Remarks by Naledi Pandor MP, South Africa Minister of Science and Technology, World Science Forum, “Parliamentary Session: Science in Policy Making”, Budapest, Hungary
South Africa does not have a chief science advisor (like the US or UK or NZ or Australia), but I rely on the Academy of Science of South Africa and the National Advisory Council on Innovation for both scientific advice and science policy advice.
The Academy of Science of South Africa is a traditional academy that has become stronger in its policy role over the last ten years. Its evidence-based reports have addressed topics as diverse as the role of GMOs in African agriculture, the emerging threat of drug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as strategies for the development of low-carbon cities or the prevention of a tobacco epidemic in Africa.
The National Advisory Council on Innovation plays a policy role in coordinating our innovation system. It has standing committees and task teams comprising of experts drawn from universities, science councils, and business.
South Africa’s publicly funded research institutes, such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Human Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council also play a part in producing scientific evidence, which can guide policy-making. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s role is not dissimilar to that of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.
The science councils, for example, shape policies in areas such as urban development, environmental management, education or public health. Other institutions, for example, our universities or non-governmental organisations, also contribute evidence, which informs policy-making.
Nonetheless, two of Sir Peter's ten principles for science policy resonate with me.
The first is to "distinguish science for policy from policy for science". Science advisers shouldn't do both. I don't want advisers to be lobbyists for particular interests or to tell me how to shape the budget. That's when evidence-based policy goes too far. The advisory role must be separate from the government department, that's why out NACI is not in our Department of Science and Technology.
The second is "expect to inform policy, not make it". I expect to receive a set of options based on a rigorous analysis. I am then in the best position to choose the best policy in line with government objectives with the assistance of senior managers in my department.
This brings me to issues of public understanding and awareness of science. In South Africa societal expectations can directly influence the design of policy. That is the normal democratic process. However, such expectations may in some instances conflict with the recommendations of available scientific evidence. For example, economic considerations may inform society’s demands in a field such as energy policy, demands which will not necessarily take into account environmental considerations. Public expectations and scientific advice should be reconciled – that is our challenge.
We have various platform and programmes in South Africa to promote a better public understanding and awareness of science in South Africa. Notable successful programmes have for example targeted public understanding of biotechnology and nanotechnology. The massive public support for South Africa’s hosting of the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope is an example of how public support for science can be achieved through consistent and strategic communication.
In conclusion I would like to ask whether evidence is over-rated? I have no doubt most of us gathered here today are absolutely convinced of the need for evidence-based policy-making. But we need to be more active in showing how evidence has already shaped policy-making. We shouldn't take anything for granted. There should be no sacred cows.
