The government has announced the largest reforms to
NZ’s science sector in over three decades.
The seven
Crown Research Institutes will be replaced by three Public
Research Organisations (PROs) focusing on bio-economy,
earth sciences, and health and forensic sciences, while an
advanced technology PRO will focus on the likes of
artificial intelligence, quantum and synthetic biology
technologies. Callaghan Innovation is to be disestablished,
with its key functions moved to other parts of the
system.
A new Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation
and Technology Advisory Council will provide strategic
direction and identify economic opportunities, while a new
agency, Invest New Zealand, will focus on foreign direct
investment. The announcement also includes development of a
national policy for managing Intellectual Property
(IP).
The first report from the Science System
Advisory Group (SSAG) has also now been made publicly
available.
The Science Media Centre asked
experts to comment.
Professor Amanda
Black (Tūhoe, Whakatōhea, Te Whānau a Āpanui), Director
– Bioprotection Aotearoa, Lincoln University,
comments:
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“The release of the SSAG report
and science sector reforms yesterday saw the reimagining of
the science sector to underpin economic growth and attract
offshore investment for Aotearoa. How the merger and
(re)establishing of a similar number of entities will
provide such a mechanism remains to be seen. The review was
necessary, but as always, the success of such a restructure
depending entirely on the people being appointed to lead the
changes. The devil is in the detail.
“Although
mentioned briefly in the report as being one of the domains
of research ‘critically important to being an advanced
economy. It has cultural, social and inherent values’,
Mātauranga Māori, like social research, is given little
visible space in the reimagination of the science system.
Placement and resourcing often go hand in
hand.
“Projects that are either wholly
or co-developed with Mātauranga Māori have been easy
targets for critics that see anything other than
old-fashioned disciplined based siloes as unworthy of
equitable resourcing.
“Science and
research have important roles to play in underpinning our
economy and our wellbeing as a place to live. To ensure that
this continues, we must encourage a wider range of groups to
participate in science and research. This becomes
increasingly difficult if we just continue to promote and
fund narrow areas and exclude cultural context in science.
The rationale for increased science uptake and support among
hard-to-reach groups by being inclusive is well
documented.
“And while we have reasonable trust in
science and research, this may start to diminish if the
system continues to exclude many parts of society that
contribute to knowledge acquisition. We know that
disinformation and misinformation are on the rise, and
science and research are often used for such agendas. We
need only look at the increasing backlash to vaccines. If
people do not see themselves reflected in a system, then how
can you get them to support it?
“I am hopeful that
this reform will take all the gains we have made in
providing mechanisms for increased support and uptake and
build on this.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Distinguished Professor Sir
Peter Hunter, Bioengineering Institute, University of
Auckland, comments:
“I think the SSAG
report is an extremely important document with some great
ideas on how to improve the NZ science system. It was good
to see the PM’s announcement today of the consolidation of
the overly fragmented CRI system into the 4 new PROs: Earth
Sciences, Bioeconomy, Health & Forensic Science, and a
future ‘Advanced Technology’ one (absorbing the IRL part
of Callaghan Innovation?). Callaghan Innovation’s role is
too splintered (funding agency, business advice, tech
research) and needed to be reconsidered. The announcement
today about long overdue changes to our overly restrictive
GE regulations (another SSAG recommendation) is also very
welcome.
“The majority of the internationally
competitive research in both advanced technology and
biomedical science is carried out within the universities
(with a strong track record of commercialisation), so it
will be important to ensure that this is taken into
consideration when designing both the Advanced Technology
PRO and an expanded ESR as a ‘Health & Forensic
Science’ PRO.
“The Government announcements today,
in line with the SSAG report, have a clear focus on economic
outcomes and establishing a more effective science
framework. This priority is understandable, but should be
only the first step and followed up with more Government
investment in both discovery and applied science, to bring
us in line with international benchmarks. I’m optimistic
that the Government does understand the long-term nature of
investment in scientific research and the importance of
funding the discovery science end of the spectrum, without
which we won’t have the IP to generate investment. I am a
little unsure, however, about the recommendations for
unification of technology transfer processes – UniServices
does this very effectively for the University of Auckland,
but that does not seem to be replicated across the science
sector.
