The head of one of the country's top scientific institutes is calling for a review of the way the most prestigious science funder makes decisions on grants.
Kate McGrath, the director of the McDiarmid Institute and also the Vice Provost of Research at Victoria University, has written a blog saying that drastic change is needed to the Marsden Fund.
The fund distributes about $55 million a year and this year 1200 people applied for funding. The success rate usually sits at about 7 percent.
Dr McGrath's comments are unusual, because those in top science roles do not often criticise the model, for fear it will affect their funding.
In her blog, she raised deep concerns about the current state of funding of science, and warned it could not go on.
"The pie is limited, and in the university sector, for example, considering external research income, most of it is paid for by the New Zealand tax payer ... In real dollar amounts, actually, the pie may even be shrinking."
She took particular aim at the Marsden Fund, saying it needed to be restructured.
Currently, scientists put forward an expression of interest, and then, if a local panel likes the idea, they will be asked for a more thorough application, viewed by international experts.
This year 200 proposals have been selected for the final round - about 50 fewer than last year, Dr McGrath said in her blog.
"It has just been made more difficult to get your foot in the door of arguably the most prestigious grants in the country.
"While it is true that, once you have made it through the Marsden second round door, the success rate is higher, the question that has been raised is, is this two stage process, where the first stage is decided by a relatively small number of people considering proposals over a broad range of discipline areas delivering us the best outcomes as a country?
"And this is not questioning the integrity and experience of those on the panels, just that the panels are perhaps not sufficiently expert in the full breadth of first round proposals that they consider."
But the Marsden Fund chair Dr Juliet Gerrard said changes this year were because of a slight drop in applications, and $3 million less to hand out.
"There was a strategic decision to reduce the burden on the community and referees on the second round because that it where all the work comes in.
"There is about a 10 percent decrease on those going through to the second round, or approximately two proposals per panel. "
The Marsden Fund estimated the saving in wasted time at $200,000.
Science Minister Steven Joyce is happy with the way the fund works and said criticism would likely be similar if it were a one-step process.
He also said science funding was increasing and has increased faster than inflation.
"The amount the fund has been allocated has gone up 40 percent in six years, while the overall science budget has increaed by $1.5 billion.
"On top of that, the number of people working in science in the public and private sector has also increased significantly."
