Academy of Science of South Africa Reports

The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) has a mandate to provide evidence-based scientific advice to South African policymakers and this consensus report is in fulfilment of this mandate.This consensus study was initiated by the ASSAf Standing Committee on Biosafetyand Biosecurity. The key objective was to undertake a consensus study in which thefindings and recommendations will contribute to policy development/modificationand to inform practice in relation to the improvement of biosafety and biosecurity in the country.This consensus report provides a review of the state of the biosafety and biosecurityin South Africa. This review includes an overview of existing legislation, regulationsand practices as they relate to biosafety and biosecurity; an evaluation of existingmeasures and capacity to detect, control and prevent the natural, accidental andspread of infectious agents; and a critical overview of current practice in relation tothe implementation of biosafety and biosecurity measures and the application ofethics in South African laboratories. 

In 2003, the Department of Education (now the Department of Higher Education and Training – DHET) introduced the ‘Policy and Procedures for the Measurement of Research Output of Public Higher Education Institutions’. The purpose of the policy is to “encourage research productivity by rewarding quality research output at public higher education institutions”. The policy defines research output as “textual output where research is understood as original, systematic investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge and understanding”. Therefore, the policy is a tool for the distribution of subsidy in lieu of research publication which, in turn, is regarded as proxy for the research productivity of institutions. It is in this regard that the allocation of subsidy is only to authors who are officially associated with the claiming institutions and not anyone outside the public higher education sector. The distribution of subsidy or allocation of funds against approved publications is, therefore, to the institutions and not the individual authors or academics.The policy recognises the following categories of research outputs for subsidy:• Journals – defined as ”peer-reviewed periodical publications devoted to disseminating original research and new developments within specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study”. Only articles in journals which appear on approved journal lists qualify for subsidy.• Books – defined as “peer-reviewed, non-periodical scholarly or research publications disseminating original research on developments within specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or fields of study”. Monographs, book chapters and edited works are included in this category.• Conference proceedings – defined as the “published record of a conference, congress, symposium or other meeting whose purpose is to disseminate ..

Independent, multiple peer review in science and scholarship is the equivalent ofdemocracy in politics – sometimes awkward, often criticised, but ‘the least bad way to do things’, all things considered (for a full discussion, see Chapter 3 of ASSAf’sConsensus Report on Scholarly Books: their Production, Use and Evaluation in SouthAfrica Today: ASSAf, 2009, Pretoria). The traditional focus of peer review is on a single journal article, book chapter or book.Journals have not often been subjected to independent, multiple peer review, andare usually evaluated in qualitative, reputational terms, or, more recently, quasi-quantitatively by the bibliometrics of impact factors.Peer review of journal titles thus requires the development of an unfamiliar methodology, including encouraging peers to undertake a task that seems daunting when approached in the traditional way of close reading and evaluation of an entire work.We have accordingly taken on this ambitious programme of peer reviewing, in groups, all scholarly journals published in South Africa, by ‘paving the way’ in two pilot reviews; these have respectively examined the last 3-5 years of local journals in the Social Sciences and related fields and those in the Agricultural and related Basic Life Sciences. Multi-perspective peer review panels were appointed by the AcademyCouncil on the recommendation of the Academy’s Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa; editors were requested to complete specially designed questionnaires, and peer reviewers were selected from a spectrum of scholars in the fields concerned.Each was asked to provide answers to a set of pointed questions, which addressedthe quality, scope and focus of the peer-reviewed articles in the journals under ..

This report marks the third in the series of discipline-grouped evaluations of South African scholarly journals. Ultimately, it is intended that all scholarly journals in the country will have been subjected to independent, multiple peer review as part of a quality assurance process initiated by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). The quality assurance process is a precursor to the identification of journal titles to be loaded on to the open access platform, Scientific Electronic LibraryOnline (SciELO)-South Africa. Only journals of a sufficiently high quality will be included in this fully indexed, free online, multinational platform, now also to be directly featured on the ThomsonReuters Web of Knowledge portal.The traditional focus of peer review is on a single journal article, book chapter or book. It is less common to subject journals to independent, multiple peer review, as these are usually evaluated in qualitative, reputational terms, or, bibliometrically, by means of impact factors.  In summary, the process was centred on multi-perspective, discipline-based evaluation panels appointed by the Academy Council on the recommendation of the Academy’s Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa (CSPiSA); journal editors were requested to complete specially designed questionnaires, and peer reviewers were selected from a spectrum of scholars in the fields concerned. Each was asked to provide answers to a set of questions, which addressed the quality, scope and focus of the peer-reviewed articles in the journals under review, the authorship generally, and the presence or absence of enrichment features, such as editorials, topical reviews, book reviews and news and views articles. (The editors’ questionnaire ..