“Two other important recommendations of the
SSAG report, hopefully the subject of future Government
announcements, are the proposal to have a Ministry focussed
just on science, innovation and technology, and the
establishment of a National Research Council that would
combine the Strategic Science Investment Fund, the Marsden
fund, the MBIE Endeavour fund, and the Health Research
Council fund under a single administrative entity that could
create more cross-fertilisation between basic science,
technological research and health-related research. The SSAG
recommendation to create a separate fund under this umbrella
for research on Mātauranga Māori is a good idea, as this
is an important area for research in NZ, but one that needs
to be clearly separated from scientific
research.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Professor Richard Easther,
Professor of Physics, University of Auckland,
comments:
“The hope that science will
contribute to the economy is not a new one. The DSIR was
founded to do just that in 1926 and this announcement
reorganises the CRIs — which were created when the DSIR
was broken up thirty years ago. So if science is not making
the contribution to the economy we want, it is not because
of a lack of vision, but a failure of execution on the part
of successive governments. Consequently, the biggest issues
with these changes will be about
implementation.
“The CRI sector has been
facing uncertainty for some time so the mergers will let
them move forward. Moreover, we can hope that the move will
thin down their managerial class in favour of the people who
actually do the work, but the costs of the transition will
be significant and several of the CRIs also have substantial
infrastructure deficits that are
unaddressed.
“From my perspective, the
key issue is that while every government has asked what
fruits can be harvested from science they have shown little
interest in the health of the actual trees that produce the
fruit, and there is no sign of a change in these
announcements. In many cases, science-led innovation yields
return on a timescale of decades rather than years and
short-term thinking in the sector leads to poor
decisions.
“For example, three of the most exciting
science stories in New Zealand today are rockets, quantum
technology and Open Star’s work towards a practical fusion
reactor. However, none of these topics were the focus of
dedicated government-driven initiatives twenty years ago,
but in that same time government has funded any number of
multimillion dollar boondoggles (including chunks of the
National Science Challenges) which produced disappointing
results.
“A lot of decisions are yet to come, but
for me the biggest question is whether we are going to be
building a system with broad strengths and the flexibility
to nurture unexpected developments and the answer to that is
still far from clear.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Dr James Renwick, Professor of
Physical Geography, Victoria University of Wellington,
comments:
“Broadly speaking, a merger of
NIWA and GNS, and the MetService, makes a lot of sense, as
do the other mergers proposed. Focusing around broad
disciplines sounds good. But as always the devil is in the
details. For instance, will the mergers result in further
loss of critical capability? NIWA has already lost
world-class science expertise in climate change research,
from greenhouse gas monitoring to climate modelling. It will
take many years to rebuild such expertise, so let’s hope
the mergers and associated loss of staff does not lead to
further erosion in that area or in others critical to this
country’s future.
“Also, where is social science
in the reforms? The government has already signalled it is
not so interested in social sciences, yet NIWA and GNS have
grown significant expertise in these areas, helping
communities understand responses to climate change and
natural hazards, among other things. It would be a real
shame to see that work, and that capacity-building, come to
an abrupt end.
“What is happening with science
funding in the restructure? The New Zealand science sector
has been underfunded, by international standards, for many
years. The government comments The system is fragmented,
with poor visibility of the effectiveness of current
investments, and suffers from duplication, inefficiency, and
poor use of resources. Such a situation has grown up
over 30 years from over-competition, as well as a lack of
resources. The new announcements will help address
over-competition, but it is not clear what will happen
around the shortfall in funding.
