Programme Director;
Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation and Honourable Members of the Select Committee on Education, Sciences and Creative Industries;
The leadership of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Business Forum;
My Special Advisor, Mr. Nqaba Nqandela;
Director-General of the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation;
The Senior Officials from my Department;
Heads of our Science and Academic Institutions;
Senior Government Officials;
Leaders of Industry and Entrepreneurs;
Distinguished Guests;
Members of the media:
Thank you for the honour of inviting me to address this important gathering. I wish to start by commending the Science, Technology, and Innovation Business Forum for this visionary initiative, and for choosing the timely theme: "A Science-Centred Public-Private Partnership Model for Science and Innovation."
This lecture is especially significant because it comes one month after the inaugural Policy Dialogue on Industrialisation Through Innovation, which we co-hosted with the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, whose main objective was to strengthen the link between innovation and industrialisation.
Your lecture also follows the launch of our country's inaugural edition of National Science Month and comes just three weeks before the 9th Annual Southern African Development Community Industrialisation Week, which our country will host in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, from 27 to 31 July.
Drawing from your chosen theme, I wish to reflect on several issues which deserve consideration by a gathering of this stature. The first is the question: why does a science-centred partnership model matter?
Why does a science-centred partnership model matter?
It is now generally accepted among scientists, public policy makers, and leaders of industry that, in the twenty-first century, scientific advancement and technological innovation are the main drivers of industrialisation, inclusive growth and can also serve as key catalysts of meaningful social transformation.
As a country, we are still confronting entrenched and complex development challenges and therefore, for us, the strategic use of science, technology and innovation is no longer optional. It is an economic and developmental imperative.
We have a robust national system of innovation, supported by government, universities, science councils, and public agencies. However, public financing alone cannot enable the necessary innovation and economic resilience.
At the same time, private-sector research driven solely by commercial interests may not adequately address the developmental priorities and public-good objectives central to South Africa's socioeconomic context. A science-centred public-private partnership model is therefore essential to bridge this gap.
Such a model should align public oversight and academic rigour with private-sector capital, commercialisation capability, and agility. Most importantly, it should place scientific research at the centre of national development. The current research landscape shows why this shift is necessary.
Universities and science councils produce world-class foundational science, but too many promising discoveries remain trapped between laboratory-scale research and commercial application. Private enterprises, driven by market demand and shareholder expectations, are often hesitant to fund early-stage, high-risk scientific research.
A science-centred PPP model should reframe this relationship by bringing public and private actors together in a virtuous circle from the beginning of the research process to end stages of full-scale commercial development.
The core elements of a science-centred public-private partnership model
The second issue I wish to reflect on is what I believe should be the core elements of a science-centred public-private partnership model. These elements should include the following:
The model must deliberately strengthen the synergy between government, academia, and industry. This constructive collaboration is the foundational engine of modern tech-driven economies. Academia generates fundamental knowledge and cultivates talent; industry provides commercialisation pathways and operational scale; and government acts as a strategic regulator, funder, and catalyst. Together, they can transform theoretical research into practical solutions that accelerate economic growth and respond to societal challenges;
The research agendas must be co-designed. Scientific inquiry must remain rigorous, while also responding to market realities, industrial needs, and public priorities. For example, rather than developing green hydrogen technologies in isolation, universities and science councils should work with industrial partners from the earliest stages of problem definition and experimentation;
Strategic infrastructure should be shared. Advanced laboratories, high-performance computing facilities, and testing platforms are expensive to build and maintain. Through structured partnerships, the state can provide enabling support, while corporate partners contribute machinery, operating capacity, and technical expertise;
Agile intellectual-property arrangements should be created. Intellectual-property arrangements must protect public investment in research while giving private partners clear and credible pathways to commercial licensing. This balance is essential if we are to attract significant private investment into high-risk innovation; and
The model should also recognise that innovation is a continuous rather than linear process, characterised by iterative learning, feedback, and adaptation. Scientific discoveries should progress through clearly defined stages, from basic and applied research to proof-of-concept, prototyping, piloting, certification, manufacturing, and commercialisation, with each phase supported by blended financing that combines public investment, private capital, development finance, and impact investment.
