Innovation Report: Could you provide an introduction to yourself and your work at the NRF?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: I currently lead a section called Research Analysis and Advice. Our role is to consider national and international research trends, and to think about how these can or should affect the NRF, and how the NRF should respond. We develop new policies and new directions for the organization. We also carry out NRF performance analysis to inform policies and strategies. Our work informs the NRF Strategy and we develop advice when needed, such as commenting on policies developed by national departments or providing advice to the minister.

Innovation Report: What drove the need for this focus on societal impact in research?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: We identified the trend towards thinking not only about what the research focus was, but also why the research was being undertaken, and saw that organizations like UKRI in the United Kingdom had introduced impact as part of their Research Excellence framework. We felt that focusing more on planning for impact, and being deliberate about it, was very important, especially given our context in South Africa as a developing country with many challenges that research and science can respond to. Historically, the view has been that researchers do the research and it’s likely that some of that will have an impact beyond academia. The focus has shifted towards being more deliberate about that and making sure that when you start a research project, you’re already thinking about what challenges you’re focusing on, and then developing plans to ensure that impact is more likely to be achieved.

Innovation Report: How would you define success when it comes to societal impact in research?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: Our framework outlines pathways to impact. As we are partly  a funding agency, we operate at the beginning of the research cycle. This has informed our focus on being deliberate in planning for impact. In this regard, we are introducing impact statements as part of the research proposal application stage. Researchers must identify the challenge they’re addressing, who the beneficiaries are, and who they should be working with upfront, when developing the proposal. The statement should include key points such as what is the challenge, who are the beneficiaries, what is the context, and how the impact should be communicated. Researchers also need to define upfront what impact will look like at the end. What is the change that they are trying to bring about? Through annual progress reports, we’ll track activities against the initial plan and monitor whether they’re progressing toward their planned impact.

Researchers will report on outputs like publications, patents, policy engagements, and then through post-grant reporting, we’ll look at how the research is being taken up outside academia. This includes engagement with policymakers, communities, and industry. Finally, they’ll provide case studies with both qualitative and quantitative indicators of research impact.

Innovation Report: You mentioned identifying and working with potential beneficiaries upfront. Is this something that’s currently lacking in research?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: Yes, very much. Too often researchers conceptualize their own projects and while they may have potential impact because they’re thinking about a challenge to solve, without buy-in from the end user upfront – whether that’s a community, business or government department – they don’t actually meet the real needs of that user. As a result, when the research is completed, it isn’t taken up because it doesn’t really respond to the needs of the community or user. It’s key that we start engaging community partners, governments and other end users upfront when conceptualizing research projects to make sure we’re more likely to achieve impact.

Innovation Report: Can you share some examples of projects that have had meaningful social impact in South Africa?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: Before I share examples, I want to emphasize that for us, it’s about demonstrating impact rather than just metrics. We will use case studies that combine qualitative and quantitative indicators. It’s very important that these are publicized more widely than they currently are – at the moment, while these case studies exist, they aren’t broadly known, which means people don’t see how research is actually impacting society.

This year we introduced a Societal Impact Award as part of our annual NRF awards. Let me share three noteworthy examples. First is the DSI-NRF Center of Excellence for Biomedical TB Research. They recognized that TB mortality rates were often linked to inefficient diagnosis – either happening too late for effective treatment or not at all. They developed something called a “smart spot” for quick, easy TB testing that has now been rolled out internationally and adapted for drug-resistant TB. During COVID-19, they leveraged this expertise to develop the world’s first series of biologically safe SARS-CoV-2 biomedical control products, which were used in testing across South Africa and internationally.

The second example is the DSI-NRF Center for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis. They use mathematical modelling and data analysis to track disease prevalence and predict likely spread, helping position healthcare units in the right areas to respond to health crises. Initially focused on HIV/AIDS hotspots, their work informed campaign locations and antiretroviral distribution. During COVID-19, they identified hotspots for focusing testing and vaccination efforts. They’ve since expanded to work on cervical cancer, and TB, which remains prevalent in South Africa and Africa more broadly.

Our third example is more humanities-focused – the DSI-NRF Center of Excellence in Human Development. They study life course development, looking at factors affecting quality of life from birth through to death. In Soweto, they researched young women aged 18-25 to identify negative life impacts that could be addressed through interventions. They found a “multi-risk burden” related to unemployment and lack of education and training opportunities, leading to poverty, malnutrition, and associated health risks. In response, they developed a community health hub with training programs, employing local youth to work within their community. While this had a localized impact, it’s a model that could be scaled nationally to areas such challenges.

