Science Manifesto maps recovery plan

Is the science system allowing scientists to do a good job for New Zealand?

The indicators are that it is – a remarkable job. There are new products, increased yields and improved understanding of the environment.

New Zealand researchers are in demand around the world for scientific conferences, policy discussion and grower consultancies.

But is the system doing the best it could?

No! is resounding conclusion of the National Science Panel, established in 2006 to identify barriers limiting the contribution of research to the advancement of knowledge and the well-being of society.

The panel is chaired by Dr Jim Watson, founder of listed biotech company Genesis Research & Development and past president of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

The panel’s report, A Science Manifesto or plan for the recovery of New Zealand science, released this week, sets out a 10-point programme, moving from strategy, to policy, to process and compliance costs, to commercialisation and, finally, to education and investment.

Not forgotten is the need to build recognition of the value of science and trust.

The importance of the suggestions and findings cannot be overstated. All developed countries are investing more in research and education as the means to a securing a better future; the two are intimately linked. Not getting the drivers right means loss of more people overseas.

Fast Forward, the government’s endowment fund for science-food-farms, is an attempt to stimulate research in the primary sector. Add this to the recommendations in the Science Manifesto and real advances could be made.

Point one is to develop a widely accepted national science strategy. The roles of, for instance, the government, private enterprise, Crown research institutes, universities and businesses, would be identified and profiled with links among them supported in an appropriate manner.

This would be facilitated by the appointment of a chief scientist (point 2) charged with ensuring that science appropriately informs policy and decision-making.

Enhancement of innovation policy (point 3) is called for to reduce competition and allow businesses and science organisations to work together.

New Zealander Barry Vercoe provides the model at MIT’s famous Media Lab in Boston; researchers and students from many disciplines are brought together in an atmosphere of liberation.

Sponsors are free to observe work and commercialise any of the emerging results on the basis of a royalty-free non-exclusive licence. With ready finance and the interchange of ideas, researchers don’t have to spend time on paperwork.
Professor Vercoe is convinced that what he describes as “the clash between disciplines” results in innovation.

Point 4 follows various statements that cabinet members have made: policy processes must be evidence-based.

Reducing transaction and compliance costs (point 5) is of great importance. Doing so would have the effect of releasing a huge amount of energy and time into the system – and time is money.

The value of constant evaluation and bidding for research monies has never been proven, and requires not only time used in process compliance, but also absorbs more money.

Research management in New Zealand has boomed with noevidence of an increase in research quality (the cynical have commented that the quality of the science has not changed – it is just the quality of the bids that has improved).

Of further consideration is that reducing these bidding/compliance costs would raise morale, innovation and therefore productivity across the science system. This, in turn, would improve recruitment, in tandem with the promotion of science across the education system (point 8).

Increased funding would certainly assist (point 6) in all areas, as would improving the path to commercialisation (point 7); this in turn would be enhanced with the improved innovation policy.

The final two points are to build national recognition of the public value of science and trust in scientists and their institutions.

The panel believes that by addressing these issues, New Zealand will be in a better position to achieve economic transformation, improved productivity and move toward true sustainable development. Society would become increasingly capable of making informed and effective decisions about its use of science.

The report is the most important document written about the New Zealand science system in the past decade. It deserves considerable attention – in depth and detail. It is the basis for an apolitical science policy.

The report says, “New Zealand needs a science system that is a visible contributor to the nation’s well-being; one that is practised with energy and passion; one that attracts the best students…we have to do more that simply carry out excellent science. We must, as a nation, use science and scientists better than ever before and find new ways of enhancing their contributions.”

Nobody could argue with that.

Science Manifesto:
www.rsnz.org

Professor Jacqueline Rowarth is director, Massey Agriculture, Massey University