1. No category

Comment on draft National Statement of Science Investment
19/12/2014
From: Profs Alistair J. Gunn, Paul Donaldson (Head of School), Laura Bennet, Alistair
Young, Lynnette Ferguson , Peter Browett, Bill Denny, Michelle Glass, the School of
Medical Science, FMHS, University of Auckland.
Executive summary:
• We know that similar, advanced nations are increasing investment in fundamental
research because it is the engine of innovation, and that the 2007 OECD report
highlighted concern that there was limited level of investment in this area in New Zealand
• Total science funding is proposed to increase substantially, from 0.56% up to 0.8% of
GNP
• Only 8.6% of this investment will be in excellent, investigator led, highly contestable
funding through the HRC and Marsden Fund. None of the other funds have these
important requirements
• More than half of the investment is for targeted, mission-led or industry-led research, and
most of the remainder is primarily available for infrastructural support.
• There is no new investment in career development for new and mid career investigators
and limited existing support compared to the UK, USA or Australia.
• The new investment is in highly targeted, is confusing to access, and does not have strong
continuing peer review and quality control.
• We strongly recommend:
1. Increasing the investment in excellent, investigator-led, highly contestable funding
and career development to at least a third of the total, to provide a balanced portfolio
of investment.
2. Take advantage of the existing, well established and rigorous peer review systems of
the HRC and Royal Society for new funding, particularly the NSCs, to improve
clarity of access for new funding and to provide ongoing quality control of the highest
standard.
Introduction
The proposal is extremely encouraging in some respects. As the Minister states, our
investment in research is much smaller than other advanced nations. Thus it is very pleasing
that the Government is committed to increasing the investment from 0.56% to 0.8 % of GDP
as well as trying to encourage industrial R&D through mechanisms such as the Callaghan
Innovation fund. It would be reasonable to consider aiming for a level closer to the average of
other advanced nations. There is no need for us to put ourselves down by comparing our
performance only with “small” nations, since the target is a fraction of our GDP.
The key to any effective investment strategy in science, as in finance, is balance, to avoid
over investing in one area or type of investment. Broadly speaking the key steps needed to
move science forward, whether to improve health care or build new jobs include:
• Basic science to bring forth new ideas
• Applied science to take those ideas and make something practical of them.
• Final commercialization or translation of the idea in to practice.
Each of these steps is essential and should receive a broadly equal share of funding.
We cannot simply take advantage of ideas developed overseas, because generally
considerable expertise is needed to understand and use the idea. Critically, once an idea is
publically known, it is far too late for the country to have an edge over the rest of the world.
For “basic” science investment, it may seem obvious that we should invest mainly in
practical areas that are of probable benefit. It turns out that this is surprisingly difficult. The
analysis by Julian Comroe of great discoveries in medicine showed that half were
serendipitous findings from “pure” research, and half were from targeted or disease-focussed
research.1 Consistent with his findings, history has shown over and over that the “obvious”,
intuitive answer, in medicine and in science is wrong more often than not. Babies are quieter
and seem to settle more easily if they are put to sleep on their tummies, so surely it must be
reasonable to do this --- or should we only sleep them on their backs? Should ulcers be
treated with diet and antacids --- or with antibiotics? A middle aged man has a heart attack,
falls unconscious, and becomes cold and clammy. Should we tuck him in with blankets and
hot water bottles --- or pack him with ice bags? In each case the former was the ‘obvious’
solution, which turned out not to be right.
Not every scientific study is a breakthrough. Still, a ‘bibliometric’ analysis of New Zealand
science showed that New Zealand produces the third highest number of publications relative
to R&D expenditure in the world and 4th in numbers relative to GDP.2 These home grown
papers are not only inexpensive and very good value, but in health research are cited more
often than average for the OECD as a whole. Not bad at all for a small country.
Spending on basic research is not only altruistic. The 2007 OECD report review of
Innovation Policy in New Zealand highlighted the overall low investment in R&D, and
strongly recommended increasing the investment in the Marsden Fund, since it is the driver
of basic innovation.3 Similarly, ‘public good’ health research funding through the Health
Research Council of New Zealand has acted as the incubator for the majority of New
Zealand’s fledgling biotechnology companies.4 There are many examples of companies that
began life within Universities and Research Institutions with funding from the HRC. Just at
the University of Auckland examples include: Neuronz, Brainz and Proacta whose research
was initially funded by the HRC. More recently a world beating wireless physiological
monitoring system developed by the Telemetry Research group is about to begin exporting its
products around the world. This technology grew out of a pure science HRC grant to
investigate blood pressure control. Overseas, the economic return on research funding has
been found to be considerable. The literature suggest that private rates of return on
investment in research and development are around a mean of 30% across multiple levels and
methods of analysis.
“More importantly, the social returns from benefits to the productivity or output of other
agents, are typically 2 to 3 times larger again and persist long into the future.”5
Thus, the UK government estimates that every dollar spent by government yields a return of
between 20 to 50 % per year, in perpetuity.5 Consistent with this, in the USA it is striking that
the majority of new drugs have arisen from public funding through the National Institutes of
Health, not from the pharmaceutical industry. Because of these and similar observations,
many other advanced countries have made a strategic decision to actively increase investment
in biomedical and health research.6
We therefore examined whether the draft proposal provides a well-balanced investment
portfolio, and in particular whether the changes reflect the known OECD 2007
recommendations to increase investment in excellent science.
