The individual representatives include: researchers (various), engineers, entrepreneurs, technologists, technicians, organisers, administrators, academics, etc.
Government Pro SET (Professional Bodies) Business Civil Society Science Councils, Stat Bodies Higher Education NSTF Executive Committee DST Universities NGO’s Companies SMME’s State Corp’s Labour Univ’s of Tech
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...
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)
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?
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.