New postdoc study funding rules threaten the very foundation of scientific progress

Becoming a postdoctoral fellow marks a pivotal juncture in any academic career. This stage is not just a rite of passage after years of PhD research; it's also a critical stepping stone towards a career in academia.

In the unique, transitional space between student and fully fledged academic, postdocs play an indispensable role. They train junior postgraduate students, manage undergraduate courses and are often pivotal to the success of research laboratories by contributing extensively to scholarly output.

Recently, new equity targets imposed by South Africa's National Research Foundation (NRF) on its postdoctoral fellowship funding for 2024 has stirred significant unrest within the academic community.

The updated eligibility criteria now mandate that funding be distributed such that 80% is allocated to South African citizens and permanent residents, while 20% is reserved for citizens from other countries. This applies to Freestanding and Innovation Postdoctoral Fellowships, which previously had no such nationality restrictions.

At first glance, this policy might appear to foster the growth of domestic expertise. However, this change threatens the very foundation of scientific progress which is predicated on the free exchange of ideas across borders.

Breaking down the barriers to knowledge exchange

Traditionally, science thrives on global interaction. Postdoctoral researchers often travel abroad to acquire new techniques, engage with different scientific cultures and collaborate on international projects.

This exchange is reciprocal, with South Africa both sending and receiving researchers. These collaborations are not just short-term gains but foster long-term relationships that benefit both parties. Foreign postdocs gain valuable experience and networks, while South African researchers also benefit from these enduring connections, which can lead to future joint projects and innovation.

The new NRF policy curtails this vital flow of knowledge by dissuading international scholars from participating in South African research endeavours. The result is a double-edged sword: not only does it isolate South African researchers from an incoming global academic community, but it also limits the country's access to diverse scientific innovations and methodologies.

The new policy also means that many research labs will have to look elsewhere for funding if they wish to bring in international expertise – a significant challenge since the NRF is one of the largest government-funded research agencies in the country.

Additionally, the NRF administers a rating system that is crucial for establishing the prestige of South African researchers. Rated researchers, recognised for their high-quality outputs and impact as assessed by international peer reviewers, are vital for imparting cutting-edge skills to the next generation.

The NRF rating system, based on publication output, significantly influences the careers of established researchers. A large portion of their research output, crucial for maintaining or improving their ratings, stems from the work of postdocs hosted in their labs.

By cutting off support to these postdocs, especially international ones who often bring unique skills and perspectives, the policy undermines the productivity and global standing of South African researchers. This move is counterproductive, damaging the very fabric of a globally competitive scientific environment that the NRF aims to foster.

This juxtaposition of wanting to build a "globally competitive" science system while restricting international collaborations presents a paradox. How can the NRF aim to be globally competitive, and yet exclude global postdoc researchers from conducting research in South Africa?

Impact on niche fields and equity goals

The NRF's equity goals are intended to promote fairness and transformation in academia, a commendable goal. However, the application of these quotas without flexibility can be particularly damaging in niche fields.

Academic pathways in these narrow fields often see a natural attrition: a broad base of undergraduate students narrows sharply through the academic ranks, culminating in a small group of dedicated postdoctoral researchers.

The result? Deserving scholars may find themselves unsupported. This not only stifles the careers of individual researchers but also jeopardises the advancement of entire fields.

Moreover, the timing of the announcement has added to the confusion and frustration within the academic community. The new eligibility criteria were dated February 2024, but were only released in the second-last week of June.

This considerable delay in communication has left many scholars in a precarious position. They had been anxiously awaiting their funding outcomes, only to discover that they now fail to meet the new criteria – criteria that were outlined differently when they initially applied for funding at the end of last year.

This disconnect between the application guidelines and the recently published rules has caused widespread uncertainty and threatened the financial and professional stability of researchers.

The recent policy shift by the NRF, while well-intentioned in its aims to bolster national research capabilities, could inadvertently undermine the richness of South Africa's academic and scientific landscape. Research depends on diversity and international collaboration; such insular policies might do more harm than good, restricting not just personal careers but also the progress of science in South Africa.

To truly flourish, the academic community needs policies that recognise the global nature of science, coupled with flexible support mechanisms that consider the realities of niche research areas. As it stands, the new NRF policy might need re-evaluation to prevent unintended setbacks in our nation's scientific journey.

This shift not only affects South African researchers but also hampers the opportunities for foreign postdocs to collaborate, learn and contribute to the global scientific community. For science to thrive, it must remain an open dialogue, fostering innovation through the free exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives.

This article was featured on Daily Maverick on July 2024 - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2024-07-15-new-funding-rules-for-postdoc-study-threaten-scientific-progress/