By DOUG EDMEADES
Science Minister Pete Hodgson wants his pound of flesh from Crown Research Institutes.
He wants them to hand over their profits to provide capital for reinvestment in new science ventures.
It sounds sensible. After all, the Crown, as owner of the CRIs, is entitled to the profits.
But Dr Keith Steele, chairman of the Association of Crown Research Institutes and chief executive of the largest, AgResearch is, understandably, not happy.
He has argued that since their inception in 1992 the CRIs have, with the Crown's blessing, retained their profits and made their own investment decisions.
Who would control this new profit pot? The CRIs, which are arguably closer to the science coalface, or the minister?
If the minister prevails he would need to take advice, but most scientists in New Zealand are employed by the CRIs.
I doubt they would relish re-bidding for what they would regard as their hard-earned dollars. This would be salt in the wound if, as Dr Steele says, AgResearch's profits are at present spent on staff bonuses.
Or think how CRI scientists would feel if the minister turned to the universities with his pot of gold.
But all this talk about CRIs and profits is make-believe. It creates the impression that the science reforms of the past decade have been very successful.
It conveys the notion that the reforms have resulted in greater efficiency in the management and conduct of science. The public is given the impression science is pulling its fiscal weight.
The reality is very different.
In my time in AgResearch, most of the revenue going into the CRIs came from Crown contracts. But before the scientists got their research grants, up to 12 per cent was deducted and set aside as profits. Overheads were then deducted and the poor scientists got the rest. If they went over budget during the year staff were laid off or activity curtailed.
Under this regime, the annual collective CRI profit of, say, $20 million (the figures range from $29.9 million in 1997 to $15.7 million in 2000) meant, in reality, that $20 million less research was done. All the old inefficiencies were still intact, or worse, spent on salaries for the swarm of new accountants and businesspeople required to make science look like commerce.
But it is not commerce as normally practised. As Professor Tim Hazledine of Auckland University noted, "commercialisation does not necessarily increase efficiency - the evidence is that it simply increases the transactional costs of delivering an otherwise good service to society."
I believe the science reforms have been a disaster. Most scientists I speak to are deeply cynical of the commercial model they are obliged to work under.
Most are enthusiastic about applying their skills to bring innovation and added-value to New Zealand's economy.
But they can also see that the commercial model brings to science another motivation - the profit motive - which, at least, demeans the purpose of science and, at worst, compromises its integrity, independence and impartiality.
It should be no surprise, therefore, to find that morale among scientists is very low. But they cannot speak out. Ironically, the commercial model gives management more control over staff to ensure this.
It has taken a long time for the politicians and senior bureaucrats to realise that the commercial model was not appropriate for health and education. Science has similar needs in terms of its management, openness, objectivity, impartiality, and independence.
The science-commercial model experiment is now 10 years old. Have we now got enough data to draw a conclusion? Is anyone taking note?
* Dr Doug Edmeades is an agricultural scientist and consultant, and a former head of AgResearch's soils and fertiliser group.
<i>Rural delivery:</i> Profit motive stifles science
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.