During her welcoming speech at last month’s Nuclear Energy Summit hosted by the department of electricity & energy in Tshwane, Princy Mthombeni, one of SA’s most vocal nuclear boosters, referenced author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s observation that it is dangerous to reduce anything to a single story, reminding those present of “the importance of embracing diverse perspectives”.
Speaking at the summit, both electricity & energy minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and his deputy, Samantha Graham-Marê, continued on this theme by emphasising that the government was intent on engaging properly with all stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power. For example, Graham-Marê stated that “our ministry is not going to compromise on public participation ... openness and transparency ... we need to work together”.
Unfortunately, and clearly quite intentionally, rather than embracing “diverse perspectives” and “public participation”, the summit did the exact opposite. Not only were representatives of civil society entirely excluded from the summit, but both Graham-Marê and Ramokgopa made it clear that they had little interest in opinions about nuclear power that were contrary to theirs or the government’s.
Graham-Marê came straight to the point in her address by stating that opponents of nuclear power in SA are simply “ignorant”. Ramokgopa drank even deeper from the well of ad hominin attacks, noting that opponents of nuclear power “live in the mud” because they “soil” nuclear technology. These mud dwellers are, he observed, merely “commentators” who do not provide evidence against nuclear power, but rather use myths to “deceive” South Africans.
He contrasted those who live in the mud with a “fraternity of scientists”, experts who provide “objective” and “unemotional” evidence that is not sullied by politics. It is these scientists and experts, the minister declared, who will guide the government’s decision on nuclear power, not the commentators who have “not been in a science lecture hall”.
The problems with Ramokgopa’s characterisation of the nuclear debate and the role of scientists in that debate are so many it is hard to know where to begin. The first is one of categorisation. What exactly is a scientist? Ramokgopa boldly stated in his address that “we have a duty as scientists here to sustain the momentum of this conversation”.
Yet Ramokgopa, and quite a few of those who spoke in different panels during the summit are engineers, who many would argue are not scientists. Put simply, in terms of nuclear power scientists are people who are said to understand the phenomena, while engineers apply or “engineer” the phenomena in the real world.
The homogeneous categorisation of scientists is also problematic. Zizamele Mbambo, the deputy director of nuclear power in the department of mineral resources, is a geologist. Is a scientist without any qualification in nuclear physics or any of the nuclear sciences any more competent than, say, a geographer, to have an opinion on nuclear power?
This grouping together of a “fraternity of scientists” reveals the problem of privileging and venerating science in this debate, as it assumes that anyone with a science background, no matter what disciple of science it may be in, not only understands the debate but automatically understands it better than anyone who is not a scientist. In this way, science and scientists are “weaponised” as a means by which to present some form of pure, evidential truth that nuclear power is good for SA.
In privileging scientists the minister can also dismiss inconvenient opposition to nuclear power from other disciplines, such as sociology, philosophy or economics. Let’s use economics as an example. There are highly skilled economists working in SA for reputable independent research organisations, such as Meridian Economics, that have repeatedly shown that there is no economic case for nuclear power in SA. But hey, they are not “scientists”, so it doesn’t matter what they have to say. The same goes for those who model energy choices, such as academics at the University of Cape Town’s Energy Systems Research Group, who can presumably be similarly ignored.
It is also nonsense to suggest that scientists are by definition objective, unemotional and not subject to political influence. There are plenty of scientists who will work for whoever pays them the most, including tobacco and fossil fuel companies, while history has repeatedly shown that science can serve the ends of despicable policies founded on deeply subjective opinions and toxic political perspectives. Let’s not forget, for example, how the discourse of “scientific” racism buttressed the apartheid regime.
Finally, Ramokgopa’s argument cannot explain scientists who oppose nuclear power, of which there are many. How are they accounted for in his schema? Similarly, if only scientists are worthy of being listened to when it comes to nuclear power, the guest of honour at the summit, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi has a problem, as he has a PhD in international relations. The absurdity of this argument is clear.
The denigration of other disciplines, or voices from civil society and society more generally, is dangerous because nuclear power poses so many questions that science cannot answer because they are either unanswered by science or beyond its disciplinary scope. For example, there is no scientific consensus on the effect of repeated exposure to low doses of radiation, and science has little to offer when we consider the question of how to persuade humans to keep away from nuclear waste sites for 100,000 years.
Despite the rhetoric about the need to embrace different perspectives, what we actually heard from Ramokgopa was his willingness to embrace only those scientists who share his government’s views on nuclear power, dividing the world into the enlightened and the ignorant. In closing down debate in this fashion the exact opposite of what the minister wants to happen, will happen. Rather than accelerating the arrival of a shiny, happy nuclear future, further distrust in the government’s intentions will be sown.
Science and scientists are, of course, absolutely critical to any debate on nuclear power, but they do not have a monopoly of wisdom on nuclear power and cannot be the only resource the government relies on to make difficult political choices.
Science must not be used as an excuse to evade the substantive and important pluralistic conversations that need to take place among all South Africans about the role of nuclear power. After all, engaging in robust debate about important issues is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy and should result in more rational outcomes.
• Dr Overy, a freelance researcher, writer and photographer, is a research associate at Environmental Humanities South, University of Cape Town.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.