Kate McGrath: Research framework falls short

Professor Kate McGrath

Science has well and truly landed. Not only is it now a prominent aspect of election campaigns we have, for the first time, a National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) - a plan, an encapsulation of the role of science in a close-to-holistic way. The fact that science has become a part of New Zealand's identity is something to celebrate.

When Steven Joyce released the NSSI, he made it clear that we aspire to achieve two things - excellence and impact. I can't imagine there is any scientist in New Zealand who would disagree. But the big question is how we measure that. It isn't good enough to be great in New Zealand, we also have to be great internationally.

Data in the report shows New Zealand is underperforming, significantly in some cases, in many of the subject areas critical to driving a shift in our economy - materials science, chemical engineering, chemistry and energy, to name a few.

Contrast our lacklustre performance with that of Singapore, one of five countries we compare ourselves to in the NSSI (along with Denmark, Israel, Finland, and Ireland). Singapore, despite its relatively small size, rates highest in the four subject areas mentioned above and higher than New Zealand in all areas, even veterinary science.

So, why doesn't New Zealand stand out? I don't know the answer and finding out is not a focus of the NSSI. That is worrying because if we don't understand the root causes of our underperformance, we may just keep on making the same mistakes.

A new funding model for science is signalled in the NSSI. Having a single fund, rather than a large number of buckets that come and go, means our best research can be supported through high-quality, peer-reviewed and competitive processes. It means our investments will be regularly monitored and evaluated and that they can evolve to take advantage of new opportunities. But a word of caution - it's not enough to check in on our investments, we also need accountability.

Accountability takes scientists beyond their responsibility for delivering excellent and impactful research outcomes. It's also about standing up and receiving the accolades and rewards when they get it right and the downside consequences when they don't deliver. A stronger focus on this could just result in us being more realistic about the impact that we can collectively create.

Services (including tourism) and primary industry make up the majority of our economy, but their R&D investment is low, so we either have to drive them to invest more or reduce our dependence on them. Neither seem like the are rapidly moving achievements.

At the same time, the Government has indicated it at least understands that research at the other end of the spectrum - blue skies, investigator led studies - is important, albeit the rider that investment will happen "as fiscal conditions allow". Let's face it - this is where truly novel and creative ideas come from and it's an area in which every country wants to maintain its status. But financial support is needed for that to happen.

Overall? Six-and-a-half out of 10. Some things are missing - causations, correlations, accountability and a proven mechanism to ensure the sector can take advantage of the new, aligned, agile and simpler system that will drive the aspirations of our researchers to move up in the benchmarking stakes and strive to stand out.

But some things are much needed - the commitment to a better balance between government and business investment and to an understanding of the wider research areas we need to invest in. And, importantly, the vision that we will be known around the world for our excellence and impact.

-Professor Kate McGrath is Vice-Provost (Research) at Victoria University of Wellington.

-Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are the writer's personal opinion, and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz