32
National Science & Technology Forum SATN Conference, 30 Sept 2010 Jansie Niehaus, Exec Director NSTF
National Science & Technology Forum
SATN Conference, 30 Sept 2010
Jansie Niehaus, Exec Director NSTF
What is the NSTF?
• The NSTF is a representative stakeholder body of science, engineering & technology organisations,
• We seeks to influence SETI (science, engineering, technology and innovation) policy formulation and delivery in South Africa
• NSTF is a Section 21 company.
Vision & Mission
VISION
SETI system that is responsive to the needs of all people.
MISSION
To promote and influence SETI policy in the interest of socio-economic growth.
Strategic Objectives
1. to influence and catalyse quality delivery of SETI policy
2. to monitor the health of the SETI system
3. to celebrate, recognize and reward excellence within the SETI sector
Values
• espouses democratic principles as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
• acts responsibly on behalf of members in matters relating to SETI
• promotes open and honest exchange of views and opinions
• fosters cooperation on matters of common interest
NSTF Membership
• About 110 Organisations are members of the NSTF
• Spanning both private and public sectors
• The individual representatives include: researchers (various), engineers, entrepreneurs, technologists, technicians, organisers, administrators, academics, etc.
Government
ProSET(Professional
Bodies)
Business
CivilSociety
ScienceCouncils,
Stat Bodies
HigherEducation
NSTF ExecutiveCommittee
DST
Universities
NGO’s
Companies
SMME’s
State Corp’s Labour
Univ’s of Tech
NSTF Projects
• Workshops (discussion forums) on specific topics.
• NSTF Awards (13th year) for professional scientists, & related professionals.
• Promotion of NSTF Awards Winners & SET Awareness.
• Supporting DST’s Youth into Science Strategy through: (incl) National Youth Service, & an Undergraduate Bursary Scheme.
• E-newsletters /website
The NSTF Awards
Categories:
1. Individual contributions to SETI (for research, management, leadership), incl 4 NRF sponsored TW Kambule Awards. Total of 7 awards.
2.Research for Innovation (3 awards)
3.Research Capacity Building, Eskom sponsored (2 awards)
4.Communication, SAASTA. (1 award)
NSTF Awards (cont)
• Community effort, various sponsors
• Online registration – deadline 12 Nov
• Final deadline for nominations 31 Jan 2011
• Adjudication Panel representative of NSTF membership & SET sectors.
• 110 winners since 1998.
• 2009/10: 30% female. 50% black.
NSTF Award Winner:Centre of Materials and Process Synthesis
(COMPS) Team, Wits University
• innovative chemical process design, unique in the world • solving three problems with one ground breaking approach
e.g. in oil and food from waste• new design methodology. In remarkably short time using it
to build, commission & operate a pilot plant in China, & design a demonstration plant in Australia.
• The short time is unique, as is the fact that it has been done by a university research centre.
• has the potential to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as to preserve precious fossil fuel reserves, with significant impact on Africa.
NSTF Award Winner:The OSCAR-4 Team, South African
Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa)• For the latest version of the OSCAR reactor calculational software
system • fast and accurate nuclear reactor simulations with unparalleled
efficiency• developed over 20 years. • provides critical parameters for the safe and productive operation
and licensing of modern research reactors. • It is the primary calculational tool for the SAFARI-1 research reactor
operated by Necsa in SA, widely accepted as the best commercialised research reactor in the world, given its refocus toward medical isotope production.
• OSCAR has also become the primary calculational system for three reactors overseas.
“Leveraging government / government agency support for
innovation and technology”• Innovation = technological innovation. Home
grown SA. Examples: NSTF Award winners...
My argument:• Gov’s intentions & initiatives are laudable. • Implementation (the ‘rub’)• E.g. Discussions on Publically Financed IP Act.• E.g. Discussions on Commercialising Research
Outputs & Partnerships with Industry.
Government’s Intentions with regards to Innovation
• National Research and Development Strategy (August 2002),
• DST’s Ten Year Innovation Plan (innovation in order to improve competitiveness and increase economic growth)
• The Intellectual Property for Publicly Financed Research and Development Act (2008)
• The Technology Innovation Act
Implementation of Policies & Legislation
• Downfall is usually in the implementation – regardless of the efforts that went into policy formulation and establishing structures.
• We urge Government to consult experts and stakeholders from early on in policy formulation.
• Monitoring mechanisms are essential.
Discussions on IPR Act
• Do universities in reality produce IP and innovation?
• Is the IP Act is able to promote what it says, in the context of an emerging economy like SA? Technologies that SA wants/needs to produce might not be the same as elsewhere. E.g. the health sector.
• The UCT Faculty of Law criticised the law not promoting collaborations with foreign institutions.
Dr Djims Milius, Senior Research Fellow, IP Law Unit,
Faculty of Law, UCT (Nov 2009)
IP Act (cont.)
• Does innovation always needs commercialisation, as stated in the Act? Commercialisation is one aspect of applying IP, but IP itself can be a tool for feeding back into non-commercial arrangements where researchers can pull together their research capacity, IP tools, & patents.
