The Science System Advisory Group was led by Sir Peter Gluckman. Photo: Supplied / University of Auckland
The final report of a major review of the science sector underscores its fragility, due to what authors claim are decades of underinvestment, amid a major shake-up to research funding.
Led by Sir Peter Gluckman, the second part of the Science System Advisory Group's review was made public on Tuesday.
The report said its primary focus was to ensure the country got the full social and economic benefit from research and innovation across both the public and private spheres.
In outlining its recommendations, the advisory group said the New Zealand science system was "particularly fragile" and again noted the ramifications of decades of underfunding public science - points made in its first report, which spurred an overhaul of the sector earlier this year.
"The consequences of New Zealand's long-standing public underinvestment in research and development, which has flow-on effects on the economy, society and the environment, are now very clear.
"The lack of adequate investment in science, innovation and technology has played a significant role in our sluggish productivity and declining position relative to other small, advanced countries."
The report highlighted the need for the government to invest in a range of areas - including artifical intelligence and 'big data' - but also early-stage research to bridge the gap between conception and commercialisation, because the "private sector will not invest until the level of risk is reduced".
However, it warned "public-good-focused stewardship research" - for example, public health, environmental and natural hazards monitoring - must remain the core purpose of the Public Research Organisations, not "narrow commercial expectations".
The advisory group said all crown-funded research should meet the test: 'Why should it be done in New Zealand and be funded by public money?'
"There are many ways of answering such tests, whether it is for blue-skies research or very applied research in the humanities, or in deep technology," it said.
"No single challenge exists in any sector of our society and economy, where science could not assist further," it said.
The Science System Advisory Group says investment in science and innovation is the lowest of comparative countries, resulting in New Zealand's declining productivity. Photo: Supplied/Science System Advisory Group
Research funding to be overhauled
Among its recommendations, which included the already established Institute for Advanced Technology, was the amalgamation of contestable research funds into one decision-making body - announced by Science Minister Shane Reti on Tuesday.
The to-be-established Research Funding New Zealand would be an independent board responsible for making most funding decisions, Reti said, delivering efficiency and ease for researchers seeking grants.
"The message from the science and research community has been loud and clear - the current funding system is too complex, too bureaucratic, and takes time and energy away from actual research."
The amount of money available for funding wouldn't change, but it would avoid duplication, he said.
The new body would replace "multiple layers of decision-making", by taking on the Endeavour, Marsden, and Strategic Science Investment funds - currently administered by three separate funding bodies.
Under the new model, Reti said public investment in science would focus on the economy, the environment, health and society, and technology.
The announcement stopped short of including the Catalyst Fund, as recommended by the advisory group, but Reti confirmed an in-priniciple decision had been made for Research Funding NZ to also absorb the Health Research Council.
All current research contracts would continue, with changes phased in over the next four years.
In its newsletter, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) said the Endeavour and the Marsden funds would be the first to transition to the new funding system in 2026.
It's another significant change for the decades-old Marsden Fund, which has undergone extensive updates and funding cuts over the past year.
MBIE said the Prime Minister's Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council would provide advice to the Government, which would ultimately determine the research priorities.
This would feed into Research Funding NZ's decision-making.
MBIE said it was currently seeking candidates for appointment to the board.
The government would continue to back a broad range of science, from blue-sky research to applied and commercial innovation, Reti said.
Scientists react to shake-up
The announcement has been met with a tempered response from scientists, with MacDiarmid Institute director Professor Nicola Gaston stating she wasn't against consolidation and the principle of a "simpler science system", but it was a mistake to bring in a new funding mechanism, while the current one was underfunded.
She also said transparency of funding process would be essential, claiming that the new board "consolidates a lot of decision-making power in one place".
"The appointment of eight members to this board will put that power directly in the hands of the minister."
The Association of Scientists said the new board had great potential and resembled strategic funding systems overseas, but warned against introducing layers of bureaucracy, which could undermine it.
"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."
University of Auckland professor Richard Easther said bringing research funding under a single roof could be a good idea, "but as with everything in research, the devil is in the details".
He said the announcement was "light on detail" regarding 'discovery-led science' or fundamental research - 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, 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."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
