The article “A trip around the bizarre=20 world of apartheid’s mad scientists” by=20 Mungo Soggot and Eddie Koch (June 27 to=20 July 3) made interesting, if lurid,=20 reading. It emphasises the fact that South=20 African scientific capacity was used as a=20 resource to support the immoral objectives=20 of apartheid.
In this sense, it was no different from any=20 other national resource. Remember how the=20 potential non-delivery of maize exports was=20 used to whip Zambia into line? Or how a=20 range of strategic minerals was used as a=20 bargaining chip with Western powers during=20 the 1970s and 1980s?
First, a great deal of excellent scientific=20 research directed either towards the=20 generation of new knowledge or towards=20 goals clearly in the public good was=20 carried out by South African scientists=20 prior to 1994.=20
It is a little-known fact that South=20 Africa’s current expertise in nuclear=20 physics has more to do with the remarkable=20 impact of the late Professor Willi Frahn at=20 the University of Cape Town than with the=20 fission activities at Pelindaba. Frahn’s=20 work was completely unrelated to either the=20 weapons or the nuclear energy programme.=20
In other basic sciences cutting-edge work=20 was done in archaeology by Phillip Tobias,=20 in cosmology by George Ellis and in=20 geochemistry by Louis Ahrens, to mention a=20 few. Whether these scientists should have=20 devoted less effort to their careers and=20 more towards the liberation of their=20 country is a question addressable not only=20 to them, but to all kinds of people in pre- 1994 South Africa.=20
The point is these scientists produced work=20 of an international calibre which was not=20 motivated by (and hence not distorted by)=20 the service of apartheid.
Second, if the statements of men like=20 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt are to be=20 believed, many of the “inventions” of South=20 African scientists working in a racist=20 “total onslaught” paradigm were not=20 strictly their own creations.
Originality was often claimed for the=20 purpose of obscuring the identity of the=20 country whose scientists had broken one or=20 other international embargo by sharing=20 their technology with South Africa.=20 Apparently the razor-wire described in the=20 article is a case in point.
Third, and more generally, for most of this=20 century science has been portrayed in terms=20 of either of two remarkably different=20 caricatures: as the single-minded and=20 paranoid creator of Frankenstein-type=20 monsters, or as the ultimate arbiter of=20 rationality.=20
The subjects of the article, though more=20 mundane than Mary Shelley’s anti-hero, are=20 clearly recognisable as monster-makers. Is=20 there a tradition in South African science=20 which conforms to the second caricature?=20 Indeed, does such science exist anywhere?
Scientists can fail to provide answers for=20 several reasons:
* The science itself is not developed to=20 the point where the answer is knowable.=20 Some questions in cosmology – for example,=20 is the universe closed or not? – are of=20 this nature.
* Incorrect assumptions are made within a=20 well-understood area of science. This often=20 happens in forensic investigations,=20 resulting in disagreements between experts=20 in courts of law.
* Outright mendacity on the part of the=20 scientist. For example, professional=20 lobbyists will always be able to find some=20 highly qualified individual to attest to=20 the harmlessness of a contested product in=20 exchange for a hefty fee.
There are also questions which fall outside=20 the competence of science to answer. The=20 existence of God is one.
However, some questions which appear=20 intrinsically unknowable and hence=20 metaphysical in one era may turn into a=20 matter of routine physics in a future one.=20 The composition of the stars is such a=20 question: although out of reach, every star=20 sends the signal of its chemical=20 composition entwined with the light it=20 emits.
Nevertheless, although the knowledge of the=20 workings of the natural world is neutral in=20 itself, the application of this knowledge=20 in the form of technology is not.=20
In the past, the overlap between the=20 technology base of South Africa and the=20 security requirements of the previous=20 government was considerable. On the=20 positive side, the result has been an=20 internationally competitive high-technology=20 manufacturing capability. On the negative=20 side lie the horrors and absurdities=20 described in the article.=20
What is the situation three years into a=20 new political dispensation? I am happy to=20 say the government now has in place a=20 coherent science and technology policy, and=20 is moving quickly to ensure that it has the=20 right system and set of institutions to=20 implement this policy.