• Is it necessary for government to always assess whether research should be either in the commercial sphere or in the public domain?
IP Act (cont.)
• In 1945 the US took the first initiative for public funding of national institutions.
• The US has now come to realise that IP regulations need to be more responsive to social issues & to the potential for dealing in open science that promotes innovation in the development context. These questions will continue to challenge the US IP policy.
• In these times of global recession, the same questions as in those post-war years are being asked in respect of public funding of R&D. Earlier in 2009, the US President renewed his government’s commitment to increase funding for basic research and for blue-sky research. In 1980 the Bayh-Dole Act provided a way for the government to fund, recuperate and control IP. Current critics suggest that it has many failures. However, many countries have tried to emulate this Act, which does not allow institutions that are not government funded to share the IPR.
TECHNOLOGY BRIDGE OR BARRIER? Dr Joanne van Harmelen, Spoor and Fischer
(Nov 2009)
The Act was originally drafted similarly to other such legislation around the world. IP legislation in Japan and Taiwan has encouraged patenting at universities, but has not been successful in many other countries. There is much criticism of the legislation in India, concern that it will detract from the main function of academic institutions, which is to teach rather than to innovate and commercialise products. In the USA, the onerous conditions of the legislation have been broadly criticised and are regarded as stifling private investment.
The effectiveness of the Act will depend on a number of factors such as:
• The amount of support TTOs receive from NIPMO
• The availability of suitably qualified people for staffing TTOs and NIPMO
• The efficacy of NIPMO in terms of the turn-around time and interaction with research institutions
• Enabling inter-institutional and public–private partnerships
• Enabling spin-off companies • Enabling cooperation and collaboration with international
partners.
NSTF Science Councils Symposium 2010
• “Commercialising Research Outputs & building partnerships with industry”
• Presentations by:
CSIR, ARC, Necsa, TIA, NACI, MRC, & Mintek, HSRC
Dr Liesbeth Botha, CSIR:
• Also referred to the distinction between Innovation & Commercialisation
• “Need a Group/team of people who are:– Creative
– Technically smart
– Understands the problems “out there”
– Understand the business of the clients
– Practical and pragmatic
– Entrepreneurial
– Passionate to make a difference”
Michelle MulderMRC Innovation Centre
“Challenges of Commercializing IP• Shortage of personnel• Shortage of funds, especially “seed funds”• High costs of IP protection• Early stage of technology development – not market-ready• Compliance with PFMA
o Treasury approval required for certain transactionso Procurement policies can inhibit efficient business activitieso Fair and transparent processes for identifying partnerso Internal approvals for IP transactions
• IPR Act conditions may deter industry partnerships• Identification and negotiation with suitable partners – usually foreign”
MRC (cont.)
• Significant levels of scientific collaboration will be required to develop a successful vaccine against HIV/AIDS in the shortest possible time - international collaboration is essential
Lessons learnt (MRC, cont.)• Commercialization of IP in health is slower and more challenging
• Small proportion of MRC units generating IP but good, practical inventions coming from doctors
• Important to engage industry very early on – best source of market intelligence
• Significant effort is required to market technologies to industry
• Helps to work with companies that understand the academic environment
• Do your homework on potential partners!
• Openness, transparency, efficiency and flexibility are important when working with industry
NECSA: Dr Van Zyl de VilliersGroup Executive: Strategy &
Performance• Example of partnership: NTeMBI
(Nuclear Technologies in Medicine and the Biosciences Initiative)
• Partnership between Necsa, iThemba LABS, other research organisations, various universities, private sector.
• Activities to cover entire innovation chain in areas of national importance.
• Emphasis on building networks, human and research capacity, product pipeline.
Necsa (cont.)
“Partner or perish!
Careful (and often difficult) selection of suitable partners”
Mintek: Dr Roger Paul General Manager: Business Development
“Revolutionary Technology”• Technology must offer significant financial benefits to be
considered,
• Technology vendor must provide onerous conditions:
– process guarantees; and/or
– waive licence fees in lieu of risk; and/or
– grant exclusivity to 1st implementer for 5-8 years,
• Commercial adoption will take 10-20 years,
• Financial return to technology developer uncertain.
The nature of Innovation
• Is it appropriate to rely on Gov to stimulate Innovation??
• Limitations – Gov cannot make innovation happen..
• Beware over-regulation, and limiting innovation to structures.
• Nature of Entrepreneurship (risk taking). • Ethos, culture, attitudes... Education!• .
Universities of Technology
• At the interface between Theory and Practice? Between Academia and the Market?
• Able to integrate ideas across disciplines?
• Ideally placed to form partnerships for innovation.
NSTF Contact Details
• Tel: (012) 841-3987
• Fax: (012) 841-3025
• E-Mail: [email protected]
• PO Box 9823, Pretoria, 0001
• c/o CSIR Campus, Building 33, Room S140, Meiring Naude Road, Pretoria
• www.nstf.org.za