“A significant
increase in government funding as part of the announced
changes would be welcome and would help with the
government’s goal to see science fuel economic growth. One
useful focus for new funding would be to restore
post-doctoral funding pathways, to ensure our PhD students
have jobs to go to at the end of their of their studies,
rather than to head off overseas.
“The
newly-announced Prime Minister’s science advisory panel
sounds like a good idea, as does the creation of a new
Advanced Technology PRO and the spreading of Callaghan
Innovation expertise into it and into the other new
organisations.
“The government wants to
power economic growth. Funding science can help with that,
but the process can be far from linear. Many great
scientific advances have come unexpectedly, from areas of
research that had no obvious commercial application. General
support for scientific endeavour, for the expansion of
knowledge generally, is likely to reap economic rewards, but
picking winners can easily miss the biggest
rewards.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I
have no conflict of interest, but for background I have
worked at NIWA and I have received government science
funding many times over the past 30
years.”
Professor Tammy Steeves,
principal investigator at Te Pūnaha Matatini, Professor
Priscilla Wehi, co-director of Te Pūnaha Matatini, and
Professor Markus Luczak-Roesch, co-director of Te Pūnaha
Matatini and Chair in Complexity Science at Victoria
University of Wellington, comment:
“There
are significant and longstanding issues with the research
system in New Zealand, and today the government announced
significant reform to address some of these issues. Our
seven existing Crown Research Institutes will be brought
together into three Public Research Organisations, and a
fourth Public Research Organisation will be created, to
focus on “advanced technology”.
“The Crown
Research Institutes were established in 1992, and designed
to compete for funding. There has been both duplication of
effort and disconnection in how they operate. Bringing
together our Crown Research Institutes into four Public
Research Organisations structure is a positive move, as long
as they are set up to communicate and collaborate with each
other. The most effective strategies for the significant
global challenges we face will benefit from all four Public
Research Organisations working together.
“Although
significant, the Crown Research Institutes are one part of
our research system. These changes were announced alongside
the release of the long-awaited first report from the
Science System Advisory Group, and we eagerly await further
implementation of their
recommendations.
“The current government
has a strong focus on growth and innovation. The path
between growth and innovation is not linear, and both rest
on important foundations. If we don’t nurture the people
and fundamental research that underpin growth and
innovation, the entire system will
collapse.
“New Zealand is already at
the forefront of research excellence. We look forward to the
government investing in this capability, and future efforts
to build a science system that is prepared to solve the
complex global challenges in which we all have a
stake.”
Conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Media statement from Science New
Zealand:
The Crown Research Institutes are
very supportive of the government’s science system
reforms. The current structure was designed 30 years ago and
has served the country well in providing science that has
set the foundation for much of New Zealand’s recent
economic success, but it was time for change.
Science
New Zealand was actively engaged in the work of the Science
System Advisory Group, led by distinguished Professor Sir
Peter Gluckman. It is gratifying to see decisions coming
from that work, to give our scientists, technicians and
support staff certainty that their work is
valued.
Done well, these changes have the potential to
enhance the system to drive New Zealand’s economic
prosperity, and ensure precious funding is prioritised for
work that will have an impact. It should also enable rapidly
advancing tech innovations to drive the country’s future
industries.
Chair of Science New Zealand, Dr Sue
Bidrose says that “it was time for change in our sector,
to better support and grow the critical science New Zealand
needs for our next 30 years. Making these changes will
enable greater collaboration between our science people, and
that deliver great science for our industries and for the
public good. We are delighted that the Crown Research
Institutes that make up Science New Zealand will be integral
to the transition process this year.”
Deputy Chair
of Science New Zealand, Chelydra Percy, added that “we are
working collaboratively with the government to create a
science system that is fit for delivering new and impactful
science for the next 30 years. Public good science really
matters, as does science that supports the delivery of
economic growth in an environmentally sustainable
manner.”
Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President, New
Zealand Association of Scientists,
comments:
“The long-awaited release of the
report
on the future of our research system is now out, with an
initial set of announcements related mainly to economic
growth. Despite the report’s clear focus on getting the
future “architecture” of our failing system right, the
announcement doesn’t fully address the “lack of
strategic oversight” and “lack of flexibility to address
priorities” that drive the advice to Cabinet. These
perspectives of the status quo are damning and NZAS agrees.
However, the proposals to reform the oversight of science
within a more focused ministry do not appear to have been
taken up, or will require a long uncertain
process.
“The steps taken from SSAG report appear at
best to be SSAG-lite and an announcement about future
announcements.
“The report by the SSAG, chaired by
Sir Peter Gluckman, correctly identifies we need to get the
architecture right. We do run the risk that the reform
stalls at the architecture of rearranging the deckchairs on
the Titanic.
“Building better public research
organisations that act in the public good rather than
competing with each other is fundamentally good, and these
can generally be applauded. The new institutions can better
develop industrial strategies and missions that serve our
nation and our sectors. But big questions
remain.
“Is the only goal to continue to drain
economic gain from the pool of knowledge developed over
decades, without continuing to invest in either foundations
or the pipes, composed of scientists and their careers
through which knowledge flows?
“I’m concerned the
unexplained delays reflect ongoing neglect of the research
system. This approach will continue encouraging scientists
to depart the nation and our children to avoid science
careers. We can do better.
“Most
concerningly, comparing the announcement and a first scan of
the report raises concerns about the ongoing illusion that
the pool of knowledge generated by science can be drained to
fuel economic growth. Or as the report puts it (line 211),
“The naive idea persists in the New Zealand ecosystem that
exploitation of IP is how PRO’s and universities could
generate significant income – this is just not the case
globally.”
“We need to build rebuild
foundations and connective infrastructure (essentially
pipes). Even for the primary sector, it is unclear how
improving vehicles for foreign investment will help. Why,
when we invest so much less than peer nations, would foreign
investors want to partner with us?
“Where will the
funding to support research on hazards, climate change and
health come from in the future?
“And equally
importantly, why is conservation not packaged with earth
sciences so the environment is considered as whole? Will
there be mobility for research on conservation or land
systems from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research into the earth
sciences PRO? Will there be mobility for marine farming or
fisheries research in NIWA into the bio-economy
PRO?
“Forming sensible Public Research Organisations
will help define the industrial strategies needed in some
areas, whereas the approach to hazards, climate change and
conservation will continue to struggle.
“Perhaps
most importantly, what role and connectivity can be expected
with universities? The announcements provide no comment that
I can see. That’s particularly concerning given a history
of successful research in technology within or moved into
universities and excluded from the now defunct Callaghan
Innovation.
“Many of the largest questions remain
about “strategic oversight”: will the current oversight
buried deep with the Ministry of Business Innovation and
Employment be remodelled over time by the Advisory Council
being set up, as the SSAG report recommends? Until these
questions and others are answered, today’s announcement
provides a few answers and at least as much uncertainty as
hope.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Professor Michael Baker,
Department of Public Health, University of Otago,
comments:
“I am pleased to see that this
reform includes retention of a public research organisation
(PRO) with a focus on health (Health and Forensic Science
Services).
“Based on the limited information
released so far, it is not clear whether its role will be
very different to the current crown research institute (CRI)
Environmental Science and Research (ESR) that it replaces.
Retaining this focused role indicates good support for the
critical role that science plays in protecting health and
the quality of our environment.
“This role was well
demonstrated by New Zealand’s highly effective response to
the Covid-19 pandemic. The importance of building and
maintaining public health science capabilities and capacity
was strongly supported by the recently released Royal
Commission of Inquiry Report into our Covid-19
response.
“It is also important to remember that
improving health, wellbeing, and equity has economic value.
Interventions like vaccination and outbreak prevention and
control are highly cost effective. These activities need to
be supported with a well-resourced science strategy,
institutions, workforce, and infrastructure.”
No
conflicts of interest.
