Details of new changes to research funding under sweeping science sector reforms have been released today.
The briefing confirms that set up of the NZ Institute for Advanced Technology will be paid for through reallocated science funding, including long-term reductions to specific public research funds such as the Marsden Fund and the Health Research Fund.
These changes come on top of reprioritised research funding in the 2025 Budget being used to set up the three other Public Research Organisations, a new PM’s Advisory Council, Invest NZ, and a new gene tech regulator.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Previous expert comments on research funding in the 2025 Budget and the science system reforms are available on our website.
Professor Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments:
“Despite the jazz hands in display around the announcement of the NZIAT (or Advanced Tech PRO), we knew it was not new money. The shock is not the reprioritisation from SSIF, Callaghan Innovation, or Endeavour grants for this — those mechanisms are reasonably well aligned with the purpose of the NZIAT, so not too big a deal on some level – aside from the longstanding critique that the system is already underfunded and the cost of the reforms themselves are absorbing research money etc.
“But the bigger picture here is the capture of the science system by politicians and by bureaucrats. The movement of funds from the Investigator-led Marsden Fund, in addition to previously announced cuts to the scheme, is absolutely an attack on fundamental research and on internationally-recognised research excellence. I am far from a critic of applied or mission-led research, and can see potential in the PRO reforms to create critical mass. But this is killing the goose that laid the golden egg and then boiling that egg in aqua regia.
“Impactful scientific research requires sustained scientific leadership, not politicians whose decisions about where and how to allocate funding seem to be driven primarily by the extent to which they get to take credit for the funding announcements.”
Conflict of interest statement: Nicola Gaston receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as the Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund. All research funding goes to the University of Auckland to pay the costs of the research she is employed to do.
Dr James Hutchinson, CEO of KiwiNet, comments:
“If we want more economic growth from our science system, now is the time to invest in R&D – not cut it. The evidence is clear internationally: countries that lift R&D investment see faster productivity growth and stronger economies.
“We also need to invest in the commercialisation system that turns research into real-world impact. Currently, less than 1% of public science, innovation and technology funding supports this critical capability – the people and programmes that connect discoveries with industry and investors, and create new companies.
“To get the best return for taxpayers, we need a diverse ‘garden’ of research – from blue-skies to applied – coupled with stronger commercialisation pathways. That combination is what will grow the next generation of technologies, transform industries, and build a more prosperous future for Aotearoa.”
Conflict of interest statement: KiwiNet is primarily funded by the Government through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Its shareholders are New Zealand universities and publicly funded research organisations.
Professor Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls Director, University of Auckland, comments:
“The NZ Institute for Advanced Technologies (NZIAT) is being set up to leverage Aotearoa successes in Deep tech, i.e. technologies that remain deeply connected to the fundamental science on which it is based.
“We applaud the creation of NZIAT to capitalize on our leadership and investment in fundamental research to date, but wouldn’t want to see this at the expense of cuts to fundamental research funding. This would put NZ at risk of failing to deliver fresh innovation in 10-15 years when the fundamental research being worked on now, matures.”
Conflict of interest statement: Frédérique Vanholsbeeck receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as the Director of Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls Centre for Photonics and Quantum Technologies. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund and the MBIE Endeavour Fund. All research funding goes to the University of Auckland to pay the costs of the research she is employed to do.
Professor Kelly Dombroski, President of the NZ Geographical Society, comments:
“For us in the NZ Geographical Society we see so much need for urgent research and innovation in the environment-society space (such as climate adaptation, circular economies, environmental protection). The Advanced Institute of Technology is unlikely to provide the leadership needed for research in that crucially underfunded space.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I receive funding from the Marsden fund, I have a Rutherford Fellowship, and I previously received funds from the National Science Challenges.”