This report marks the forth in the series of discipline-grouped evaluations of South African scholarly journals. Ultimately, it is intended that all scholarly journals in the country will have been subjected to independent, multiple peer review as part of a quality assurance process initiated by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). The quality assurance process is a precursor to the identifi cation of journal titles to be loaded on to the open access platform, Scientifi c Electronic Library Online (SciELO) South Africa.Only journals of a suffi ciently high quality will be included in this fully indexed, free online, multinational platform, now also to be directly featured on the Thomson-Reuters Web of Knowledge portal.The traditional focus of peer review is on a single journal article, book chapter or book. It is less common to subject journals to independent, multiple peer review, as these are usually evaluated in qualitative, reputational terms, or, bibliometrically, by means of impact factors.Peer review of South African scholarly journal titles thus required the development of a new methodology that was piloted successfully with the fi rst two discipline-grouped peer- review reports, published in 2010 on the Social Sciences and Related Fields, and the Agricultural and Related Basic Life Sciences.This has not been achieved without diffi culty, as the process is unfamiliar to reviewers accustomed to reviewing single articles. In 2013, the Report on Grouped Peer Review of Scholarly Journals in Religion, Theology and Related Fields was published.ASSAf has confidence in this ambitious programme aimed at assuring that the bulk of South African scholarly ..

This report assesses the status quo with regard to available information and technologies in South Africa, and links the findings with the needs of the shalegas activities if such an industry were to develop. The report makes severalrecommendations for future data collection and research to prepare South Africafor a shale gas industry, and suggests important interventions that would need tobe considered to enable the development of the industry.The study has benefited from comprehensive reports undertaken by academies ofscience in Australia and Canada. Both local and international panel members haveinterpreted these findings within a South African context and have produced auniquely South African report. South Africa has much to learn from the internationalexperience as it carves its way forward in this field.

The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) is mandated to provide evidence-based advice to government on matters of critical national importance. Given the importance of energy in promoting economic development and contributing towards an improved quality of life, a study on the state of energy research in South Africa is poised to make a vital contribution to energy planning in South Africa. Gaps in energy research and areas of particular strength in South Africa have been identified.The study has followed the traditional Academy consensus study methodology, in which a panel of experts, guided by the panel chair, undertakes the study on a voluntary basis. The advantage of this multiperspective approach is that it is free of partisan interest. As a result, the findings and recommendations are the best considered outcomes in the circumstances.This report can be regarded as an important baseline assessment that can inform future energy research investment in South Africa. Such an assessment should be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that it is current and provides information useful for decision-makers. Although considerable effort has been expended in trying to compile a comprehensive report, it must be recognised that a status report of this nature is heavily dependent on stakeholder participation to supply data. Hence it is important to view this report as the first in a potential series of such reports and an opportunity to place a ‘peg in the sand’. 

This report provides a review of the overall state of clinical research in South Africa. At the initiation of the study, the Study Panel’s task was to review the existing scientific evidence regarding the current state of clinical research in South Africa. The review focused mainly on key clinical research issues as they were outlined in the brief. Some highlights of the findings include the fact that there has been too little research on the public understanding of science or of public perceptions of clinical trials in South Africa, and that there is currently no national plan toprovide coordinated support for the education and development of clinical researchers. More than half of the total expenditure on clinical research is by the private sector. Finally, since the public sector is playing too small role in this domain, it needs to become more actively engaged. The study was initiated as a result of discussions with the Pharmaceutical IndustryAssociation of South Africa (PIASA), which suggested that the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) should raise awareness of the value of good scientific clinical research to South Africa at top levels of government and academia. This also included raising awareness of the benefits of having clinical research units at universities, hospitals and research institutions in order to retain research scientists in the country, as part of the agenda of building a larger pool of researchers for the future. Proposers of the study were Prof. Wieland Gevers and Prof. Jimmy Volmink and former ASSAf staff member Ms Rudzani Ramaite. The ASSAf Council approved the study and approved the appointment of a 13-member Study Panel of experts.

There is broad acknowledgement of the excellent work done by ASSAf from inception to date and the Academy is encouraged to retain this standard as a minimum. In the past five years ASSAf has gone from strength to strength and solidified as a fiercely independent organisation. It is an entity of importance in the contemporary South African science and technology landscape. Feedback received during the interviews with stakeholders was overwhelmingly positive on leadership, programmes and outputs. The interviewees commended the Academy on its commitment to quality. The organisation was repeatedly recognised as credible nationally, regionally and globally. ASSAf is seen by many as a benchmark for African academies with good infrastructure and a competent secretariat working beyond its capacity. ASSAf has clearly defined for itself the boundaries of its role as a science advisor. The Academy is careful to provide advice on the science that should underlie policy choices by government. It is viewed as doing this well. ASSAf does not take on the government’s role of making actual policy decisions. This is important for ensuring the Academy remains valued by government. 