Dr Kyle Higham,
Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research,
comments:
“The recommendations of the SSAG
report and the associated announcement on reforms to the
science system, and my response to them, can be split into
two parts: those that the government acknowledges and plans
to implement in upcoming reforms, and those that are not
acknowledged at all.
“The proposed reforms, to the
government’s credit, implicitly acknowledge that the
science system changes since the late 1980s have not worked
for New Zealand. Moving CRIs away from a commercial model
toward a single agency aligns with evidence on maximizing
societal benefits from public research. Similarly,
re-establishing a dedicated science ministry is a sensible
move; folding the Ministry of Science and Innovation into
MBIE always seemed questionable given science’s unique
role in the economy.
“However, in my view, the
proposed reforms overly focus on productivity. While
science, innovation, and productivity are linked, these
connections are complex, long-term, and hard to
measure.
“Excessive management undermines
science’s purpose—strategic goals should focus on the
long term, with autonomy for researchers to ensure public
funding delivers maximum impact. As such, short-termism
remains a key concern and is currently exacerbated by
over-reliance on industry funding. Now, the government is
suggesting that these new public research organisations be
“more dynamic and responsive to government priorities,”
which appears to be at odds with the renewed focused on
long-term strategic goals. Further, while the
commercialization of science, and subsequent economic
impact, is important, achieving it takes decades and
sustained support. How will this be managed and measured?
Are these long lags between investment and outcome
politically viable?
“Similarly, careful
consideration is needed for how a Prime Minister’s
Science, Technology, and Innovation Advisory Council is
convened. Long-term science strategy should not be subject
to political whims or dominated by hand-picked advisors.
While input from business leaders is valuable to align
science with industry needs, there is a risk of vested
interests reinforcing reliance on established industries,
limiting innovation and economic
diversification.
“Of potentially greater concern is
the lack of acknowledgement of the most obvious constraint
on the performance of New Zealand’s science system:
resourcing. What we really need is more researchers, and
more resources for those researchers, in conjunction with
the freedom to pursue high-potential projects that drive
economic impact. While the Prime Minister cited Denmark as a
model for scientific success in his state of the nation
address, New Zealand’s public research spending is about
half that of Denmark (as a percentage of GDP). Chronic
under-investment is a key bottleneck that the proposed
changes fail to address, and which the authors of the SSAG
report have taken pains to emphasize. Without significant
funding increases, systemic reforms are unlikely to improve
outcomes nor increase returns on our current science
investments.
“Simply put, these proposed
reforms are akin to trying to make more lemonade by
squeezing used lemons slightly harder, rather than investing
in more lemons. I hope to be proven wrong by Budget
2025.
“Finally, and most importantly,
there is stark difference in the framing of the proposed
reforms when compared to the SSAG report with respect to
those working in the science system. In fact, the stated
reforms are almost entirely focused on how the science
sector (that is, scientists) can be used as a tool for
economic growth. When researchers are acknowledged, it is in
the context of incentives to commercialise discoveries. It
does not appear that the government to intends address
equity, precarity, or viability of long-term employment in
the science sector, all of which would have significant
impacts on the performance of the system, even when this
performance is measured in purely economic
terms.”
Conflict of interest statement: None
declared.
Professor Nicola Gaston,
Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials
and Nanotechnology, comments:
“Today’s
announcement is long overdue and not unwelcome. My biggest
concern about the planned reforms is far less the intent
than the implementation.
“The prospect of
consolidating the CRIs has long been mooted. Creating a
fourth to focus on technological areas of importance to
emerging areas of the modern economy — such as cleantech,
or quantum tech — is also welcome in principle; in
practice, it reverses the decision to disestablish
Industrial Research Limited that was made by the previous
National government when it created Callaghan
Innovation.
“But implementation matters. Industrial
Research Limited had major challenges with a funding model
dependent on existing and established industries. I see no
thought having been given to how that will work.
