Presented as the most important change in the scientific system in 30 years, last week’s announcement of major structural changes in scientific research institutions was objectively a big problem.
But the devil will be in detail. The proposed reforms are focused on the economic impact of the scientific sector and are based on the first of the two reports of the Scientific system advisory group (SSAG).
Success will depend on the way in which they are implemented and, above all, from the sector receiving sufficient funding.
Government reforms include:
-
The merger of seven public research institutes of the Crown to create three major public research organizations (PRO)
-
The creation of a fourth new professional focused on “advanced technologies” such as artificial intelligence, synthetic and potentially biology clean cleanliness
-
undressing Callaghan innovation and the creation of a new agency entitled “Invest New Zealand” to target international investment
-
The creation of a new national intellectual property policy, which means that scientists working in the pros and in the university system are on a level field in terms of marketing
-
The creation of an Advisory, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council of a Prime Minister to provide strategic orientation and surveillance.
As the reforms are progressing, the government will have to answer several questions. For example, how is the expertise relating to advanced technologies, a large part of which is currently in our university sector, will be transferred to the new pro?
And how will the financing model be modified as these new pros are established?
Mark Mitchell / Getty Images
Long -race problems
Overall, higher level changes are positive. The reforms are long to come and are based on years of discussion in the crown research sector.
But we must examine the reforms in the context of the first report of the scientific advisory group.
The report focuses strongly and deliberately on the potential economic impact of science and research. The authors describe how it should be supported by a functional system correctly.
According to the authors, the lack of strategy of the highest level of government is an obstacle for the sector.
It is clear that the advisory group recommends a structural change (such as the pro model). But it is also explicit that sufficient research funding is a necessary condition for these reforms to work:
SSAG strongly supports the opinion that our parsimonious attitude towards research funding is a main reason why New Zealand has become an aberrant value in productivity growth performance.
Obstacles to progress
The advisory group has identified certain cultural attitudes, such as New Zealand “Eight number“Thinking, like a reason why the country does not appreciate research as it should be. The group has also strongly pleaded for the bipartite agreement on financing systems and investment levels.
The group had strongly positive things to say about research in the social sciences and Mātauranga Maori through the lens of economic growth.
There is no debate on the fact that research on the culture and knowledge of Maori is an obligation of the New Zealand research system and that this should be largely determined by the experts of Mātauranga Māori. We will recommend a separate financing flow in the National Research Foundation offered.
Unfortunately, funding by the Government of Social Sciences and Human Sciences, announced in December, suggests that it has already made its mind on the value of these disciplines.
Miss the situation as a whole
By reading the full report, it is possible that, although the government’s announcement has made the most visible recommendations for change, it missed the situation as a whole: the need for sufficient funding to strengthen the sector in its ensemble and help New Zealand becomes internationally competitive.
This means that we must compare ourselves against other countries and their economic and scientific performance. According to the report:
International analysis is clear: we spend much less than the comparable countries that spend the public scholarship (research and development).
The authors point out that for low -spending countries, improving research and development activity is particularly important for GDP growth. New Zealand should note it – it is an aberrant value both as a low investor and a bad economic interpreter.
These messages are not new.
Steven Joyce, Minister of Government Sciences led by the National between 2011 and 2016, argued for national scientific challenges as a means of justifying an increase in government investments in the sector. But problems with implementation costs have actually killed its increased funding promise.
The Minister of Labor Sciences between 2022 and 2023, Ayesha Verrall, had a similar argument on the need to establish “priorities” of research in order to justify an increase in expenses. Again, it never happened.
Current reforms may be more effective in ensuring a justification for increased investments.
But this time, we have to put the horse before the cart by investing money in the system – the one who has been underfunded for years and who has only seen recently Financing reductions and losses.
And this must occur before the system absorbs the costs of implementing these reforms.