Distinguished Professor Dame Jane Harding DNZM FRACP FRSNZ, President of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, comments:
“Over the past 30 years the Marsden Fund has enabled New Zealand researchers to achieve some world-class breakthroughs, earn a reputation for excellence, and collaborate with top international scientists. The Fund invests in the kind of cutting-edge research that can generate paradigm-shifting advances to feed our innovation pipeline. The government’s cuts to fundamental research are likely to have significant unintended consequences. They will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute – and the broader science sector – to build on discoveries from early-stage research to grow our competitive advantage, solve complex challenges, and improve health, education, and our environment.”
Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President New Zealand Association of Scientist, Principal Investigator Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, and Affiliate with Motu Research, comments:
“The cuts from a number of areas to prop up what remains a ghost proposal for a virtual Advanced Technology Organisation are deeply disappointing because we’re finding out they’re not just eroding the foundations of our national research system – the plan is now the equivalent of selling the furniture and floorboards on TradeMe to scrape together a few quid, while leaving gaping holes in what the community of researcher has to work with. (Concerningly, the plan seems so shaky that the numbers don’t even add up. I can see $144.7m in funding reallocations totalled as providing $150.4m in funds?)
“With these cuts added to new requirements to target difficult-to-assess economic benefits of proposals, bodies like Marsden and Health Research Council (HRC) risk becoming too small to maintain effective operations that can convincingly say they fund the best proposals through high quality competitive processes. There have been international warnings that the cost of preparing proposals can exceed the value of funding received and the scale of these cuts are almost certain to finish pushing us over the brink. The high quality processes will break down and become ever more of a lottery with funding rates well under 1 in 10 proposals submitted, yet with each credible proposal requiring months of work.
“The cuts to the Endeavour Fund present a more complicated case because this fund had often been funding research that should be enduring, rather than supported by discontinuous 5-year contracts. Examples include programmes on climate change and emissions, environmental monitoring of lakes, and sea level rise. The competitive rounds meant that many of the programmes were capped at about $2 million per year to remain fundable, even though delivering outcomes almost certainly would have benefited from more funding, as well as long-term continuity. The pause to Endeavour’s proposal rounds, with extensions for suitable contracts, might have enabled some of these changes but the cuts will now make that very difficult.
“Funding for Strategic Science Investment Fund is the one place where there is long-term funding, but many of the areas funded have hardly had an increase with inflation in the last 20 years. Now some will face a large cut or elimination entirely, and we’ll discover the hard way they were doing something important when it is no longer there for us.
“Sadly those most likely to discover that our foundations (and furniture, and floorboards) are disappearing may be international investors tempted to support science and innovation here. Unfortunately, they’ll find that a starving innovation ecosystem with less public support to build their investments on than they could find in almost any other comparable country. They won’t leave behind public warnings but will silently disappear.
“There is one hope however. Partly because the system has become so reliant on these competitive research funds, overheads have become internationally anomalous. Any obvious anomaly can be fixed, but only if the willpower exists to do it. Overheads means that for every dollar spend on salary support for researchers in universities more than two dollars go to support the university’s operations. The same calculations become roughly four times salary in Crown Research Institutes, recently amalgamated into fewer institutions. Thus our research overheads sit at 200-400%, with more money going to support our institutions than the research projects that are funded. In Europe the norm is 25%, and in the United States, Trump has tried to bring the cap down to 15%.
“Testifying to a Parliamentary select committee this year, the then CE of GNS Science suggested that having scientists charge out at the same rate as lawyers, or over $400 per hour, should be normalised. I question whether she or the government want to see that proposition tested as an election issue.
“There is another way. If the government is able to find funds to support institutions and reduce the competition that has blown out the overheads supporting institutions, they could cap overheads. Then the reduced funding Marsden, Health Research Council, Strategic Science Investment Fund, etc will go further and contribute to a more stable research system.
“At present, there’s no indication that massively reduced overheads from competition will be achieved and we’re left watching the furniture and floorboards go on out the door as an answer to the most often asked question about our research system’s reforms: are we rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or playing musical chairs?
“We are doing both.”
No conflicts of interest.