The Government will consolidate decision-making for New Zealand’s science research funding as part of its new science system strategy.
Research Funding New Zealand will be a new independent board that will replace most existing decision makers across the science system, including the Marsden Fund Council, the MBIE’s Science Board and funding roles, and in the future, the Health Research Council.
The new science sector reforms come alongside the release of the second report of advice from the Science Sector Advisory Group.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Professor Richard Easther, Department of Physics, University of Auckland, comments:
“In principle, having all these funding vehicles under a single roof could be a good idea. But as with everything in research, the devil is in the details.
“In particular, the announcement is worryingly light on detail when it comes to ‘discovery-led science’. Its says it ‘will sit outside the pillars’ but this type of fundamental research is the core business of the Marsden scheme.
“Looking back over its history, the high expectations and rigorous reviews used by the Marsden Fund drove a step-change in core research quality after its inception in the 1990s. We cannot go backwards on that.
“In particular, all funded Marsden proposals are assessed by international experts but many MBIE schemes are not.
“For example, our participation in MethaneSAT was initiated by MBIE after a very light external review. Even before its failure, its delays and lack of alignment with a coherent strategy squandered $30M of taxpayer money along with our unique position as a small country that can launch its own satellites to orbit.
“So if this change brings Marsden’s rigour and ambition to MBIE projects it will be a success. If it goes the other way it will be a disaster.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No direct conflicts of interest but I served a term on the Marsden Council.”
Professor Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments:
“Today’s announcement of further changes to our research funding system are significant. There is a lot to digest in the full report of the SSAG, so I will concentrate my initial comments on the decisions announced by MBIE and the Minister.
“In principle the announcement of a ‘simpler science system’ is welcome. I have long felt that it is a mistake for new funding mechanisms to be announced to achieve new government priorities when our existing funding mechanisms that work well (such as the long-running Marsden Fund, based on expert panels and peer review) are underfunded. The key thing that undermines the efficiency of our research system is critical mass; I am therefore not against consolidation.
“However, the establishment of a new Board structure to make funding decisions – what will be called Research Funding NZ (RFNZ) – consolidates a lot of decision making power in one place. Transparency of process will therefore be essential. The appointment of eight members to this Board will put that power directly in the hands of the Minister.
“It is not clear, for example, that the same expertise will be needed on the RFNZ for decisions relating to the Marsden Fund as in the more strategic funding mechanisms. There should be a strong expectation that the recommendations of expert panels are not being overruled by panelists who are not researchers – that would change entirely the nature of the trust that researchers have in the Marsden Fund process, and risk the same politicisation of research funding that we have seen when Ministers start making science funding decisions, both here and overseas.
“The independence of the RFNZ can therefore only be assured through the establishment of highly transparent process, whatever its membership.
“Science funding is an investment that pays off for all New Zealanders in too many ways to list here, but to quote the SSAG report’s very first recommendation: ‘grasping this opportunity will require further investment.’
“In the report from the SSAG there are several other recommendations that have not been picked up by the Minister or MBIE as part of today’s announcement. In addition to the need for higher funding levels, the comments about the treatment of IP in our research system address a long-standing need for reform. The SSAG recommends adoption of the Uniservices model at the University of Auckland, but acknowledges that other universities have not had the scale to make this work. It recommends ‘clustering’ of this tech transfer support – I would go one further and suggest that actual funding for the work of tech transfer offices might be what is needed to create the step change the government is looking for.
“The SSAG also suggests that all research must answer the question of ‘Why should it be done in New Zealand and be funded by public money?’. This is particularly pertinent to the Public Research Organisations, and the selection of the strategic areas in which they operate. However, I would welcome a response to this question from the government that acknowledges that in the case of basic research in our universities, the answer is very simple.
“Sometimes the answer is that the research must be done in order for New Zealanders to have access to a world-class university system. That research must include the humanities, social sciences, and a thriving base of curiosity-driven science, to address the ambitions and aspirations of the future workforce of Aotearoa.”
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.
Markus Luczak-Roesch, Co-Director of Te Pūnaha Matatini – Aotearoa New Zealand’s Centre of Research Excellence in Complex Systems; and Chair in Complexity Science at Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“Announcements have been made about changes to New Zealand’s ‘science, innovation and technology system’. They deserve detailed attention, carry specific views to the world, and will undoubtedly have consequences – good and bad.
“But instead of discussing specific details of the strategic proposals, I want to ask one simple question that should come ahead of developing any such strategy: Who is on this journey with us?
