by David Clendon
The report of the CRI Taskforce released yesterday contains some refreshingly clear thinking about the best way to support science and research in New Zealand.
Ever since 1992 scientific advance, whether for economic, environmental or social benefit, has been impeded by scientists being forced to spend less time in the lab or in the field, and more time chasing a diminishing pot of funding. The CRI model took away security of funding from public science that had existed within the DSIR, despite the remarkably positive return on investment that the old model generated over decades.
We have seen less a contest of ideas, and more a contest to see who can write the most compelling funding applications.
Funding has also been typically disbursed on a one – to three year cycle, which has impeded the development of longer term research and development programmes.
Our scientists have too often found themselves in the ridiculous position of having to go offshore for peer review of research funding applications, because their peer groups in New Zealand are also their competitors for ‘contestable ‘ funds!
We have as a result become a country that has been exporting scientists rather than science.
The Taskforce recommendations agree that collaboration, not more competition, is the way forward for developing science and technology in New Zealand. This was also the view of the 2007 OECD review of our innovation system, which found it to be ‘too competitive and fragmented’
There is still a worryingly focus on monitoring financial rather than scientific performance. It needs to be recognised that sometimes a promising line of research will fail to deliver any outcome that may be developed into economic gain – this needs to be accommodated, to avoid a ‘risk averse’ culture of only doing ‘safe’ science becoming further embedded.
The challenge the report lays before the government is to properly fund the science sector in a way that provides surety of base funding, topped up by specific funding for projects. We need this change both to retain our current talent, and so that young people entering the science sector can see a clear career path to a senior science role, not a nudge sideways into a financial manager’s or marketers role.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by David Clendon on Fri, March 5th, 2010
Tags: CRI, crown research, David Clendon, research, science
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This is not news for anyone who’s been working in science research – I still have the odd friend who is using their science background ‘for the good’ (ie: public research, not corporate profit), and mostly I hear moans about how the ‘bread-&-butter’ work prevents more risky research from being done. Oh, and the resources keep creeping away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My submission (which I was invited to prepare and present at the last minute) recommended that the CRIs be effectively disbanded and merged or otherwise conflated into our Universities because all around the world I found during my days in funding and managing technology projects that Universities are much more effective in transferring the benefits of their research into the outside world than Crown laboratories.
This seems a paradox but it is explained by the different culture that develops within the two kinds of organisations.
You can read the full submission here.
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/issues/53-other/434-crms-submission-to-the-cri-taskforce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David, the brain drain also occurs for quite different reasons, not just because of any CRI-related shortcomings you note. Lack of research opportunities at university sent me abroad; possibly ironically, Owen’s suggested merger could have improved that if the CRI researchers were also competent professors (not all research scientists are). Science salaries here are very low for internationally mobile scientists. And the vitality of larger and more diverse populations are potent attractions. That said, the recommendations you note would help a bit at keeping brains local.
Owen, I am curious how you would have seen the transition from separate CRIs and universities to joint. How long would it take for the costs of the transition, financial and institutional, to be recouped? And would you recommend the US’s NOAA and USGS be subsumed into universities as well, or do you not make the link between them and CRIs?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Daniel,
I suggest you read my Digest on this matter at my web page.
The costs of not doing some merger are massive. A recent survey finds that fewer than a quarter of scientists in CRIs would recommend science as a career for their children while about 60% of scientists in universities would.
Given the science like many professions tends to be handed down this is catastrophic for the future of science in NZ. It were a species it would be heading for extinction.
The problem with CRIs is that they are mono-disciplinary and so scientists there do not get the benefit of meeting scientists from other disciplines – which is how most breakthroughs come about. And they do not get the stimulus of young minds.
And the US is different if only because Houston has a greater population of scientists than the whole of NZ (probably more than twice as many given that the Houston Medial centre employs 70,000 staff.
NOAA is more of a data gatherer on a par with our Stats department and so I don’t group them. Also we need critical mass and we have many universities, and many CRIs and I wonder if we can afford to disperse our small talent pool so widely.
Anyhow the Digest is at:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/centre-digest/34-centre-digest/435-cri-task-force-digest
It’s much shorter than the submission itself but puts it into a context.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Owen, I did read it. And you didn’t say how long it would take to recoup the costs, hence my question. The costs of the transition must always be weighed with the benefits of the outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daniel
I was asked to make the submission on Friday and had to file the submission on the Tuesday.
I can only do so much in three days. However, I did take into account, in making the general recommendation, that the recommendations being made by other submitters (and some of my own) would prepare for the transition.
The present CRIs are so dysfunctional that the benefits would soon exceed any costs, and the lost opportunity costs are uncalculable. Many of the CRI premises could be let or sold, and many of our universities have surplus land on which to build.
I would presume that in this case the cost and benefit analysis should not determine a strategic decision (it never should) but should determine only the most cost effective route to achieve it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen is talking out of his ….hat! To suggest that CRIs are dysfunctional contradicts every review that has been undertaken of their contribution to NZ from an environmental, economic and cultural perspective…including that of the recent CRI taskforce.
The reality is that (like any industry) science in NZ will have to compete with a global market for the best talent. Merging Universities and CRIs will not change that fact. The real challenge that the taskforce report alludes to is harnessing the best talent the the NZ science system can muster to address the challenges that confront us. From that perspective, the CRIs fill a unique niche in being able to assemble best national teams through collaboration (as opposed to merger with) individuals at universities and (indeed) other non-university, non-CRI research providers. The taskforce report acknowledges that CRIs are uniquely positioned to achive this because of their incentive structure (based on outcomes rather than individual science performance) and the scale of their discipline-based teams. Increasing this focus through clear articulation of each CRIs core purpose and providing more secure support to deliver on this purpose are clearly steps in the right direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DAve C,
You accuse me of talking through my hat.
Well my commentary was based on some twenty years of working with Universities and Govt Laboratories all around the world commercialising public good science. I still work with my friends and colleagues now living in Silicon Valley etc.
Nothing in my submission would be challenged by anyone who shared my experience, and indeed I have had many positive feedback messages from current practitioners.
So how many years experience do you have?
If all is so well why are so many CRI scientists so unhappy compared to their University counterparts.
Innovative science does not tend to come out of mono-disciplinary silos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)