sort of purist xenophobic, and racist way of thinking. It is not surprising that
SCOPE’S hard- line biological nativism has roots in South Africa”. While it is
impossible to prove that certain perceptions are not underlain by racism or xenophobia, invasion biologists and conservationists worldwide have a clear focus on
preventing ecological or economic harm, and attempts to impute baser motives are
unconvincing (Simberloff 2003). Simberloff (2003) notes further that “Claims that
modern introduced species activity targets all introduced species, not just invasive
ones, and neglects benefits of certain introduced species have no basis in fact”.
South Africa is no different in this regard, and as the history shows, South African
research has sought to identify and quantify both harm and benefits, and to find
optimal solutions to what is a large and growing environmental issue.
It could also be asked whether South Africa’s participation in international
programmes led to developments or understanding that would otherwise not have
been the case. Certainly, international collaboration was strongly encouraged by the
National Programme for Ecosystem Research (Huntley 1987), for the very reason
that it would inject new thinking and fresh ideas. This was strongly followed by most
of South African’s ecological research community (with the notable exception of
South African National Parks, who pursued inwardly-focussed research through
most of the 1960s to the early 1990s, Carruthers 2017). However, attempts to
collaborate internationally were also resisted by many foreign scientists opposed
to the then South African government’s apartheid policies, and academic boycotts
began in the 1970s and strengthened until the early 1990s. While there were
undoubtedly benefits that arose from collaboration in the SCOPE programme, the
differences between the situation that existed in the mid-1990s and the counterfactual situation that would have existed with no international collaboration are not
immediately obvious.
A number of factors have probably contributed to South Africa’s ability to make a
disproportionate contribution to the development of invasion science. First,
South Africa is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, with a wide variety
of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This diversity, combined with the fact
that invasions affect all of these ecosystems and pose real problems, has provided a
rich template on which to carry out research, test ideas, and develop management
solutions. Secondly, South Africa’s research community has been relatively small, and
well connected. This, combined with the deliberate strategies that were adopted, from
the 1970s onwards, to encourage multi-disciplinary, collaborative research, have
meant that people got to know each other, and to share ideas, in an environment that
encouraged collaboration. Often, lasting friendships developed between like-minded
researchers that led to increased scientific productivity. In the case of invasion science
in South Africa, we may have an example of the Goldilocks Principle, which holds
that something must fall within certain margins, as opposed to reaching extremes.
Most developing countries do not have sufficient resources that would allow them to
build a critical mass of researchers that could go on and make a broad and meaningful
contribution. On the other hand, developed countries may have relatively too much,
and collaborative approaches would become less necessary because different research
groups could operate independently. A proper examination of this hypothesis would
make an interesting research project in itself.
58
B. W. van Wilgen
SCOPE’S hard- line biological nativism has roots in South Africa”. While it is
impossible to prove that certain perceptions are not underlain by racism or xenophobia, invasion biologists and conservationists worldwide have a clear focus on
preventing ecological or economic harm, and attempts to impute baser motives are
unconvincing (Simberloff 2003). Simberloff (2003) notes further that “Claims that
modern introduced species activity targets all introduced species, not just invasive
ones, and neglects benefits of certain introduced species have no basis in fact”.
South Africa is no different in this regard, and as the history shows, South African
research has sought to identify and quantify both harm and benefits, and to find
optimal solutions to what is a large and growing environmental issue.
It could also be asked whether South Africa’s participation in international
programmes led to developments or understanding that would otherwise not have
been the case. Certainly, international collaboration was strongly encouraged by the
National Programme for Ecosystem Research (Huntley 1987), for the very reason
that it would inject new thinking and fresh ideas. This was strongly followed by most
of South African’s ecological research community (with the notable exception of
South African National Parks, who pursued inwardly-focussed research through
most of the 1960s to the early 1990s, Carruthers 2017). However, attempts to
collaborate internationally were also resisted by many foreign scientists opposed
to the then South African government’s apartheid policies, and academic boycotts
began in the 1970s and strengthened until the early 1990s. While there were
undoubtedly benefits that arose from collaboration in the SCOPE programme, the
differences between the situation that existed in the mid-1990s and the counterfactual situation that would have existed with no international collaboration are not
immediately obvious.
A number of factors have probably contributed to South Africa’s ability to make a
disproportionate contribution to the development of invasion science. First,
South Africa is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, with a wide variety
of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This diversity, combined with the fact
that invasions affect all of these ecosystems and pose real problems, has provided a
rich template on which to carry out research, test ideas, and develop management
solutions. Secondly, South Africa’s research community has been relatively small, and
well connected. This, combined with the deliberate strategies that were adopted, from
the 1970s onwards, to encourage multi-disciplinary, collaborative research, have
meant that people got to know each other, and to share ideas, in an environment that
encouraged collaboration. Often, lasting friendships developed between like-minded
researchers that led to increased scientific productivity. In the case of invasion science
in South Africa, we may have an example of the Goldilocks Principle, which holds
that something must fall within certain margins, as opposed to reaching extremes.
Most developing countries do not have sufficient resources that would allow them to
build a critical mass of researchers that could go on and make a broad and meaningful
contribution. On the other hand, developed countries may have relatively too much,
and collaborative approaches would become less necessary because different research
groups could operate independently. A proper examination of this hypothesis would
make an interesting research project in itself.
58
B. W. van Wilgen