“The documents released today talk about solutions that benefit New Zealand. The documents don’t say explicitly whose problems these solutions are for and who gets to decide what benefits New Zealand. How many New Zealanders will watch a 6pm news announcement about this reform and feel that this is something they should deeply care about?
“It is almost 15 years since Sir Paul Callaghan laid out his vision for a science- and technology-led nation. Acknowledging that we are still not there after leaving it to those who tried so far, I would like to use the words the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee: ‘This is for everyone!’ The first step for New Zealand as a science, innovation and technology nation should be to invite every New Zealander into the process of envisioning and being part of it.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Markus Luczak-Roesch receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as a Co-Director of Te Pūnaha Matatini. All research funding goes to Victoria University of Wellington to pay the costs of the research he is employed to do.”
Priscilla Wehi, Co-Director, Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre for Research Excellence for Complex Systems; and Professor, University of Otago, comments:
“The trouble with the government’s idea for a simple, more efficient science fund is that it’s trying to be a Ferrari on tin can funding.
“The government has suggested four funding pillars for applied research: economy, health and society, environment, and technology.
“The trouble with the four pillars, is that they are not comparable. It’s like fruit – if I told you that an orange, an apple and a key were fruit, you could see which one was the odd one out. I’ll come back to that key.
“The best, cutting edge research available discusses circular economies, not pillars. The reality is that the health of society and the environment are interconnected. Environment is the foundation from which everything else comes. The economy can only be sustainable if it develops from a healthy society and healthy environment.
“And what about the key that isn’t a fruit? The advanced technology pillar is like that key. The key might open the door to an orchard where you can water and look after the fruit trees using the latest innovations, so the trees grow well. That still doesn’t make the key a fruit! It should inform all the other pillars, but it isn’t a pillar in itself.
“Technology is a key that builds science innovation. Science innovation in turn advances health and society and environmental successes, all of which benefit the economy – through less disease burden, clean water, a flourishing diversity of species, better management of agriculture. We need a new model of interdisciplinary science, not siloes.
“The government wants commercialisation and economic growth. But if we are to have any hope of achieving this – if we really want to drive the Ferrari – we need to tend the ‘blue sky’ orchard where fundamental research is done first, using technology to improve the crop. We need to do this before we can pick the economically valuable fruit. We also need to ensure there are enough qualified people to do the work – something at severe risk right now.
“There will be a lot more fruit for all of us if we look after the orchard well.
“And here’s the fine print:
“If we really want that Ferrari, we need to make sure it is running on renewable energy. If not, our children and grandchildren will most likely be wishing they had grabbed the keys.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Cilla Wehi is partially funded by the Tertiary Education Commission as Co-Director of one of New Zealalnd’s Centres of Research Excellence.”
Dr Lucy Stewart and Professor Troy Baisden, Co-Presidents of The NZ Association of Scientists, comment:
“There is great potential in the science funding reform announced today. The announcements create a more strategic science funding system that better resembles successful systems in successful small nations. It has a high level structure and a matrix of considerations that will help ground it in achieving what we need as a nation.
“Yet there are some things that can go wrong, and have gone wrong with past reforms.
“First, the four Pillars may provide too much simplicity to ensure all needs are met. Two of the four pillars are focused on research related to the ‘economy’, when we know much research is not easily categorised in this way. Lack of clarity on where and how natural hazards research will be funded is an obvious example.
“The new Research Funding New Zealand agency is yet to be built, but the Government is already planning the disestablishment of the two most competent funding bodies, Marsden and Health Research Council. Their strengths could be lost into a larger bureaucracy. The newly created Public Research Organisations might be best placed to set strategy, and it is worth remembering this recommendation of the 2010 reform felt promising but was abandoned in a partially implemented state.
“We have also learned from past reforms that the biggest danger to successful systems is building more layers of management. As a company, Boeing ran into trouble making good planes when it sidelined its aeronautical engineers from top management. Successful science systems have strategies run by scientists who know science and who it delivers to, and who are not sidelined by managers and bureaucrats. Yet that’s what has happened in our current system – and the new system retains this potential.
“The acid test may be simple. Scientists, business, politicians and the public would all like to see more useful science versus less bureaucracy. Our system rates as one of the worst in the world in terms of the ratio of funding that actually goes to science versus management and bureaucracy. Will we see any improvement, or will we continue to underfund the actual research this new agency is intended to support?”
Conflicts of interest: None declared.