No sooner were the Christmas and New Year holidays over than there was a flurry of activity around the Science System review, with the release of the Science System Advisory Group  (SSAG) report (Science System Advisory Group report) and the government’s decision to merge the current seven CRIs into four Public Research Organisations (PROs). These PROs will be based around

• the bioeconomy (AgResearch, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Plant & Food Research, and Scion),
• earth sciences including climate and hazards resilience (National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited),
• health and forensic (re-purposing Environmental Science Research), and
• a new advanced technology focused PRO (Refocusing the science, innovation and technology system | Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment).

To quote the government, ‘These organisations will have an increased focus on economic outcomes while delivering the critical stewardship and public good science and science services needed for a well-functioning modern economy.’
So that is the “what” –  now for the” how” this is to happen, within the goals of strengthening the science system to deliver on economic growth against a continuing low investment in science as a proportion of GDP.
Below are some initial thoughts on the proposed changes.

Time to support our Agricultural and Horticultural Scientists
The proposed creation of the Bioeconomy Public Research Organisation of New Zealand won’t work if it further distances our scientists from their laboratories or field research project. It also won’t work if we have no agricultural scientists left, given further redundancies have just been announced at AgResearch.
If you are lucky enough to still have a job, then ever-increasing managerialism and bureaucracy will destroy any zest, creativity or curiosity you might have. The first few hours of any given day can be wasted dealing with paperwork, form filling and responding to people who have no idea what you do or why it is critically important to New Zealand’s economic wellbeing. Rearranging the deck chairs, or CRIs, as is proposed may not therefore deliver any real change in the system unless the scientists themselves are genuinely valued.
Put simply, we need to empower them, trust them and support them to get on with their jobs.
We also need to ensure scientific researchers don’t spend a large amount of their time repeatedly applying for small amounts of money to do what they do. That does not make research careers attractive, especially when the failure to get what is typically hotly contested research funding can lead to redundancy.
Research funding stability is needed, and while it might be hoped that it will be increased, that seems unlikely given the current state of the country’s books. This despite Sir Peter Gluckman claiming that it is needed in the recently released Science System Advisory Group review.
In that respect, it was pleasing to see that review citing a “Treasury analysis (that) suggested that investment in SI&T by New Zealand in that sector between 1927 and 2001 had an annualised 17% rate of return”, a  report that NZIAHS has also regularly referenced to illustrate why the investment in agricultural and horticultural science is so pivotal to our well-being, but I urge Science, Research and Innovation Minister Dr Shane Reti and the Cabinet to start investing and preserving what is left, and do it quickly.
A small positive thing with the SSAG report was that the proposed restructuring suggests we need to boost our commercial research output and reward scientists who develop innovations by enabling them to own their intellectual property (IP). Guardedly, I think this might be a good thing.
For many years I have watched institutions tie themselves in knots over IP allocation, and they rarely recognise the importance and sweat of the individual inventor or scientists. It should be a strong motivator if you as the researcher “do it right”, and subsequently get to put dollars in your pocket, especially if those dollars come from increased export earnings. I have some understanding of this as I work in both pure and commercially applied science, with both published peer-reviewed papers that influence international thinking, while also directing the operation of the Lincoln University Gene Marker Laboratory, a business that offers commercial gene tests to livestock breeders globally.
But will a commercial focus mean less ‘blue sky’ research is done? Some scientists are worried about that, but I think it may be a flawed assumption by those who are less interested in indulging commercial opportunities. While not proving my argument, over the summer I have been reading a new biography written about Marie Curie. Arguably the “mother of nuclear physics”, she not only unpicked the nature of the emanations from radium, but saw to commercialising the use of that property (Health and Safety wasn’t a big thing back then!), including setting up the first X-ray machines for use during WW1.
One of the world’s most gifted scientists, she knew how to use science to make money, and further fund her amazing fundamental research. This stated, not all important research can be commercialised, and I certainly don’t want to detract from the agricultural and horticultural scientists who devote their careers to reducing the impact of agricultural and horticultural production on the environment. Those researchers are just as important to us and our well-being.
In summary, please hurry up, Government, and sort out the disaster that is occurring. Without agricultural and horticultural scientists, we won’t have agricultural and horticultural science. In no short time that might mean we have no agriculture and horticulture, and I like many other people in my profession suspect that will send New Zealand rapidly down the path to being a third world nation. Is that your plan?

This second item is from Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, CNZM, HFNZIAHS. This perspective was developed after discussion with, and contribution from, Fellows of the NZIAHS.