“It
should also be noted that much of the existing scientific
capacity in areas relevant to the new PRO in advanced
technologies is currently based in our university sector.
How is this expected to work? Partnerships will be
important, but if new money is not put into the system then
it will be hard to grow capacity and
capability.
“Finally, having been around to comment
when Callaghan Innovation and the National Science
Challenges were first created, I want to stress that these
processes of reorganisation take work, and the work done by
scientists within the sector to adjust will have a cost in
time not spent on science. Given the massive cuts made to
both university and CRI workforces over the last couple of
years, this is a lot to ask.
“The mooted reforms
have a chance of working and may take us in the right
direction. But in order for this to be possible I see two
necessary conditions: more resource for the sector to assist
with the costs of implementation, and a commitment from
policy makers to work with scientists in order to ensure
these changes can be implemented as efficiently as
possible.
“I implore this government and MBIE to
understand that the real work starts now and with
us.”
Conflict of interest statement: None
declared.
Dr Sereana Naepi, Associate
Professor Sociology, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of
Auckland, and Rutherford Discovery Fellow,
comments:
“The Prime Minister’s Science,
Innovation, and Technology Council presents a unique
opportunity to strategically address the retention of top
talent in New Zealand.
“They have the opportunity to
establish a comprehensive National Early Career Researcher
Plan that could tackle not only the challenges of today but
also future demographic and qualification shifts, ensuring
sustained excellence in our Science, Innovation, and
Technology (SI&T) sector.
“Economic growth is
the anchoring argument for this rethink – it is crucial to
adopt a broad economic perspective. Poor social cohesion can
negatively impact economic stability, which underscores the
importance of addressing how the SI&T sector can adapt
to increasing environmental, resource, and equity challenges
while fostering societal harmony.
“The concerns
raised by the SSAG (Science Sector Advisory Group) about
Māori and Pacific workforce futures and demographic shifts
remain largely unaddressed. This is particularly pressing in
light of the Marsden Fund’s decisions, which will
significantly hinder Pacific research
development.
“I remain hopeful that future
announcements will address these gaps and ensure more
inclusive workforce planning for a resilient SI&T
sector.
“There are opportunities to do this, for
instance how can the public research organisations focused
on Advanced Technology collaborate with the Ministry for
Pacific Peoples to fulfil aspirations for greater Pacific
representation in the SI&T sector?”
Conflict
of interest statement: “Current member of Science Board
but not commenting in that capacity.”
Dr
Lucy Stewart, Co-President, New Zealand Association of
Scientists, comments:
“This long-delayed
announcement will do little to address the concerns of
researchers and scientists which were raised across
2024.
“It is entirely focused on commercialisation
and commercial benefits from science and technology,
announces no new funding for local research, (instead
talking about ‘maximising the value’ of existing funding
and attempting to attract private investment), and
disestablishes the sole Government institution that was
focused on advanced technology research and
commercialisation in favour of setting up new
institutions.
“In the Science System
Advisory Group Report, four kinds of research are
identified: stewardship research, policy-focused research,
knowledge-generating research, and exploitable research.
This announcement is entirely focused on the last item in
this list.
“Questions that spring to
mind are:
- Where is there space in this new
structure for environmental and social science
research? - Where is the support or interest in
‘public good’ research – research that provides
answers that benefit our society and nation but does not
necessarily (or ever) lead to the ability to make a profit,
instead delivering benefits like risk
reduction? - Where is any understanding that our
science system has been critically underfunded for
decades?
“The message to scientists from this
government is clear: they are expected to be a source of
revenue rather than working for the public good, and
anything they do that isn’t directly linked to economic
gain is of little interest.
“It is also fairly
incredible for the government to assert that we need to
attract more ‘skilled individuals’ to New Zealand when
we know researchers are being made redundant and leaving the
country in large numbers due to this government’s
actions.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Also
spokesperson for the Save Science
Coalition.”
This post was originally published on here