“Although tobacco use continues to be the leading global cause of preventabledeath, there are proven, cost-effective means to combat this deadly epidemic.”—WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013In April 2013, the Network of African Science Academies convened a committee of experts to discuss the evidence, obstacles, and opportunities for implementing and enforcing tobacco use prevention and control policies in Africa. The committee, consisting of 16 experts drawn from 8 countries in Africa, met for 3 days in Kampala, Uganda, with funding administered by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Each distinguished committee member was selected for his or her in-depth tobacco-specific knowledge in areas including agriculture, policy, economics, social science, health, and the environment.The committee reviewed and assessed the evidence on the state of tobacco use andtobacco production and their detrimental health, economic, and environmental effects in Africa. The committee also reviewed efforts currently under way to prevent and control tobacco use,including the status of adoption and ratification of theWorld Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Based on this evidence, the committee reached consensus on actions that African leaders and other stakeholders should take to combat this growing threat. This report presents the committee’s evidence-based recommendations for tobacco control in Africa. It outlines strategies that should place tobacco control policy on the African leadership agenda, and also calls upon other groups, such as civil society organizations, to share in the responsibility of protecting those most vulnerable tomisleading and deceitful messaging by the tobacco industry.

The Academy of Science for South Africa (ASSAf) has as specific mandate the provision of evidence-based advice to government on matters of crucial scientific questions; evidence-based study project activities thus form the core of the Academy’s function and are a key area of future development. This is the eleventh report of studies of this nature which the Academy has commissioned.As an independent body that holds the membership of many of the most prominent scientists in the country, the Academy is well-placed to address questions of science capacity within the national system of innovation and isfortunate to be able to draw on a pool of committed expertise across disciplines and across universities and other science-based organisations. Access to this resource proved invaluable in the production of this Report.This is the first really comprehensive report on PhD training in South Africa, covering all the aspects that may influence such training in the country. The diverse nature of the research questions led to a broad research approach – several interlinked studies were carried out to gather and collate both quantitative and qualitative data for the PhD Study Report. The Report provides invaluable detail about the challenges and opportunities of South African postgraduate education.The Report should be used as a guideline for policy-makers to do something concrete to improve the quantity and quality of PhD students in the country. Although specifically focused on South Africa, the Report’s collation and analysis of international practice as well as South African conditions could constitute a substantial resource for other countries on the African continent seeking to ..

In many parts of the world concern has been expressed over the diminishing role which the Humanities are playing in the so-called ‘knowledge chain’. These worries have pointed specifically to the weakening place of the Humanities within the academy, and, more generally, a deepening disregard of the Humanities in society. In a number of countries these concerns have led to initiatives and investigations into the Humanities, with recommendations on ways to both defend and rebuild them. In similar vein, ASSAf commissioned this ‘Consensus Study on the Future of the Humanities in South Africa’.The starting point for such a Study was the undisputed view that the Humanities are indispensable, producing an essential set of analytical skills, along with bodies of knowledge without which our society, and the wider world, would be inscrutable. It is the Humanities that nurture the intellectual lifeblood of a democratic project through powers of informed analysis, judgement and creative critique.It is also important to bear in mind that the Humanities in South Africa are decidedly ‘mixed’ in terms of international standing, social influence, patterns of deterioration and sites and instances of encouraging vigour and productivity on the one hand, while there are also concerning symptoms of decline with dangerous portents for the future. Some Humanities departments are producing internationally recognised experts; however, there are some extremely worrying signs of decline that need to be arrested and reversed as a matter of urgency – given the important role that the Humanities have to play in our society.

Socio-behavioural research demonstrates unequivocally that both heterosexual and homosexual men feel that they have/had no choice in terms of their sexual attraction. The majority of women who experience same-sex attraction also express a lack of a sense of choice in their sexual orientation, although there is evidence for much greater fluidity in sexual orientation among women of all sexual orientations.The study explores – and finds lacking – evidence to support the contention that the way parents bring up their children, or the relationships formed between children and parents, impact on sexual orientation. While family environment may shape other elements of sexuality and the way sexuality is expressed, and while construction of gender and sexual identities have strong social and cultural components, there is little evidence that orientation is directly correlated to family upbringing.This report explores but could fi nd no evidence that sexual orientation can be acquired through contact with LGBTI persons. Instead, the panel found substantial evidence that tolerance of same-sex orientation not only benefi ted LGBTI persons but impacted positively on public health, civil society and long-term economic growth in societies across the spectrum of economic development. ‘Peer pressure’, although a powerful influencer of young people’s behaviour, has not been shown to influence same-sex activity or the development of same-sex sexual or bisexual orientations.