The key categories of science funding are investigator led, contestable funding, career
development, prioritized funding, whether community/government or industry led, and
general support for infrastructure.
1. Investigator led, contestable funding: serious underinvestment
At present, of the total Government investment in research of nearly $1.5 billion, only the
Marsden Fund (52 M) and the HRC (77 M) directly support investigator led, contestable
grants with strong independent peer review, for a total of 129 million or 8.6 % of total
funding.
We note that total funding to this sector is eroded by lack of adjustment for inflation, and
because of increasing allocation to highly targeted areas of research. That is to say that the
real amount available for truly investigator led research has been progressively falling for
many years. The HRC and Marsden fund are distinguished by their excellent, highly robust
external peer review processes. The quality of their peer review is easily as good or better
than that available in any country, and the investment in these funds is associated with
significant scientific productivity.4,7
The proposal classifies the PBRF fund (300 million) as both investigator and ‘mission’ led,
and the CoREs (~ 50 million) as investigator-led. However, neither fulfils the criteria of
providing highly contestable funding for investigator-led research.
The PBRF fund provides primarily infrastructural support: The bulk of the fund is used to
support research infrastructure and institutional needs. It is reasonable to note that the amount
made available to researchers is extremely variable between Institutions. However, within
many Universities only a relatively small proportion is available for competitive internal
projects grant, and even then, primarily for support of new or developing researchers.
Similarly, although the CoREs are contestable at the time of award, they are only available to
large groups of researchers, and the review is not based on simple excellence of research.
More importantly, once funded, their funding is no longer generally contestable, i.e. it is
available only to members of the core, and there is little direct impartial, international review.
Thus, funding to CoREs comes as a direct cost to the contestable sector. In practice the cores
are more similar to mission led funding, targeting very narrow goals. It is very concerning
that this weakly contestable sector is now essentially the same size as the Marsden Fund.
2. Training: Limited funding.
There is vanishingly little independent support for postdoctoral fellows and midcareer
researchers.8,9 The Marsden post-doctoral fellowships were dropped some years ago and have
not been replaced. A small number of brief (2 year) postdoctoral fellowships are available
from charitable funding bodies, and small numbers of independent early to midcareer
fellowships are provided through the Royal Society (such as the Discovery Fellowships) and
the HRC (the Sir Charles Hercus Health Research Fellowship, typically 2 to 3 per year). In
contrast, the USA, UK and Australia all support comprehensive Fellowship schemes that
support investigators from the very earliest to the most senior stages of their careers.9,10
As well, there are Marsden Fast Start and HRC new investigator grants that are intended for
new investigators. However, these grants cannot support the full salary of a fulltime research
fellow. They are therefore of modest value for independent career development. This very
limited support for most investigators means that potential researchers are discouraged from
continuing in research, move overseas, or look for teaching based positions.
3. Prioritized funding: Generously funded
“Mission-led” funding, includes the CRIs (137 M), NSCs (127 M), MBIE (189 M), CoRE
(60 M) for a total of 513 M. Industry led funding is a further total of 285 M.
Thus, the total prioritized, mission or industry led funding of 798 M represents well over half
of the total proposed research funding. It is not generally available for excellent research
ideas, and it is only weakly contestable, within the research grouping. There is a high risk of
poor quality investment within this area because of limited on strong peer review for
allocation of money.
The HRC is not appropriately considered to be mission-led. The HRC supports the best
possible health research. I.e. it is targeted to a single broad area, but within this area it is
essentially the same as the Marsden Fund, with a similar focus on excellent investigator
initiated research, with a small proportion of targeted “partnership” grants. Similarly, it is not
correct that that the Marsden fund support is not targeted, since its goals are different from
those of the HRC despite theoretic overlap, i.e. the funds are targeted to different but
complementary areas of research.
The NSCs are a new area of investment; their processes are very confusing and may not
involve rigorous review of individual projects. Many investigators do not see how they can
bid for funds. If this funding stream is to continue on a sound basis, it would be very
reasonable to use the long-established and impartial peer review mechanisms established by
the Royal Society and the HRC.
4. Infrastructure funding: very good
The PBRF funds now total ~300 M. In addition to this direct support, research institutions
also receive overhead costs and research buyout from other grants, which also support
essential research infrastructure.
Conclusions:
The overall level of support for science investment in New Zealand is proposed to be
substantially increased. Unfortunately, the proposed vision is unbalanced, with a very high
level of prioritized funding, and a small and diminishing level of excellent, investigator led
research, and no material support for career development.
We strongly advocate that a well-balanced research investment portfolio should include a
substantial proportion focused on excellent, investigator led, highly contestable research plus
targeted support to enable independent career development of excellent early and midcareer
researchers.
At present the funding for excellent, investigator led, highly contestable research is not
merely static, but is progressively falling because of erosion by inflation, and by addition of
targeted funding support to the HRC’s portfolio. If the funding of the 3 major components of
a national investment strategy is to be appropriately balanced, we propose that there should
be a progressive increase in the proportion of funding for investigator led research plus career
support to approximately one third of the total investment; that is to say, to at least 3 times
the proposed proportion. We strongly advocate that the investment in the Marsden Fund and
the HRC should be immediately doubled, to compensate for progressive erosion over time.
