Programme Director,
Minister Ingrid Lieten of the Flemish Government,
Prof. Howard Alper, Chair of the Knowledge Economy Network International,
Dr Boris Cizelj, Chair of the Knowledge Economy Network Advisory Board,
Distinguished guests,
Members of the media.
I am delighted that the Knowledge Economy Network has afforded the Department of Science and Technology the honour to host the annual KEN Forum. It gives us the opportunity to critically interrogate and challenge some of the conventional wisdoms that are commonly associated with what we loosely describe as a "knowledge society".
Firstly, however, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to our international guests, as well as all South African participants. Thank you for taking the time to attend the KEN Forum.
However, as important as policy discussions on the knowledge society are, unfortunately they have become a bit stale. Let me be frank – we like to repeat the same truisms, and people like me have made countless speeches on the subject. I am sure that many of you have heard the same things said over and over, for example:
- Science and technology is important for growth and development.
- We need a golden triangle or triple helix between science, education and business.
- Investment in human capital development is crucial.
- Incentives are needed for greater industrial participation.
Yes, we all agree, and of course it is true. However, I am tempted to ask: "But so what?"
The knowledge society discourse sometimes runs the risk of being what our American friends like to call "motherhood and apple pie" – full of wholesome sayings. I am told the Brussels equivalent is "blah blah". If I can leave you with one message this morning, it is that the 2013 KEN Forum should be different; let's leave the "blah blah" behind.
Whether looking at the European Union's Innovation Union or South Africa's Ten-Year Innovation Plan, we all share the same objective: to become a – if not the – most competitive knowledge economy. The pillars on which we base our strategies, inspired by the World Bank and other institutions, do not differ substantially. We have all been inspired by the Nordic successes and the Asian Tigers.
I therefore do not think it would be useful if I were to elaborate on all the well-known elements of a successful knowledge economy strategy. You are the experts. We all know what we want and more or less how to achieve it. I would therefore like to set a challenge before this Forum.
You may have noticed, at newsagents, the front page of this week's edition of The Economist, raising an alarm about "How Science Goes Wrong". In his opinion piece, the editor notes that modern science has changed the world beyond recognition – and overwhelmingly for the better. He cautions, however, that success can breed complacency.
Science is underpinned by the maxim "trust, but verify". The Economist, however, draws our attention to the fact that modern scientists are perhaps doing too much trusting and not enough verifying. Increasingly, the results of experiments performed according to less-than-rigorous protocols and poor analyses are not only misdirecting and jeopardising knowledge production, but also undermining the reputation of science.
Is our global pursuit of the knowledge economy not running the same risk? I believe there is a real danger of finding ourselves in the comfort zone of preaching to the proverbially converted. We repeat what we tell each other about how the development of the knowledge economy is the only way to go, and that once we have embraced this idea, success is just around the corner. We are also quick to celebrate the success of knowledge and innovation orientated programmes, which stand to make our economies more competitive and enhance the quality of the lives of our citizens.
However, there is a big "but"; are we constantly verifying if our approach is the right one? If not, it is essential that we do so, because without verification we may base our decisions on dubious findings and conclusions.
My challenge to this forum is: let us not be complacent about the merits and strategies for the knowledge economy. Instead, let us critically interrogate and verify. Let there be no sacred cows. We are gathered here to advance our understanding of how knowledge and innovation can better our societies. In doing so, we should remain true to the core values of knowledge production, namely, rigorous intellectual debate and verification.
A worrying trend shown by an analysis of publications in scientific journals is that the results of failures to prove hypotheses are seldom published. So-called "negative results" now account for only 14% of publications in peer-reviewed journals. Surely knowing what is false is as important as knowing what is true? I would therefore like the KEN Forum to tell us not only the good news, but also the bad news.
The editor of The Economist concludes that science's privileged status is founded on its capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. The ancient scholar, Pliny the Elder, asserted, "Out of Africa, always something new." It is my hope that the 2013 Ken Forum will produce much that is new, including advice on how to correct what we are doing wrong.
In her provocative new work, "The Entrepreneurial State", Prof. Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of Science and Technology at the University of Sussex, seeks to debunk what she refers to as "myths" regarding the respective roles of the public and private sectors in innovation policy.
Debunking myths about the knowledge economy, its impact and strategies for promotion, is exactly what this forum should seek to do. In other words, contradicting, revising or – if merited – confirming the tenets of our policies should be our goal, but only after rigorous verification.
Prof. Mazzucato fearlessly takes on the shibboleth that the state should be seen as largely a bureaucratic organisation, with the primary responsibility of addressing market failures. Entrepreneurship and innovation, the gospel goes, should be left to the private sector. Prof. Mazzucato debunks this myth by demonstrating through rigorous scholarship that many of today's most important technologies would not have been possible without the support of the state.
Her case studies on the funding of innovation show, for example, that Apple's iPhone would never have been developed without substantial high-risk investment in basic research from public funds in the United States.
Some would call this a market failure. A more useful approach would be to understand the landscape, do what needs to be done and not wait for the market to fail. It is not useful to simply echo the belief that markets should be more dynamic and competitive, yet still naively call for a diminished state role despite the hard-hitting reality of the ongoing global economic crisis. It is assumed that the answer is to increasingly outsource state services and reduce public budgets.
However, such policies are inconsistent with the dynamics of an efficient system of innovation, where the roles of the public and private sector are not in conflict with each other, but instead work in a symbiotic partnership. This is the type of debate, I hope, that the KEN Forum will stimulate.
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not misunderstand me. My conviction regarding the necessity for investing in research, innovation and education is as firm as ever. Indeed, building the South African knowledge economy is one of the bedrocks of South Africa's 2030 National Development Plan. However, we have to become much better and smarter in doing this.
This is why I opted not to talk about South Africa's knowledge economy strategy, but rather to ask for your assistance in shaping a more effective strategy. This forum will enable us to learn from our international guests, but it should also serve to enrich the knowledge economy debate and strategy-making internationally.
The global pursuit of knowledge economies through dynamic and mission-driven partnerships is absolutely essential if we are going to address the many shared societal challenges facing our planet effectively. These include fighting poverty and disease, improving food security, and mitigating and adapting to climate change. The convening of this forum is therefore most timely and appropriate. Its value will, however, depend on the outcomes determined by your contributions.
In conclusion, I would like to extend a special word of thanks to the Knowledge Economy Network Secretariat, to Dr Cizelj and his team, for their highly efficient cooperation with the Department of Science and Technology in organising this event. I am also especially delighted that this event affords us an opportunity to continue cooperation with an old friend of South Africa, Prof. Alper.
I would also like to extend a special word of welcome and appreciation to Minister Lieten. South Africa and Flanders share the same strong conviction of the importance of investment in innovation to address societal challenges.
Of course, I am looking forward to seeing you again tonight at the KEN Awards Ceremony and Gala Dinner, which will provide us with the opportunity to share our deepest and most profound reflections with the help of our good South African wines! I have no doubt that the work of the 2013 award winners will also encourage and inspire. I look forward to learning more about their achievements.
Ladies and gentlemen, the assignment I have given you will be a challenging task, so while in Cape Town do also take time to visit some of its beaches and beautiful attractions. Our mother city has these in abundance. I wish you all the best in your deliberations.
Thank you!
