Scientists slam government’s changes to Marsden and Catalyst funds
Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins says far-reaching changes to the Marsden Fund and the Catalyst Fund aim to provide more economic impact for New Zealand.New terms of reference for the Marsden Fund will outline that around half of funds will go towards supporting proposals with economic benefits for New Zealand, according to Collins.
“The Government has been clear in its mandate to rebuild our economy. We are focused on a system that supports growth, and a science sector that drives high-tech, high-productivity, high-value businesses and jobs,” Collins said in the announcement.
“I have updated the Marsden Fund Investment Plan and Terms of Reference to ensure that future funding is going to science that helps to meet this goal,” Collins added.
The Marsden Fund will no longer support the humanities and social sciences, with the panels for these to be disbanded.
“Real impact on our economy will come from areas such as physics, chemistry, maths, engineering and biomedical sciences,” Collins said.
Likewise, the Catalyst Fund which aims for international collaboration for science has been updated, Collins said, “to be laser focused on clear outcomes and priority research areas.”
These are quantum technology, health, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, space and Antarctic research.
“All proposals must demonstrate high-impact research of relevance and importance to New Zealand. This will guide our investment in emerging international science opportunities, to ensure it delivers impact for New Zealand,” the Minister said.
The reaction to the changes from scientists was less than favourable. University of Otago Associate Professor Louise Bicknell, who researchers rare disorder genetics, said:
This is horrific news for Marsden grants ….https://t.co/B9lRkVDkwU
— Louise Bicknell (@bicknell_l) December 4, 2024
Troy Baisden, the co-president along with Lucy Stewart of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, sent a statement, reproduced in full below:
“As we await more detailed information, the New Zealand Association of Scientists deplores key aspects of the today’s announcements that the Marsden Fund will eliminate its Social Sciences and Humanities Panel, and introduce measures requiring funded research to be of economic benefit.
For those who understand national research systems, receiving this announcement is chilling. That’s especially true because the government has been unable to progress the long-awaited reports on reform of the research system.
More than any other panels, those eliminated investigate and help us understand who we are as nation. Why would we not care to support that?
It may be a surprise that so many scientists cannot support this type change. The research funded by Marsden is best referred to as fundamental, and deserves support on that basis.
So this isn’t more money for science.
While the same area of research can be both fundamental and applied, forcing economic benefits into the Marsden fund doesn’t get us a 2-for-1.
Instead, it is likely to erode the excellence, quality and efficiency of both. Excellence in fundamental research forms the foundation for knowledge that supports our society, and the quest for understanding that drives high quality teaching in universities and supports a wide range of applied research.
I’ve always felt that the tendency to refer to the foundations of knowledge as ‘blue-skies’ research invites the mistake in funding that we’re seeing today.
The research areas defunded are important and were also among the most attractive areas for emerging researchers starting their careers.
These cuts double down on the end of National Science Challenges where social science was one of the cost-effective bright spots that emerged.
In effect, it appears that we’re defunding our ability to understand and address some of our most important challenges.
Climate change is an area where we know half the challenge is social science and that humanities can be vastly important to support public understanding and communication.
The same applies to hazards and many other areas where social science is essential in making science both useable and used – to save lives.
Similar changes have been made to the Catalyst Fund, and reflect a similar short sightedness.
International collaboration is most effective around fundamental research in areas of mutual excellence and interest. Attempting to extract economic outcomes undermines the quality of collaborations as well as their long-term benefits.
With ongoing cuts, we must be sadly asking, what funding is left for these areas and where do we expect our excellent researchers and collaborators to go?
What does it signal about research careers or that the research system supports New Zealand’s unique needs?”
The Association has already criticised the Government for not funding science in its first budget.
It appears, however, that not all research projects must show immediate economic benefit.
“The Marsden Fund will continue to support blue-skies research, the type that advances new ideas and encourages innovation and creativity and where the benefit may not be immediately apparent. It is important that we support new ideas which lead to developing new technologies and products, boosting economic growth, and enhancing New Zealand’s quality of life,” Collins said.