Finally, in order to ensure that the best possible outcomes from the prioritized funding and to
provide a clear, logical way for all investigators to complete for funding of innovative
science, that all proposals, particularly for new avenues such as the NSCs, should be
externally reviewed through the long established, and impartial peer review mechanisms
established by the Royal Society and the HRC. This approach would leverage wellestablished processes to more effectively achieve new priorities and ensure clarity of the
process of applying for funding.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Comroe, J. H. Retrospectroscope: Insights into Medical Discovery. (Von Gehr Pr,
1977).
National Bibliometric Report 1997 to 2001; International Benchmarking of New
Zealand Research,
<http://www.morst.govt.nz/uploadedfiles/Documents/Publications/stats%20and%20e
valuations/Final%20PW%20version%20Bibliometric%20report%2018%20May.pdf>
(Date of access.
OECD. OECD Reviews of innovation policy: New Zealand, <http://www.oecdilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy-new-zealand2007_9789264037618-en> (2007). Date of access: 1993-4211
Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T. & Wixted, B. Science for Life: An Evaluation of New
Zealand’s Health Research Investment System based on International Benchmarks.
(Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies, 2004).
Department for Business Innovation & Skills. Science and innovation: rates of return
to investment. BIS/14/990 (2014).
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/science-and-innovation-rates-ofreturn-to-investment>. Date of access: 24/7.2014.
Willis, P. J. Health and Medical Research Strategic Report. The virtuous cycle -working together for health and medical research. 28 (Dept of Health and Aged Care,
Canberra, 1999).
Centre For Research On Work, E. A. B. L. Report of the evaluation of the impacts of
the Marsden Fund. (WEB Research (Firm), Technopolis Limited,, Wellington, NZ,
2004).
Tertiary Education Commission. Strategic Review of the Tertiary Education
Workforce, <http://www.tec.govt.nz/about_tec/reviews/strategicreviews/workforce.htm> (2005). Date of access.
Board on Life Sciences. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of
New Investigators in Biomedical Research.
http://www.nap.edu/books/030909626X/html/. (National Institutes of Health,
Washington, USA, 2005).
Roberts, G. The Research Career Initatives. Final report 1999-2002.
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/activities/RCIdownloads/RCI_final.pdf. (Universities
UK. Department of Trade and Industry UK, 2003).
PRO VICE-CHANCELLOR MĀORI
Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith
Te Ahupaepae o te Ihorangi Māori
Private Bag 3105
Kirikiriroa
Aotearoa – NZ
Waea:
64-7-858 5115
Whakaahua: 64-7-858 5156
Emera:
Ipurangi:
http://waikato.ac.nz/maori
25 July 2014
To whom it may concern
Re: Feedback on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment.
The Draft National Statement starts with the following claim, “High-quality science and innovation
can have a transformational effect on a nation. Research and development investment offers the power
to increase economic productivity and competitiveness and improve health, social and environmental
outcomes in unprecedented ways.” I fully support that claim and have spent a career supporting
every avenue and opportunity to participate in the science research sector. However I am deeply
disappointed by the report. I would ask “What nation or parts of the nation does this claim relate to?”
How transformational has science investment been for particular sectors of society where it is clear
that neither social nor health outcomes have been transformed for the better? Science research may
indeed provide knowledge that informs decisions but decision making in and of itself is not always
informed by science. There is an important challenge for all research to bridge the space between
research findings to translation to transformation. This arena is not just about intellectual property and
commercialisation but about social change. It is a specialised area that is often downplayed because it
is simply regarded as ‘applied research’ or assumed that there is some process of passive absorption of
new knowledge at work in society. Applying research to create change is important. Similarly,
including industries and end users as agenda setters and drivers of researchers is also important. It
concerns me then that one emergent sector of the economy is simply overlooked and submerged into
arenas that are not focussed on Māori and indeed have a track record of exclusion of Māori.
I have two specific concerns about the draft statement. My first is what I see as a purposeful exclusion
and marginalisation of Māori in the science investment strategy. This is deeply worrying as iwi
development is a significant area of research need and of development potential. Equally concerning is
the exclusion and marginalisation of Māori researchers who bring science and Māori concepts and
methods together in ways that are innovative in their alignment to the unique challenges of Maori
post settlement. The failure to recognise the significant opportunities and challenges of Post Settlement
Iwi Development is, quite frankly, appalling, after the decades of work that has gone on in Māori
development, Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and research capability development. It looks like Treaty
Settlements, which are retrospective recompense, are seen as enough and therefore Iwi, unlike
everyone else, no longer need further development investment. To me, MISSION-LED research needs
to include the mission of Iwi development as a discrete category and needs to be well resourced.
My second concern is the weakness of Vision Mātauranga as an objective for achieving the aspirations
of Māori, for engaging researchers and organisations in Māori and iwi development or for improving
either capability or transformational outcomes. It is weak for the following reasons;
1.
2.
3.
it focuses on a deficit approach to capability, i.e. making Māori fit the system,
it totally under-estimates and over-simplifies how capability for Māori needs to be
implemented, and
it is seen as a sop for what looks like an overall science investment of $1.5b – too small to
really make a step change to capability, too infinitesimal to be taken even remotely seriously
as a signal for researchers and their organisations to do serious work with Māori, and
4.
It’s about capability not about doing the kind of science research that is truly transformational
in its outcomes.