The priorities that should underpin such a model
The third issue I wish to reflect on is the priorities that should underpin such a model. To be effective, such a model must be grounded in South Africa's national priorities and, more fundamentally, in our country's science, technology and innovation agenda.
Our country's science agenda is primarily defined by the Decadal Plan for Science, Technology, and Innovation (2022–2032), which shifts emphasis from pure research alone toward technology commercialisation and innovation-led socioeconomic development aligned with the National Development Plan. Our country's Decadal Plan prioritises the following:
It calls for the revitalisation of key sectors of the economy by using research and development-led solutions to improve productivity and global competitiveness in foundational industries such as agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.
Beyond these vital sectors, the Decadal Plan also promotes innovation across a number of societal domains critical to the future sustainability of the nation:
- Energy security: Developing innovations that support the just energy transition, with a strong focus on clean energy alternatives;
- Health and vaccine sovereignty: Advancing domestic vaccine manufacturing capabilities, including local designs for priority diseases;
- Climate change and the environment: Engineering climate-resilient public infrastructure and advancing a localised circular-economy science, technology, and innovation strategy; and
- Circular economic development: Developing technological systems that promote secure and equitable access to water, sanitation, and affordable housing.
Our Decadal Plan also requires us to develop the required human resources and drive system transformation by among others, transforming the race, gender and spatial composition of the science, technology, engineering and mathematics pipeline and strengthening advanced capabilities through initiatives such as the Presidential PhD Programme.
Our Decadal Plan also requires us to strengthen the foundational capabilities needed for the digital economy and to build digital sovereignty. This work is supported through the Foundational Digital Capabilities Research platform, housed at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and through South Africa's ICT Research, Development, and Innovation (RDI) Roadmap, which includes a range of AI-focused initiatives.
It calls for higher levels of commercialisation support. This means, among others, moving laboratory-based research into the market through appropriate funding instruments, including those managed by entities such as the Technology Innovation Agency.
It calls for dynamic Grassroots innovation. This means supporting township, rural and youth innovators through localised living laboratories, entrepreneurship centres and platforms that strengthen participation in the informal economy.
The critical enablers required for implementation
The fourth and final issue I wish to reflect on is the critical enablers required to implement a science-centred public-private partnership model. Effective implementation will require us to manage real institutional differences. Universities and science councils are guided by academic freedom, peer review, and long research timelines. By contrast, the private sector is shaped by market competition, performance pressures, and the need for faster returns.
A science-centred public-private partnership therefore needs effective facilitation mechanisms, such as jointly governed technology-transfer offices or special-purpose vehicles. The proposed science-centred public-private partnership model should therefore not be conceived merely as a collaborative arrangement between government, academia, and industry, but as a dynamic ecosystem in which multiple actors perform complementary and mutually reinforcing roles.
Innovation cannot be confined to elite institutions or established firms and therefore, the model must also carry a clear transformation mandate and make it a measurable outcome. Every science-centred public-private partnership should support the development of researchers from historically disadvantaged backgrounds and integrate local small, medium, and micro enterprises into the supply chains of scientific hubs.
It must also embed the inclusion and meaningful participation of historically disadvantaged institutions, women, youth, township and rural innovators, and small, medium, and micro enterprises within scientific value chains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, South Africa's long-term economic resilience will depend on its capacity to drive innovation in a vigorous and coherent manner. The traditional model—where government primarily supports basic research while the private sector concentrates on short-term commercialisation—is no longer adequate to meet the challenges and opportunities of today's global economy.
A science-centred public-private partnership model offers a transformative path forward. By placing rigorous scientific inquiry at the intersection of public purpose and private capability, South Africa can reduce institutional fragmentation, share the risks of high-technology research, and accelerate the commercialisation of homegrown discoveries.
More fundamentally, such a model can become a vital tool for building a stronger, dynamic, integrated and more transformed national system of innovation that can become a driver for industrialisation and a meaningful improvement in the quality of life of the citizens of our country.
Such a model will not build itself. It will require visionary, strong, and indefatigable advocates and we believe that your Business Forum has the potential to fulfill this mammoth task. I wish you well as you undertake the important work of transforming our country through science, technology, and innovation.
Thank you.