What evidence is there for this optimism?=20 In September 1996 the Cabinet accepted the=20 White Paper on Science and Technology as=20 government policy. The framework of the=20 White Paper is the development of a=20 National System of Innovation, which can be=20 thought of as a set of functioning=20 institutions, organisations and policies=20 which interact constructively in the=20 pursuit of a common set of social and=20 economic goals and objectives.
The White Paper directs the output of the=20 National System of Innovation towards the=20 following key themes:
* Promoting competitiveness and employment=20 creation;
* enhancing quality of life;
* developing human resources;
* working towards environmental=20 sustainability; and
* promoting an information society.
These themes are fully supportive of the=20 goals of the Reconstruction and Development=20 Programme and the Growth Employment and=20 Redistribution strategy.
To enable the implementation of this new=20 policy, the Department of Arts, Culture,=20 Science and Technology, with the approval=20 of the Ministers’ Committee on Science and=20 Technology and the Interdepartmental=20 Committee on the Restructuring of State=20 Assets, is undertaking a fundamental review=20 of individual science and technology=20 institutions – for example, science=20 councils – as well as the system as a=20 whole.=20
The aim is to produce a blueprint which=20 will enable science and technology=20 programmes to be aligned with new national=20 policy imperatives.
There is a danger that, in our haste to=20 condemn the misguided applications of=20 science and technology under the previous=20 government, we negate the clear benefits=20 which their committed and innovative=20 application can bring in this new era.=20
However, we need to be unequivocal in our=20 avowal that these powerful tools will never=20 again be used to oppress our people. -=20 Brigitte Mabandla, Deputy Minister,=20 Department of Arts, Culture, Science and=20 Technology
Journalists still in comfort zone
Last week’s editorial reference by the Mail=20 & Guardian to my article in The Sunday=20 Independent of August 17 confirms why, in=20 my view, a newspaper I used to revere, far=20 from being “Africa’s best read”, may have=20 become, in respect of its coverage of South=20 Africa, an ordinary newspaper labouring=20 under the illusion of quality.
Firstly, in the Verbatim column the M&G=20 took from my article a sentence and=20 distorted its nuanced intentions with an=20 inappropriate caption. A fairer caption for=20 readers who may not have seen the full=20 article could have been: “Professor Njabulo=20 Ndebele, writing about some professional=20 challenges facing journalism in=20 contemporary South Africa”.
But even this probably would not have=20 helped, due to the irony that still=20 remains. As it stands, the quotation is=20 totally out of context, and suggests that I=20 stand for what the M&G simplistically calls=20 “patriotic journalism”.=20
We have here a hint of vindictiveness. Any=20 careful reader of my article will not come=20 to the conclusion that I was accusing the=20 press of being “unpatriotic in its=20 reporting”. Rather, I needed to be=20 convinced that in the performance of its=20 duties, the M&G is fully aware of other=20 relevant dimensions.
The overall effect of the M&G’s technique=20 is to trivialise a carefully considered and=20 genuine attempt to suggest other avenues to=20 the debate. In reality, rather than calling=20 on anyone to give up their rights, or to=20 accept untenable compromises, I was=20 concerned that those rights should not=20 ultimately be compromised.