I am fully aware of how individuals and organisations can manipulate, downplay and disregard
Vision Mātauranga and still get funded. Unless Vision Mātauranga has some muscle, has high level
advocacy in the Ministry, has stronger incentives and is practiced within the Ministry itself it is a very
weak tool.
I am not sure the mechanisms of the PBRF or the Centres of Research Excellence provide much more
hope either. Without a deeper commitment to inclusion and development for Māori I fear that there
will be no transformational change and that possibility of change and development, inclusion and
engagement of Māori is a myth of cynical proportions.
Noho ora mai
Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith PhD
Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit CNZOM
Pro Vice-Chancellor Māori
Professor of Education & Māori Development
Dean of the School of Māori and Pacific Development
The University of Waikato
004 – Professor Mark Costello
Friday 8th August
My core suggestion is that NZ signs up to international agreements and conventions and spends a lot
of government staff time and significant costs in travel to meetings, but there is no budget for
research or other actions to actually deliver tangible contributions to these same commitments. For
example, activities I am aware of include the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Biodiversity
Information Facility and Group on Earth Observations. It is largely coincidental that some research in
NZ can contribute to these. But most research calls focus on national interests. Even the Royal
Society funds to participate in international groups like the European COST action networks only
fund travel to one meeting for projects that have 1-2 meetings a year for 3-5 years. The budget for
such research or other actions could be in order of $50-$100,000 per project, which is probably 1-2
times the amount already spent in govt staff time and expenses.
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an overview of the current
state of New Zealand’s public science system and a statement of Government’s investment in
science. As such, it serves as a key point of reference for looking at where we stand, compared to
where we want to be.
The Minister wants to shape the strategic direction of the science and innovation system, and is
seeking your insights and feedback on what that direction might be.
GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS
To contribute your feedback, please download this form and enter your responses under the
relevant questions. You do not need to answer all questions. You may answer as many questions as
you wish.
Please supply your name and organisation, and indicate whether you are providing feedback on
behalf of your organisation or as an individual.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of Government’s
wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
1a and 1b – the Marsden seems grossly underfunded. A higher proportion of top graded projects
should be funded.
1c – No. NZ government signs up to international science commitments but provides no dedicated
funding to make real practical contributions to them e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, Group
on Earth Observations, Global Biodiversity Information Facility. It is not enough just to pay travel
1
and (sometimes) time of civil servants, CRI staff and/or academics to attend their meetings. There
should be support to conduct targeted research so NZ makes visible and unique contributions to
these international for a. In addition, contributions to such commitments should be criteria by
which national funding to CRI, companies and universities are judged (in addition to perhaps more
national criteria).
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science
that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are
under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
I do not know.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
If so, how?
I do not know enough to comment.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
I do not know.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure
those problems are being addressed?
2
What about international commitments to topics of mutual interest between countries – like
reducing pollution, protecting migratory species, fisheries, biodiversity, climate change mitigation,
etc.
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
They do not seem to work together at all. There is no comprehensive framework.
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
Finally – mention of ’international’! Obviously by funding research that contributes and is
endorsed by international programmes, agreements and conventions. For example, the Royal
Society ‘funds’ researcher attendance at one COST Action workshop only – yet COST Action are 3-4
year EU funded collaborative initiatives.
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
3
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
Yes.
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
Research to support international commitments to protecting natural resources and biodiversity.
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
Perhaps 1/3 collaboration.
4
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
Not much, engagement has been limited.
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Be more involved internationally – e.g. real partners in EU and NSF projects for example. This will
benefit international profile of universities and increase their world rankings.
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
Yes. Each may have different criteria of success.
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
Fund more internationally driven research e.g. that contributes to international agreements like
CBD, GBIF, GEO, Kyoto, etc..
5
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs
into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI
objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds
are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
-
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that
we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
-
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
-
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
-
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
Your feedback on these matters might address the following questions:
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f. The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
6
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
Yes, no funding targeted at research that directly contributes to international conventions and
agreements. E.g. GEO, CBD Aichi Targets, etc.
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
Tax breaks?
26. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might
they be overcome?
7
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s
sector specific research funds?
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. We value your contribution.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
May 2014
8
016 – Logan Walker
20/08/2014
Hi there,
Thank you for drafting a comprehensive overview of science funding in NZ, and allowing feedback
from the research community. Please find below some of my thoughts below:
There did not appear to be any metrics relating to the number of grant funded research
positions/salaries in NZ, or how many applications fail to get money because of a national
shortfall, despite meeting the strategic goals of the Govt and being deemed fundable by peer
review. These numbers seem crucial when deciding how much money is needed to be
invested in science. Without objective measures, the amount of money invested in science will
continue to be arbitrary. Debating issues, such as the balance between direct funding for
institutions versus more contestable funds, is rather pointless when the overall pot of money
is simply too small.
The National Science Challenges have been a frustrating black-box for many
researchers, especially those who are early-mid career (such as myself). It
does not target innovation but established national networks and therefore will
always benefit research programs of late career researchers. The balance
needs to be shifted to allow more open dialogue and competition. The
document does say on page 26 that "competition will occur within National
Science Challenge collaborations" but between who and who will decide what
projects are to be funded? Early career scientists who may have already
established an extensive international collaborative network remain vulnerable to the
current funding climate and the National Science Challenges are yet to show any
evidence that they address this issue. It is hard to see how the identified challenges could not
have been addressed using the existing framework (ie. HRC, Marsden etc) thus avoiding yet
another bureaucratic system and cost.
