Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti today announced a new government strategy for research funding.  Lucy Stewart and Troy Baisden, Co-Presidents of the New Zealand Association of Scientists,  commented on strategy  

 

• The Minister’s statement

Better access to a new, more efficient science funding system will make it easier for researchers to focus on delivering results that matter for New Zealand, Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti announced today.

Following recommendations from the Science System Advisory Group, a single, independent board, called Research Funding New Zealand, will be established to make most funding decisions.

“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,” says Dr Reti.

“So, this Government is simplifying the way we fund science, so our researchers can spend less time on paperwork and more time on discovery, innovation, and results that will grow our economy and benefit New Zealanders.

“Research Funding New Zealand will replace the multiple layers of decision-making, taking on the Endeavour, Marsden and Strategic Science Investment Funds – currently administered by three separate funding bodies.

“The change doesn’t change the value of funding available for science, innovation and technology in New Zealand, instead reducing duplication and making the process easier to navigate for applicants.”

Under the new model, public investment in science will be focused on the economy, the environment, health and society, and technology.

An in-principle decision has also been made to transfer health research funding from the Health Research Council to Research Funding New Zealand, with existing funding continuing be invested in critical health research.

“These changes are about smarter investment and stronger outcomes and aligns science funding with similar structures in other small, advanced economies,” Dr Reti says.

“By streamlining funding and improving accountability, we’ll drive science that grows our economy, supports our exporters, tackles environmental challenges, and improves the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.”

The Government will continue to back a broad range of science – from blue-sky research through to applied and commercial innovation – but with a system that is simpler, faster, and more focused on impact.

The transition to Research Funding New Zealand will be phased carefully over four years to ensure continuity and minimise disruption. All current research contracts will continue, and the Government will work closely with the sector to ensure the new approach delivers for scientists, industry, and the country.

“This is about getting the system working better – less bureaucracy, clearer priorities, and a stronger focus on research that makes a difference,” Dr Reti says.

Comment by NZAS Co-Presidents –  

“There is great potential in the science funding reform announced today. The announcements create a more strategic science funding system that better resembles successful systems in successful small nations. It has a high level structure and a matrix of considerations that will help ground it in achieving what we need as a nation.

Yet there are some things that can go wrong, and have gone wrong with past reforms.

First, the four Pillars may provide too much simplicity to ensure all needs are met. Two of the four pillars are focused on research related to the ‘economy’, when we know much research is not easily categorised in this way. Lack of clarity on where and how natural hazards research will be funded is an obvious example.

The new Research Funding New Zealand agency is yet to be built, but the Government is already planning the disestablishment of the two most competent funding bodies, Marsden and Health Research Council. Their strengths could be lost into a larger bureaucracy. The newly created Public Research Organisations might be best placed to set strategy, and it is worth remembering this recommendation of the 2010 reform felt promising but was abandoned in a partially implemented state.

We have also learned from past reforms that the biggest danger to successful systems is building more layers of management. As a company, Boeing ran into trouble making good planes when it sidelined its aeronautical engineers from top management. 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.

The acid test may be simple. Scientists, business, politicians and the public would all like to see more useful science versus less bureaucracy. Our system rates as one of the worst in the world in terms of the ratio of funding that actually goes to science versus management and bureaucracy. Will we see any improvement, or will we continue to underfund the actual research this new agency is intended to support?”