation for Research Development (FRD) has been rated top of the science councils for its research support division, and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) has ranked last.
The ratings, in points out of 10, were determined by a panel of 16 scientists, technologists and other stakeholders last year after they listened to public submissions by the councils.
The FRD’s research support division scored 7,51 – 0,63 more than the nearest runner- up, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) – a score that places it way ahead of the pack.
The HSRC scored 6,31 – at the bottom of the councils, but better than the three national facilities, the National Accelerator Centre, the Hartebeeshoek Radio Astronomy and the South African Astronomical Observatory, which are administered by the FRD.
The rating system was used as a guide to adjusting the funding to councils for the 1997/98 financial year, and also as a way of getting councils into the habit of assessing their work and justifying its worth. Only the FRD’s research support division received an increase on its funding – an extra 1,55%. According to the FRD’s latest newsletter, its allocation of the science vote will be just over R103- million.
The other councils all had their funding cut, but very slightly -according to FRD News, none lost more than 2% of their previous budgets. The national facilities lost between 2% and 3%.
The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology was wary of radically slashing any one council’s budget, leading to the closure of some divisions and ending research programmes. Deputy director general Rob Adam says the department would prefer to base reorganisation on a more substantial examination of the councils, which is in the pipeline.
The current ratings were based on the council’s own assessment of its performance in seven areas of activity, combined with the panel’s assessment.
These areas of assessment included looking at how well the council did in encouraging wealth generation, using human resources or generating new knowledge. It also examined whether the council was getting involved in partnerships in industry, offering a service, or supporting general research and using natural resources.
The FRD did well because it began transforming itself several years ago and its new vision matches the principles articulated by the department. But another reason for its success may lie with its president, Khotso Mokhele, a vigorous and passionate campaigner for the foundation and its work. His presentation to the panel last year was persuasive – so much so that insiders joke having Mokhele on your team is worth a few ratings points in itself.
Mokhele himself was disappointed in the funding allocation, even though it was an increase on the previous year. The FRD asked for about R170-million. Says Mokhele: “We were quite aggressive in asking for what we needed. But we weren’t firing an AK-47 into the bush and hoping we would hit something – like R110-million. We asked for R170-million because we needed it, and we still need it.”
He says the FRD will now actively campaign to raise the money from other sources locally and internationally. Otherwise, he says he would feel a sense of failing the scientific community, which has to do so much on very little support.
Whatever his disappointment, it is not as severe as that of the executives of the HSRC, whose low rating shows it to be struggling – still – with low credibility inherited from a previous era.
HSRC president Rolf Stumpf says the council also did badly because the human and social sciences do not fare well when examined in terms of tangible results and measurable effects. “It is much easier to measure the value of a new product that reduces emissions than the impact of a child-abuse programme.”
He acknowledged he was unhappy with the rating by the panel, which he believes is based on an inherited perception. But he pointed to the HSRC’s staff complement, which is more diverse than any of the other councils, as a sign of how the HSRC has changed: “White males are a minority.” The council will continue to appoint black and female researchers to high-level permanent and contract appointments.
Stumpf wants the HSRC to be reviewed again – by a panel of its peers, other human scientists rather than natural scientists.
Adi Paterson, executive vice-president of technology and policy at the CSIR, says his council did well in the ratings because of its performance in “technology transfer, linkage to national priorities and human resources development”.
The CSIR has about 13 000 paying clients and nearly 60% of its research is paid for by contracts, so it does well in the category of industry partnerships.
When it comes to human resources development, its in-service training schemes and links to historically disadvantaged universities stood it in good stead. But also, because the CSIR has a broad technology portfolio, it is able to get involved in a wide range of activities that make for good ratings in all the categories.
One observer noted the CSIR may have done better in its ratings if there wasn’t some feeling in industry that it competes with other companies and takes business from them. Adam confirms that the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology sometimes gets complaints of this nature, but they are rarely found to be valid. However, it is an issue that will have to be looked at when the CSIR goes through a more thorough assessment and a policy may have to be drawn up to manage this problem.
The 1997/98 budget for the councils is slightly more, in nominal terms, than the 1996/97 allocation. Adam acknowledges that, in real terms, this means less money is available for research and development, especially with the increased cost of equipment. But he believes it is nonetheless an encouraging signal for the research world of the government’s commitment to science, in an environment of huge budget cuts for other departments.
A new feature of the science allocation this year is the R10-million set aside for crime prevention. The councils have been asked to submit proposals for projects that could help bring down levels of crime, and innovative ideas will be funded.
It will be interesting to see what councils like Mintek, the South African Bureau of Standards, the Agricultural Research Council and the Council for Geosciences will come up with. But if they want to make up some of their funding, this might be the way to go.
*******************************************
DUE TO TECHNICAL DELAYS THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL WAS OMITTED FROM LAST WEEK’S ELECTRONIC EDITION OF THE MAIL & GUARDIAN: *******************************************
NEWS 10/1/97