There are diminishing opportunities for new post-docs within NZ as funding falls well behind
the rising cost of salaries and research. Offering a significant number post-doctoral
fellowships would help address this issue, even if these were incorporated into the new money
for the National Science Challenges so that this initiative is encouraged mentor the next
generation of researchers in NZ.
I could not see anywhere in this document that acknowledges the role of non-government
organisations (eg. Charities, trusts etc) that support research and the increased burden
brought upon them with reduced govt funding. How much have these agencies minimized the
impact of reduced Govt funding (proportional to GDP) and is this sustainable?
As far as I am aware there is no CRI for health science but why can't the DHB's play a bigger
role in investing in health research. This could be especially important for innovative projects
that have an immediate impact on health but do not generate a product that can be
commercialized. This type of research seems to fall between the cracks of what the Govt
considers high-quality science and innovation.
Kind regards,
Logan
Dr Logan Walker, PhD
Sir Charles Hercus Health Research Fellow
Mackenzie Cancer Research Group|University of Otago, Christchurch
Lincoln Agritech submission on the MBIE Draft Statement of Science
Investment
20 Aug 14
Introduction
We congratulate MBIE for producing the National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI). It is
useful to have the current system of science investment mapped out in one document with an
explanation of the intention of the various funding mechanisms.
MBIE and the Research Provider community have both been through a period of substantial change
in the last few years, and so the over ridding theme we would like to convey is the need for stability
into the future. Major structural changes to the science system are expensive to implement and
adapt to, all the while reducing the amount of funding that can be spent on the science.
Below we offer the following comments to some specific areas of the document. If we make no
comment, it is because we are comfortable with the status quo or appreciate that the cost of further
change may exceed any potential benefits, so we feel the need to live with the system as it stands.
An increased focus on the performance of science investments – pg 26.
We support the intent of this initiative, but understand how difficult it is to do accurately. Several
challenges we perceive are;

Lag times - commercial success often comes after an MBIE programme is completed. Once
an invention is commercialized there is a significant cost to do further development work
and market the product or service. This takes time, so a mechanism for crediting
commercial success to a research provider for historical programmes could be useful.

Once a technology is licensed its often very hard to get visibility of the success (sales) of that
invention from the commercial entity due to commercial sensitivity. This is possible if there
is a royalty stream from a licensing deal on net sales, but not all forms of commercialisation
follow this path. Companies don’t want to tell you and their competitors how much money
they are making from your invention.

Commercial partnerships through co funding often require the science provider not to
publish.

MBIE research programmes build intellectual capital within a science provider. This can
often be applied to contract research problems with the private sector. A case in point is
image processing capability that Lincoln Agritech Ltd (LAL) has built during MBIE contract
1
LVLX0401 which was used for a commercial research contract with Menixis which has
recently been promoted in the media. It is hard for MBIE to capture this valuable extension
for the private sector of the capability that MBIE have helped build.
Sector Specific Funding mechanisms – pg 45

Smart Ideas – we like this mechanism and wish that the funding pool was larger. We are
concerned that the money available for stage two smart ideas is so savagely cut.

Enabling technologies - We agree that rationalization of enabling and targeted research is
appropriate, and that the distinction as a funding mechanism is removed without necessarily
removing the distinction and the desirability of addressing both needs. A combined
mechanism could employ platform/strategic balance factors to help ensure both are
addressed. Further, RfPs could emphasise either mechanism to maintain the funding balance
within MBIE targets over several funding cycles, rather than year by year.

Targeted research – as above.

Partnership fund – We have not used this fund historically, but do have plans for a bid in
2014. We think this is a useful mechanism.

Independent Research Organisation Capability funding – We support this fund but are still
frustrated at our exclusion from this and its limited reach (two organizations from IRANZ out
of eleven).

Envirolink – we are supportive of this fund and would like to see it at least doubled.
Issues and Opportunities – pg 46, 47
We totally support the sentiment outlined in the last two paragraphs of page 46 of the
limitations of the large number of and the rigidity of the current funding mechanisms limits the
responsiveness of science providers to emerging ideas and trends and time critical science
investments. We are in general agreement with the proposed future direction for the
contestable fund as outlined on page 47.
Contestable funding is an important mechanism for small research providers like LAL. LAL is not
the recipient of CRI Core funding, IRANZ core funding or PBRF. Therefore we have no funds with
which to make strategic science investments. We increasingly find ourselves being undercut
with private sector and regional council work where CRI’s are subsidizing research contract using
their core funding. We would like any new investment in the total science vote to go into the
contestable fund.
2
We would also encourage MBIE to consider carefully the paper submitted by Peter John on
some of the perils of requiring co funding arrangements in the High Value Manufacturing bids.
This is due to the potential of being locked in to commercial arrangements that are not the best
ones for commercializing a technology due to a parties willingness to make a small financial
contribution at the time a bid is written, rather than the science provider having the ability to
choose the right commercialisation partner once the technology is developed. Market forces
can and have in our case had a major impact on co funding partner suitability for
commercialisation. We have had examples of co funding partners, going bankrupt, being
acquired by overseas interests and changing their strategic focus, or just changing their focus
based on market forces, changing trends or just the companies fortunes. These are events that
must be accommodated but have a profound effect on science direction, relevance and uptake,
and require considerable time managing stakeholder interactions when binding agreements are
in place.
