‘Depoliticise biotechnology research,’ urge African experts

Africa needs to depoliticise biotechnology research to maximise the benefits of science, technology and innovation (STI) to drive economic transformation and sustainable development, say agricultural experts.

The experts from Kenya, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, Rwanda, Mozambique and Ethiopia, who met in Kigali, Rwanda, during a Strategic Dialogue on Agricultural Technologies in Africa meeting, say that low investment in STI is hindering the continent’s ability to fully utilise STI tools such as biotechnology for development.

The dialogue, attended by experts from African universities, research institutions, governments and the private sector under the theme, ‘Strategic Dialogue on Biotechnology Research in Africa’s Agricultural Systems’, sought to deal with key bottlenecks impeding the development of STI on the continent and the impact on Africa’s agriculture and food systems.

At the meeting, organised by the Nairobi-headquartered African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), in partnership with the Rwanda Agriculture Board, the experts argued that depoliticisation of research and development is indispensable for harnessing STI, including modern biotechnology.

Make STI research part of the national agenda

They pointed to countries such as the United States, Brazil, Argentina, China and South Africa, which have been successfully utilising biotechnology for development.

Africa, they said, should emulate these countries by investing in biotechnology research and development as a national, non-partisan issue that forms part of the national development agenda.

“Africanising biotechnology” for solving African problems by African scientists in Africa must be given the “utmost priority”, the experts recommended.

Despite the adoption of Agenda 2030 by the African Union Commission as a policy tool to guide the transformation of the continent and the STI Strategy for Africa 2024, or STISA 2024, targeting repositioning Africa into an innovation-led, knowledge-based economy, they said, only a few countries have STI policies, strategies and institutional frameworks and have domesticated STISA 2024 with political goodwill being the driver.

“For realisation of [the] domestication and customisation of STISA 2024, the political will has to be there at all levels. The political will must be supported by legalisation, resource-mobilisation and allocation, capacity-building, institutionalisation and technology development,” said Richard Oduor, a senior lecturer at Kenya’s Kenyatta University.

‘Prioritise biotechnology research’

Oduor, who is also the chairman of the Kenya University Biotechnology Consortium, said there is a need for STI and biotechnology research and development to be prioritised in Africa by enhancing investment to empower African scientists to tackle problems faced by African people, especially smallholder farmers.

To ensure sustainable investment in STI, the experts said, political leadership should understand the role of STI in national development and their role as leaders in transforming the biotechnology landscape in Africa. This could support the mobilisation of local investment to fund biotechnology research and development.

“Governments should increase budget allocations for research and development, ensuring the implementation of the 2% of GDP allocation for research as stipulated in Agenda 2063. This investment will empower local scientists to drive the biotechnology agenda,” the delegates said in a statement released by AATF after the meeting on 28 August.

They emphasised the importance of biotechnology to the continent’s pressing agricultural challenges and the need to strengthen linkages between research organisations and industries by refocusing efforts towards biotechnology commercialisation.

Building stronger links

The meeting recommended the need for a framework that goes beyond the traditional public-private partnerships and ploughs back benefits for further reinvestment in the national technology ecosystem and give incentives to encourage the youth to become scientists and lead innovation and technology development.

“African farmers are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Researchers have the responsibility to help them increase productivity by using tools and adopting appropriate technologies, such as biotechnology, for better production,” said Dr Canisius Kanangire, the executive director of the AATF.

Kanangire called for political support and investment, especially from African governments and the private sector, urging them to fund research relevant to Africa’s development, emphasising that researchers play a key role in addressing food insecurity in Africa.

He urged African scientists to increase research collaborations among themselves for cross-learning on research, regulation and commercialisation of STI and to create a stronger linkage between research and policymaking, urging researchers to focus on applied research that drives sustainable development and real change in their communities.

Mistrust between researchers and politicians

Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board’s deputy director general, Dr Florence Uwamahoro agreed, calling for increased investment in STI, especially in agriculture, to maximise the sector’s potential for sustainable development.

While affirming Rwanda’s commitment to the continued development of human and infrastructural capacity for the adoption of biotechnology solutions in agriculture, Uwamahoro called for enhanced engagement of the public in research.

She lauded AATF’s Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa sessions as the needed interventions in driving conversations and engagements on the safe use of agricultural biotechnology, thus creating public awareness and communicating scientific innovations in Africa.

Dr Bessy Kathambi, a lecturer in the department of earth and climate sciences at the University of Nairobi, who was part of the meeting, pointed out that politicisation of research could be good if it were used to promote the use of evidence in decision-making.

“Politicisation can be a good tool for advocacy when it is intentional and well-focused on creating solutions,” Kathambi told University World News.

If politicisation of research could be used for the upscaling of the research and it were used to solve challenges affecting the continent, she said, this could attract additional funding for more research.

However, due to politicisation of research, said Kathambi, the mistrust between policymakers and researchers had been heightened, preventing innovations and solutions from research being adopted. “This mistrust and the need to prove points can lead to unexpected outcomes that can be detrimental …” she admitted.

Politicisation of research in Africa, she noted, has been holding up the adoption of critical research in agriculture. This leads to decision-makers, in an agricultural context, who “keep doing the wrong things and not improving the crop and livestock yields”.

She added that limiting the funding of research by diverting the funds meant for research, and partisan implementation of research, can water down one’s research because politicians may not want the solutions the research offers – again, the result of politicising research in Africa.