![\"blue.jpg\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/tradesecrets\/files\/blue.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I read an article in The Scientist<\/a> funding with a little cynical laugh the other day. It described how “The success rate of the government agency’s grant applications has hit an all-time low” – of 17.4% of all applications. That’s just under one in five: consider, then, that a recent call by South Africa’s National Research Foundation<\/a> for 40 prestigious Research Chairs in local universities was over-subscribed by at least 10 to 1 – and that was with pre-screening by the institutions. Another call for “blue sky” projects for rated researchers – open to all 2,300-odd such people – was for a total of R15 million a year, and was expected to cater for about 30 projects. Even if only half of all eligible folk apply, that means only 2.5% – 1 in 40 – will receive anything. A further wry smile could be elicited by the fact that the R0.5 million a year (~US$70,000) they will get is significantly less than the US$100 000 that junior NIH<\/span> grant recipients can expect, and after all that competition too!<\/p>\n In truth, funding for pure science in South Africa is simply bad. My colleague Blessed Okole, who works for a government-funded funding agency in South Africa who is a Trade Secrets contributor<\/a>, may argue with me – but then, his agency (the Technology Innovation Agency, TIA<\/span><\/a>) funds applied research – and mainly towards the business end of the pipeline, at that.<\/p>\n The NRF<\/span> should be funding pure science, but their money seems to be tied up in a mixture of ring-fenced initiatives that leaves very little room for any “blue sky” initiatives. In spite of the fact that they had an initiative labeled “Blue Skies”, which raised a large amount of controversy due to the very strange conditions<\/a> associated with it, which a response by the NRF<\/span> President<\/a> in South Africa’s premier science journal did nothing to quell. As it was, in 2010 the breakdown of the NRF’s funding<\/a> was as follows:<\/p>\n Broad Investment Areas<\/b>\t (% of budget)<\/b><\/p>\n TOTAL<\/span><\/b>\t (100%)<\/b><\/p>\n Thus, less than one-fifth of their disbursement budget of around R300 million (~US$40 million) goes to established researchers – the 2300 people rated A to C – and then very little of that goes to “free” or curiosity-driven projects.<\/p>\n The fact that we get any funding at all, in the context of being scientists in a developing nation in Africa, is probably something to praise. However, however…the government, through the national Department of Science & Technology recently lavished R1 billion on a pilot project called the Karoo Array Telescope<\/a>, which is aimed at proving to the world that South Africa can host the Square Kilometre Array<\/a>. They also spent at least US$1.8 billion in failing to develop the now-defunct Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project<\/a>, and the now infamous “Arms Deal” will have cost over US$10 billion by the time it has finished.<\/p>\n So it is not because we have no money, that there is not very much money for science – it’s just that the government doesn’t seem very interested. So it goes…we just play the lottery – pardon, the NRF<\/span> funding game – with the rest of the country, and meanwhile we try to get money in from outside the country just as hard as we can. Who knows, maybe TIA<\/span> can deliver – and maybe porcines will be airborne soon. We live in hope!<\/p>\n Ed Rybicki<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I read "an article in The Scientist ":https:\/\/the-scientist.com\/2011\/10\/17\/nih-grants-funding-drops\/ on funding with a little cynical laugh the other day. It described how “The success rate of the government agency’s grant applications has hit an all-time low” – of 17.4% of all applications. That’s just under one in five: consider, then, that a recent call by South Africa’s National Research Foundation for 40 prestigious Research Chairs in local universities was over-subscribed by at least 10 to 1 – and that was with pre-screening by the institutions. Another call for “blue sky” projects for rated researchers – open to all 2,300-odd such people … Read more<\/a> Continue reading \n