We believe basic targeted and untargeted research is crucial and should be less tied to industry
cofunding as mentioned above because;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Industry thinking and research horizons are frequently short term, 1-2 years, driven my
immediate market needs.
Longer term industry strategic direction is often elevated by discussion with research
providers, but carries a higher risk due to the longer time frames and the attendant
market and industry changes and risk of other market disruption.
Frequently, the end point or the benefits of research are in a different space from that
originally envisaged and the original companies may no longer be the most appropriate
to take best advantage of the science and technology outputs.
In a similar vein to (iii), the developed science may provide a much greater impact in
another sector or industry grouping, from that originally envisaged due to interim
changes in markets and/or science.
Of the often short term nature of industry thinking and research horizons. There is a
crucial role for government investment in research which is looking over the horizon
beyond industries current focus.
Commercialisation – pg 56

We think that the PSAF is an essential fund and we would like to see it increased.

We also support the funding of the commercialisation partner network.

We support the role of business incubation in NZ and the role that incubators can provide in
helping commercialise technology developed in the CRI’s and Universities. However it
should be recognized that incubators tend to screen many opportunities and cannot assist
them all. Also in some cases we have the experience of negotiating a licensing deal with an
incubator and were offered what we perceived (and had verified by a third party) as a far
3
below fair market value on the technology, or unreasonable terms in regards to future
freedom to invent, and thus subsequently we have not done the commercialisation deal. It
is not the purpose of the science commercialisation to make the science providers wealthy.
The wealth should go eventually to investors who have developed and marketed the
technology post-MBIE investment. However it is not unreasonable to have a modest return
to the science provider (which in many cases is the Crown) and it is not reasonable for
investors to tie up large swaths of future IP or capability which would preclude future
inventiveness, as so often insisted upon by investors. So our overall message is that we are
supportive of incubation, but it is not the only mechanism that will support
commercialisation. We need a range of options including;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Commercialisation expertise amongst science providers
PSAF
Incubators.
The commercialisation partner network.
An active angel investment network.
Venture capital.
Recognition that contract research with the private sector is a form of
commercialisation of Intellectual capital paid for and built up by MBIE, and adds to
the NZ’s commercialisation balance sheet.
One of the limitations to commercialisation is the lead time to find the correct partner,
interest them in the technology, negotiate and execute an investment. There are often
many false starts, backward steps, and heartaches as well as successes that go along with
this activity. We doubt that there is any institution in the country that is cash positive for
the returns it receives from its commercialisation if the total cost of that activity was taken
into account. Yet we should do it for the country and the majority of the benefit should end
up with the investors and in the economy. Our conclusion is that the cost of
commercialisation, mostly in science provider staff time, is not paid for by the MBIE science
programme and science providers lose money doing it. For large science providers the cost
of commercialisation experts available on staff can probably be easily borne by overheads.
For small research providers such as IRANZ members, it is a large barrier which is probably
slowing commercialisation from these entities. This has been confirmed by discussion at a
recent IRANZ meeting. The commercialisation pipeline is often lumpy and small providers
can’t afford to have enough staff to cover the times when activity peaks, but have the cost
of the extra resource on tap when it troughs. LAL suggests that perhaps there could be an
extension to the PSAF or something similar where science providers could apply for a 50%
grant to outsource commercialisation expertise where they either don’t have the time or the
skills in house.
Sandpits
We note that they are not mentioned in the document. We hope that this means that they
are a failed experiment that has been cast aside. We are not supportive of Sandpits. It is
very difficult to run them fairly and to detect and address anticompetitive or covert
4
behaviour that is disruptive to the desired process and collaborative outcome. People come
with preconceived agenda’s and it appears that the most forceful win. They are combative
not collaborative. One is not encouraged to table ones best ideas for fear that they may be
hijacked by other participants, and put forward as their own.
Bidding process matters
These are not specifically addressed in the document but we would like to take this
opportunity to offer some constructive comments.
The timing of the bidding process is problematic. We would like to see Sector Investment
Plans (SIP) and Requests For Proposals (RFP) released much earlier giving us more time to
engage with sectors and companies who may be interested in our research ideas. The
current timing puts pressure on our staff during Christmas and Easter breaks. It also makes
it difficult to engage with sectors and companies during those periods.
The constant structural changes to the science system and to MBIE staff are putting them
under pressure. This is evidenced by the quality of the SIP’s and RFP’s, which now have
more mistakes, inconsistencies and later iterations than they used to. It is hard to get
answers to questions about these, some of our questions were not answered in the last
round.
We have less personal contact with MBIE staff during bidding which we think is a negative
step.
Peter Barrowclough
CEO
Lincoln Agritech Ltd
5
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
Comments in a personal capacity by William Tobin, Ph.D., F.R.A.S., retired from the Department of
Physics & Astronomy, University of Canterbury, former Director of the Mt John University
Observatory.
I am only responding to a few questions; and for clarity of exposition, I respond in an altered order.
Nothing in this submission is confidential.
-----Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. ...
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
I should like to warn against the dangers of micromanagement. We are obviously all happy
when excellent, high-quality research has been produced, but the problem for public policy is
that such ‘winners’ are impossible to determine in advance, depending as research does so
much on human creativity and imagination, and on being in the right context to realise that
there is a scientific opportunity available and having the resources to exploit it. The only way
to produce excellent research is to ensure that there is a wide base of good research from
which the excellent will occasionally arise. Here is a short article I wrote recently expanding
on this point of view.
