Rod Oram has a column in the latest Sunday Star-Times (not online) that discusses reforms to science funding. There’s some good points in the article (and a few others I don’t agree with so much), but the main thing that struck me was when he discussed the scientific and commercialisation work that the Crown Research Institute (CRI) Industrial Research Ltd had done on superconductors:
But it will take many years to develop the product lines into sizable businesses – and the chance of New Zealand being home to much of that is minimal. We have virtually no experience, scale or markets in these areas of science, technology and manufacturing.
From a commercial perspective it was completely the wrong science to pursue. We must focus instead on the life and environmental fields where we have the scale and the leadership to attract international collaborators.
Sounds sensible. But here’s Paul Callaghan, probably New Zealand’s most high-profile scientist, in his 2009 book Wool to Weta. Transforming New Zealand’s Culture & Economy:
Given our capability in physical sciences and engineering, I think we could generate many more start-ups of the Rakon/Navman variety, and if a fraction of them succeed we may do far better than via the biotechnology route favoured by government. (p. 15)
. . . I am not advocating spending less on biotech research. But I am suggesting that we shouldn’t apply blinkers, that we do have a track record of producing great businesses out of physical sciences and engineering and that we have the potential to a great deal more. (p. 17)
. . . We should discard the myth that because we are good at farming, our best high-technology future lies necessarily in biotechnology. (p. 20)
I have a great deal of admiration for both Oram and Callaghan. I think they are two of New Zealand’s most insightful writers on science and innovation issues. Yet on this crucial issue of where we should be focussing our research capability, they fundamentally disagree.
Who is right? I do not know. But I do think this is an important issue, and it’s striking that this disagreement hasn’t really come to light before now. What that says to me is that (while successive governments have set out ‘official’ views) there hasn’t really been any robust public discussion about where New Zealand should be putting its science dollar.
One other thing: Oram suggests that we need “politicians and bureaucrats to give up micro-management and second-guessing and learn how to trust the scientists, their managers and directors to make good science and business decisions.”
Again, sounds good. But if you give the money to Industrial Research Ltd and leave them to make decisions, they aren’t going to invest in the life and environmental fields, are they? That’s where other CRIs are focussed, not IRL.
Key decisions about the appropriate allocation of science funding between different areas have already been made via the creation and funding of the eight CRIs. In fact, arguably the Jordan taskforce’s recommendations, favoured by Oram, would ‘lock in’ the current allocation for longer.
Which is fine. Unless, like (apparently) Oram, you think that we’re focusing too much of our energies in some areas and not enough in others.
If so, then maybe we need a more contestable free-for-all without any ‘ring-fenced’ pots (which Callaghan seems to favour), and trust the [sic] “bureaucrats” who allocate it to make right decisions. But isn’t that exactly the opposite direction from what the Jordan taskforce, apparently uncontroversially, is recommending?
In any case, that won’t really resolve the Oram-Callaghan debate. Anytime the system makes the ‘wrong’ decision, it will still be easy to blame the ‘politicians’ or the ‘bureaucrats’, when in reality maybe it’s just that if you want things to go in a particular direction, then you have to set the basic operating framework with that direction in mind.
To me, that suggests that we need to have a well-informed public discussion about where we ought to be focusing our efforts, and why. If so, it will need to start by acknowledging that there are smart people with good arguments on both sides of the debate, and no easy answers.
Tags: Crown Research Institutes, Paul Callaghan, Rod Oram, science
Dear friends,
Why is it always a question of one vs the other?
The bulk of our research $ go into the life sciences, a dollop into things like superconductors. That seems about right. Think of the dollops as options for the future.
The bigger problem is the overall level of funding for R&D and that we still have a very underdeveloped system for turning ideas into jobs.
Some big steps forward were taken under the previous government – but we still lack a fit for purpose, consciously designed, systematic, efficient way of turning ideas into jobs.
This is one of the areas in which the NZ economy is not quite a ‘developed’ economy. i.e. it has characterisitics of being a ‘developing’ economy.
We really do need this to be sorted – Kiwis are really good with coming up with bankable ideas, but as a small isolated developed economy we don’t have much of a comparative advantage in making things.
Then when you add the lack of savings, and therefore local investors, plus our distance from global business partners it’s no wonder this Waka aint going nowhere fast…
I agree, it can’t be one or the other but I have long believed that we should invest mostly in what we’re best at which is agribusiness (I confess I was convinced of this having spent a year or so working at Lincoln Uni – and am pleased to see it actively merging with Telford and I’m sure it’ll still be improving collaborations with the cluster of CRIs nearby). Many wealthy nations have specialised around areas of competitive advantage, why wouldn’t we and whatever happened to all those fanciful ideas about being the financial capital of the South Pacific etc. The recent ITF conference included a truly wonderful presentation by Michael Ahie which is relevant (though about the Maori economy) and is here http://www.itf.org.nz/user/file/1028/Ahie-28%20July%202010.pdf
To continue my trend for noting parallels, or not, with Australia. A similar discussion is well underway at Australia’s CSIRO where there are deep divisions within the staff about the balance between blue skies and commercial research. A good podcast on the issue is here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2977740.htm
Thanks for the link, Paul. (I attended the Ahie presentation, too, and agree it’s very good.)
For an alternative view re life sciences see the Sciblogs link in my comment below. I’d be interested in your response to that one.
That is Oram’s position, pretty-much (I wasn’t meaning to suggest he was advocating cutting funding to superconductors etc). Callaghan disagrees – he thinks we should use additional funding to rebalance away from life sciences.
Pretty much agree with all of the rest of your response!
I do agree with Oram to the extent that you wan to concentrate the bulk of your resources – a good General knows the ‘penny packets’ approach is no good. But there are still the rats and mice that you never know what they will turn into one day (such as financing an expedition to find the Great Southern Continent 200 years ago which turned into…)
Here’s a more-recent-than-the-originally-publishing-of-this-post blog that has an interesting take on the subject (the author works with Callaghan):
http://sciblogs.co.nz/a-measure-of-science/2010/08/18/picking-winners/