Innovation Report: Many South Africans might be unaware of these excellent research initiatives. What do you think are the main reasons for this lack of awareness?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: I don’t think we communicate them effectively. First, researchers are focused on their research, and not necessarily communicating the impact of the research publicly. Recently, we had a panel at a workshop where representatives from the above three Centers of Excellence spoke about their research and impact. It was wonderful to see how excited they were about their research. The NRF needs to play a bigger role in bridging the gap between research and the media for science communication.

Second, is the issue of language. Researchers often communicate at a level that’s very difficult for the general public to understand. We need to translate the research into a language people can understand and relate to. This is where impact stories can play an important role. 

Innovation Report: Could you tell us about some successful examples of research translating into tangible benefits through your National Research Facilities?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: Our National Research Facilities are key to translating research into societal benefit. We have five institutions that provide research infrastructure, each with their own researchers but also open to academics and postgraduate students from South Africa and beyond. These Facilities are important because they’re not only academic institutions and can more easily bridge the gap between research and practical application.

The South African Environmental Observation Network and South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity work on issues such as climate change, water challenges, and aquatic biodiversity. In our water scarce country, they research challenges such as how forestries affect community water supplies, then work with those communities to find solutions. They also study sea pollution and fish population, and inform government policy on sustainability.

We have two astronomy facilities – the South African Astronomical Observatory and the Radio Astronomy Observatory. While people might think these only contribute to knowledge, they proved crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Radio Astronomy Observatory led our National Ventilation project, developing 20,000 ventilator units because they had the expertise and infrastructure to respond to the crisis.

Then there’s iThemba Laboratories for Accelerator Based Science, our nuclear research institute, which has been vital in developing isotopes for cancer treatment. They produce these isotopes for hospitals both locally and internationally, helping to create a sustainable model while advancing health treatment.

Innovation Report: What aspects of the NRF’s work tend to surprise people when you discuss it?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: I’ll give two different answers. From the impact side, people are often surprised by our pathway focus and emphasis on assessing potential impact at the beginning of research projects. Internationally, the trend has been to look at case studies of impact after the fact, whereas we’re trying to change the trajectory of research toward impact from the start.

Regarding the NRF generally, people often think of the NRF as primarily a funding agency that supports postgraduate students and researchers. They’re surprised to learn about our National Research Facilities, their research with impact, and our footprint across the entire country. The immediate societal impact of these facilities often comes as a surprise.

Innovation Report: Why should the average South African citizen care about and feel connected to the work of the NRF?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: Clearly, if the NRF is having societal impact, society is going to feel more connected to us. In many societies, including South Africa, we have what we’ve always called the ‘Ivory Tower’ where academics are disconnected from society. If we can better communicate the impact we’re having, we’ll get the social license to operate and connect with society to a much greater extent. In this way, we can grow the system for even more impact.

Let me give you an example from one of our South African Research Chairs in Makhanda, where Rhodes University is located. There’s been a huge water crisis there, with the municipality unable to effectively deliver clean, drinkable water. The Research Chair in Biotechnology Innovation Engagement initially began working on developing paper tests for water quality and other testing purposes. While working on this, they engaged with the community to understand how such tests would be most useful. They realized there was an immediate need for a water testing center, so they established one where community members could bring water to be tested for quality.

This shows how working with communities can help us achieve more, more quickly. The community is now willing to work more closely with the center because they see tangible benefits. This is important because in South Africa we often talk about communities having “research fatigue” – they see researchers coming in, asking questions, getting answers, but never returning or providing anything in return. With this engaged research approach, we can create a more symbiotic relationship where we learn from each other and improve both our research and quality of life.

Innovation Report: What excites you most about the potential social impact of research in South Africa looking to the future?

Dr Genevieve Simpson: I think it’s exciting to think that we can actually bring about change. South Africa has various challenges, but this also creates many opportunities. I think if we focus more on societal impact, researchers will be more excited because many young researchers really enter the field wanting to bring about change, not just focus on the “publish or perish” system that’s become the norm.

If we’re able to move the conversation away from metrics focused solely on academic publications toward societal impact, I think we’re going to see benefits for both researchers and society. Researchers are the ones who are able to deal with many of the challenges we face, and together we can improve the quality of life in the country.