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
Only in theory, because of the practical difficulty of deciding what actually will contribute to
business innovation and economic growth.
The great problem in any small country is critical mass and limited facilities. And as soon as
a research idea begins to show real promise, overseas researchers with much greater resources
can swoop in and take it over. This certainly happened to me. I therefore think there is
another path to take.
There is emphasis in New Zealand’s body politic on being a good international citizen, and
rightly so. New Zealand profits enormously from research done elsewhere – imagine life if
only New Zealand discoveries and products were available. As a good international citizen,
New Zealand should pay back by contributing to research. But what it should try to do, often,
is attack subjects for which New Zealand has a natural advantage. The Mount John
University Observatory is now under threat, but when I was Director, I tried to pursue topics
for which the latitude, 10 degrees further south than the international observatories in South
America, was a significant advantage for objects in the deep southern sky. Other colleagues
exploited the Observatory’s unique longitude. For geophysical, oceanic and geophysical
studies, New Zealand’s location can not be usurped by others. Nor can the local flora and
fauna in biological sciences. A non-negligible fraction of New Zealand government-funded
research should be devoted to things that can only be done in New Zealand.
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
In view of what I said in answer to Q.10, I obviously think it is important to
strengthen direct funding for institutions in order to provide a permanent infrastructure for
good research. During the two decades that I worked for the University of Canterbury I saw
the direct institutional cash available for the research group I was in drop from $30,000 p.a. to
$15,000 p.a.. One cannot promote good science on such crumbs.
In view of what I have previously said, I also obviously think is is important to
strengthen the Marsden Fund. This is because it does provide what at the international scale
are modest resources for good ideas. But with the current 1-in-10 success rate, the Fund
inevitably has aspects of a lottery rather than a just way of supporting good science. Indeed, I
suspect it might be just as effective and no less fair to sift out obviously poor proposals and
then select the grantees by lot from among the rest. The Government’s goal should be that
amongst scientifically-worthy proposals the Marsden success rate should increase to at least
1-in-3.
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment
in science?
Science of course should inform public policy, and individual ministries must finance much
in-house scientific research, for example on toxicology and health. One aspect of public
policy that is in crying need of a strengthened scientific basis is New Zealand’s Non-Nuclear
Policy. This policy enjoys wide public support. It has two parts: no nuclear weapons within
New Zealand, and, perhaps more controversially, no nuclear power either. It is claimed that
the policy is not for export, but in my opinion the world does look at the Policy, and both
aspects require continuing research to maintain its credibility.
Concerning nuclear weapons, the justification is partly ethical: no amount of human suffering
can justify the use of weapons that may, depending on how they are used, cause suffering on
an even greater scale. But this sidesteps another issue where the policy ought to be exported:
that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is dangerous. Their possession is dangerous
because they might be used. Examples where they were arguably close to use include the
Cuban missile crisis and Nixon’s ‘secret plan’ to end the Vietnam War by a nuclear attack on
Hanoi. Existing weapons may also be seized by terrorists. The Ukraine was denuclearised
after the break-up of the Soviet Union, but suppose it had not been. Pro-Russian separatists
appear to have acquired surface-to-air missiles capable of downing civilian stratospheric
airliners. Had nuclear weapons been available on Ukrainian soil, would they also have
acquired them? And to what extent is is feasible for terrorists to make nuclear weapons from
nuclear materials stolen from military or civilian reactors?
Concerning nuclear energy, this power source is not pertinent unless the country runs several
reactors (to provide redundancy and the economies of scale of an imported technology), but
the minimum size of existing nuclear plants (~1-2 GW) is too big to be of any interest in New
Zealand compared to the demand (total installed electric capacity ~10 GW). But there are
proposals to make smaller ‘sealed’ reactors that would, supposedly, also be less susceptible to
having their nuclear materials converted into weapons. And indeed, are there fuel cycles that
are immune from the risk of weapon production? In a world where there is clear and
imminent danger from climate change, non-carbon sources of energy are of importance,
especially in countries that do are not blessed with New Zealand’s low population density and
and hyrdo resource. Does the nuclear energy part of the Non-Nuclear Policy not also need
revision?
All these questions require technically-informed answers, i.e. research, in order to keep the
Non-Nuclear Policy up to date and fit for purpose. Such research I think would best be done
in a university setting, but this reveals a weakness of university research as currently
established in New Zealand. Since the abolition of the University Grants Committee, it is
student demand for undergraduate courses that determines what subjects are supported in
universities, and hence, to a great extent, what is researched. (I do not believe there is much
student demand for courses in nuclear engineering.) This is a crazy way to run university
research. Attention needs to be given to how to develop university research in fields for
which there is little student demand.
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How
well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new
mechanisms could advance this goal?
It is very important to maintain New Zealand’s membership of international scientific unions
(it will be remembered that the Government threatened these some years ago).
----------------------A final comment: Many New Zealand scientists feel they have been badly treated by
successive Governments over the last decades. For me, this was epitomised one evening a
decade ago when the then Minister of Research, Science & Technology gave a talk at the
University of Canterbury but refused to take questions, completely contrary to all research
ethos! And then a former Minister, to whom I was saying that worsening conditions were
causing a lot of valuable academic staff to leave the University of Canterbury, added “Let the
academic staff leave: they can easily be replaced.” The Government needs to work to mend
some of the injuries that have been caused.