The SI&T assets that must be protected 
We congratulate Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, and the Science System Advisory Group (SSAG) that he chairs, on the release of the first SSAG report. In this report, it is proposed that there would a simplified science and research system including consolidation of the seven Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) into a single new entity known as the Public Research Organisation New Zealand (PRONZ).
On the same day as the SSAG report’s release, the Government announced that the PRONZ would be subdivided into four Public Research Organisations (PROs), including one that is focused on entrepreneurial advanced technology.  The other three new groupings would be focused on the bioeconomy, earth sciences, and health and forensic sciences. This design anticipates the second SSAG report that discusses funding structures.
The Advisory Group report thoroughly explained how SI&T (science, innovation and technology) are essential if New Zealand is to maintain its position amongst the small, advanced economies in the OECD. It also notes the utmost importance of effective high-level priority-setting.
This would involve SI&T-informed councils that started with the Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation & Technology Advisory Council (PMSITAC). This will be central to the SI&T system and enable response to any rapidly changing demands, including new combinations of scientific, environmental and economic developments.
Climate change, synthetic biology and the emergence of AI tools are three of the numerous intersecting examples.
The SSAG report further noted that extensive surveys, based on international data, show that publicly funded science is at its most valuable when embedded within a scientific ‘ecosystem’.  In this way public science combines with the private sector science and research leading to a flow of ideas, knowledge and people across the SI&T ecosystem.
Ideally this configuration would attract international companies (such as pharmaceuticals, environmental monitoring systems, data-basing technologies, and  so on) and investment to New Zealand. A direct result of this would be the spill-over of science opportunities, thereby creating clusters of capability that can leverage the New Zealand SI&T ecosystem and contribute to national productivity.
This attractive vision for SI&T-led growth has yet to occur in New Zealand to any extent, over a couple of decades. The SSAG report noted that numerous studies have shown that private sector scientific research tends to take off when the government funding contribution exceeds about 0.8% of GDP (and noting that the report also strongly recommends increased government investment).
Sadly, government funding has been stuck at around 0.6% for at least 20 years, despite proclamations from successive governments that they will move funding levels beyond this paltry amount. This is odd, given high rates of return on scientific investment over time have repeatedly been shown to be between three and eight times the initial investment over the entire lifecycle of the effects, so the case for increased commitment is very strong, unlike other areas of government expenditure.
It is against this background of necessity and the promise of public good science and research that the SSAG conducted its review. It noted that the CRIs were established in 1991 based on a company structure with a view to aligning the public science base to both the commercial and environmental sectors. With this was a requirement for ‘modest levels’ of contestability and the adoption of a company structure to ensure fiduciary responsibility.
This model was at first successful, but the SSAG report generally notes that for various reasons, but particularly because of the fragmentation of the funding allocation system, circumstances over the years have led to undesirable effects. These include CRI focus on a requirement to make a financial return at a time of stagnant funding, significant (and increasing) compliance costs, CRI mission-creep, the hampering of scientific collaboration being caused by competing institutional interests, and a lack of a clearly enunciated national strategic vision for SI&T.
In view of such considerations and the rapid emergence of advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum technology and synthetic biology, the SAGG report rightfully concludes that minor adjustments, which have been the dominant approach since the system was revised in 1991, cannot succeed any longer under the current system.
The case has been well made that SI&T must play a crucial role in the economic growth of New Zealand.  Additionally, there is no doubt that SI&T are central to other things of importance to New Zealanders.
These are far more than ‘nice-to-haves’, and include gaining improved understanding of ecological functions in a range of environments (terrestrial and aquatic), how best to manage New Zealand indigenous flora and fauna to slow down species decline and extinction, how to achieve vertebrate predator control, how to ensure that that our food production systems are truly sustainable, how to ensure the  maintenance and ongoing development of data bases and information systems that are vital to so many public good and sector stakeholders, how to protect and build the country’s internationally important national arthropod and herbarium collections, and so on, and how to deliver any number of other public good services that so often also contribute to commercial activity (for example, through tourism).
Many of these requirements are currently the focus of Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research. Clearly, with its placement within the Bioeconomy PRO, its capability must be protected to continue its major role in conjunction with other large parts of the current CRI bioeconomy research agenda for economic growth.
If done well, this combination will add critical mass for currently fragmented groups working on issues such as water quality, and weed and pest management, and ultimately mean we can “have our cake and eat it too”.
Finally, it is unlikely that all of the capability needed to underpin the national economy and public good will be within the Bioeconomy PRO. There must be very porous boundaries between the four parts of PRONZ such that best teams can be promptly assembled to tackle current and future challenges. Without such provision there is the risk of incurring the sort of problems that eventually arose in the CRIs.
The challenge is therefore to establish clearly how the subdivided PROs are going to work collaboratively, and how environmental and ecological capabilities are sustained, while also getting vigorous economic growth. Changes are imminent, but-  ultimately – they must protect the core human and intellectual assets supporting New Zealand SI&T.

• Biotechnology and breeding technologies
• Genomics, molecular biology and biochemistry
• Plant development
• Flowering and grain / fruit development
• Postharvest science and technology
• Fruit crop physiology
• Plant stress responses
• Pigments and metabolites
• Germplasm conservation

but as always we welcome presentations on any aspect of Plant Biology.but as always we welcome presentations on any aspect of Plant Biology.

Calling for Abstracts (up to 250 words) to be submitted by Friday 25^th April 2025 to secretariat@agscience.org.nz
This conference is intended to be face-to-face. All presentations should be in person.

Pastoral Research Funding Opportunity

Kathleen Spragg Agricultural Research Trust calling for funding applications
pertaining to the New Zealand pastoral industry.
Applications are invited for research and development purposes that provide a
demonstrable benefit to the pastoral industry of New Zealand.

Closing date 28th March 2025

For more information please follow this link:
https://www.perpetualguardian.co.nz/philanthropy/grant-seekers/grants-open-upcoming/