Secondly, I had seen neither Jon Qwelane’s=20 nor Thami Mazwai’s articles on the Denel=20 issue at the time I entered the debate. For=20 example, my article had already been=20 submitted by the time Mazwai’s was=20 published. I engaged The Sunday Independent=20 in a dialogue on the basis of its reports=20 on the issue and one aspect of John=20 Battersby’s response to Qwelane. There is=20 no way it could be said that I was=20 “following” Mazwai or Qwelane.=20
Although the M&G says my “attack” was “ill- directed”, it does not say in what way. My=20 primary focus was on how the media responds=20 to and reflects a socio-political=20 environment which, I believe, requires new=20 tools of analysis and approach. That is why=20 there was no specific reference to the=20 Denel arms sale in the article.=20
I concede the occasion of the debate on the=20 arms sales triggered off in my mind a=20 larger issue of how far our journalistic=20 imagination has developed beyond habits of=20 reportage perfected in the historic fight=20 against oppression. How actively are our=20 journalists grappling with archeologies of=20 apartheid which may still affect their=20 imaging of today’s problems? Is it possible=20 these habits may have become a “comfort=20 zone”?
The analogy made in the editorial of the=20 relationship between the press and=20 governments in “the rest of Africa” does=20 underscore my concern about the M&G’s=20 imaging of contemporary South Africa. What=20 goes on in many African countries is=20 analogous to what happened in our country=20 during the days of oppression.
That is why for the M&G the heroic response=20 of journalists caught in that situation=20 reflects a familiar oppositional ideal.=20 That ideal is still relevant to our=20 situation, but I feel entitled to ask for=20 much more.
Earlier this year, the M&G published an=20 article about an imagined “crisis” at the=20 University of the North. I thought this=20 article was unfair and unethical. Many=20 people both inside the university and=20 outside thought so too.=20
I wrote a response, assuring my senate that=20 the M&G would publish it. My response never=20 saw the light of day. When I called to find=20 out why it was not published, I was given=20 vague, unconvincing answers.=20
In my response, I had pointed out=20 fundamental flaws in the approach of the=20 article, and suggested that the flaws spoke=20 less about the “crisis” on my campus, than=20 about a possible “crisis” in journalism. I=20 invited the M&G to return to my campus with=20 more time on their hands to do some=20 thorough investigations and, hopefully, in=20 an unsparing yet balanced way, come out=20 with a picture of our campus that would=20 significantly enhance our understanding of=20 its problems.
Much later, another journalist from the M&G=20 visited the University of the North, spent=20 much time with “the opposition” and rushed=20 back to Johannesburg to phone me from=20 there. I expressed to her my=20 dissatisfaction about this, as I would have=20 wanted her to not only interview me=20 personally, but also to meet other members=20 of the university management. Nevertheless,=20 the resulting article was much better than=20 the earlier one, but still seriously=20 imperfect.
I have revealed the unknown story of my=20 dealings with the M&G over its coverage not=20 only of the problems of my campus, but of=20 higher education in general, because I feel=20 I was actively censored by the M&G.
When I wrote the article I sent to the=20 Independent, I agonised over whether to=20 send it to the Independent or to the M&G. I=20 decided that I could not trust the M&G to=20 publish it.=20
As I finish writing this one, I am left=20 wondering whether it will have a better=20 fate, or whether it will be cut to the=20 point where I cannot recognise it. So when=20 I write about “public trust in the media”,=20 I know what I am talking about. A free=20 press has yet to acquire the quality of=20 rigorous methodology.
Whereas I used to look forward to my Friday=20 reading of the M&G, this weekly reading=20 anticipation and the pleasure of it have=20 shifted to Sunday. Will the M&G return to=20 the drawing board, and recover its=20 imagination? – Njabulo S Ndebele, vice- chancellor and principal, Turfloop
* The editor replies: After discussions=20 with John Wiltshire ,Professor Ndebele’s=20 spokesman, we agreed we would hold the=20 vice-Chancellor’s lengthy critique of our=20 February report, pending another visit by=20 the M&G to Turfloop.=20
Subsequently we sent another reporter to=20 Turfloop, and sought strenuously to=20 identify the underlying tensions and=20 present them in a balanced manner (“Back to=20 class, but conflict simmers”, June 6 to=20 12.) We spoke to Ndebele and recorded his=20 comments at length.
ENDS