William Tobin
2014 August 20
023 – Eve Kawana-Brown
21/08/2014
Further comments provided by email
Hello
Thank you for the opportunity for providing feedback on the Science Investment ‘landscape’.
This is an individual submission.
I have dotted throughout the feedback document my comments (in red).
I haven’t the knowledge, nor stamina, to provide feedback relating to every question.
However, I hope that what comments I have been able to make can be considered and may be
somewhat useful. My engagement with this landscape has been limited and has only been since early
2013.
As such, it is a fairly ‘naïve’ response, but it is one which represents someone who is grappling with the
interface between a research institution and real industry benefit and growth, and how some of this
funding applies (in very real terms) to this activity.
Regards
Eve
EVE KAWANA-BROWN, Business Development Manager (Taranaki)
Massey University
Partnering with Venture Taranaki to grow and support Taranaki businesses
c/- Venture Taranaki, 9 Robe Street, PO Box 670, New Plymouth 4340
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an overview of the current
state of New Zealand’s public science system and a statement of Government’s investment in
science. As such, it serves as a key point of reference for looking at where we stand, compared to
where we want to be.
The Minister wants to shape the strategic direction of the science and innovation system, and is
seeking your insights and feedback on what that direction might be.
GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS
To contribute your feedback, please download this form and enter your responses under the
relevant questions. You do not need to answer all questions. You may answer as many questions as
you wish.
Please supply your name and organisation, and indicate whether you are providing feedback on
behalf of your organisation or as an individual.
My name is Eve Kawana-Brown. I have worked as Massey University’s Business Development
Manager for Taranaki since February 2013. The role is joint-funded by Massey University and
Venture Taranaki and works in service of a MoU which signals the intention of the two organisations
to work in partnership to bring Massey more into region (where there is no local university), and
largely with the intent of supporting R&D efforts of companies and organisations in region, as they
seek to develop, grow and innovate.
This submission is by me as an individual. But as an individual who works in a role straddling and
being somewhat exposed to both private sector and research sector interests and needs.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of Government’s
wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
1
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
As someone pretty new to this ‘landscape’ and working at the interface of university researchers and
private sector (towards regional economic development), I am ‘finding my way’ in terms of the
funding opportunities that are available for research.
Given my role, and mission, I am heartened that the funding mechanisms are, by design, aimed at
providing for the range of research which might benefit NZ (and beyond). That the playing field
includes funds for investigator-led, mission-led and industry-led research and encourages
collaboration is appropriate, given where research and innovation opportunities likely to benefit NZ
lie. I see first-hand that the ‘new ideas’ are sometimes coming from industry, sometimes from
institution-based researchers, and how collaboration between the ‘two’ are important if good ideas
are to assume a life in the real world and make a difference to people and to our economy.
So my overall comment would be to say that I am very clear that this ‘mix’ needs to be preserved.
I am not in a position to comment as to relative ‘splits’, nor to yet know what actual outcomes are
being achieved via the various funding streams to date. I look forward to the outcomes of future
work proposed around collecting information about, and communicating re, the outcomes funding
streams are producing, with this advice being in some way tailored for public consumption
(notwithstanding that some detail may be subject to non-disclosure for sound reasons).
I am very pleased to now have a copy of the Draft National Statement of Science Investment, in
order to have a better view of the funding landscape and some of the future directions implied by
the funding splits. The Minister widely seeking feedback on this is commendable, and I hope that
responses are forthcoming, from a range of sources.
I suspect that the private sector will struggle to provide much feedback, and if so, it would be the
bigger, more ‘powerful’ of companies, industries or associations who do respond. The ‘little guy’
(such as whose business benefits from the likes of a Callaghan Innovation-funded summer intern)
will not.
I hope to therefore represent them to some degree via my feedback.
My two main pieces of feedback then are:
1. On Contestability
While ‘contestable’ funding, on the face of it, might appear distinct from direct funding for
institutions, the ‘contestability’, in real terms, is compromised by process. Whether this is on
purpose or not? The clear example for me was the announcement of the ‘particulars’ of the Science
Funding Round last year. Without that level of detail, announced 07 December 2013, there was no
2
clear indication of funding priorities for the 2014 Science Funding Round. However, once this level
of detail was known (in my case 16 December), University staff and private sector partners were
very hard to get hold of – it being end of year results/graduation season, Xmas season, then summer
leave period. With proposals due in 04 February, this did not leave a realistic timeframe for working
through the ‘opportunity’ that the contestable round suggests. Given the specialisation of some of
the Research Questions of interest noted in the RfP’s this left no realistic timeframe to work through
to the proposal point, over that holiday/summer period.
2. On Process
There is a great saying - that ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’, and I would also say that in the
case of the R&D funding mechanisms that I have engaged with (primarily Callaghan funding for
Internships, Fellowships, and MBIE’s Science Funding Round and Vision Mātauranga funding),
‘process is eating strategy for breakfast’. While the intent is very laudable, there is ‘devil in the
detail’. It would almost seem that some ‘funding rounds’ are designed to limit access, or to limit
applications.
Some of the ‘operational detail’ and/or the criteria relating to the funding opportunities will be
restricting the potential for outcomes, as per the government’s intent. As the one example I will
note here, inadequate timeframes for working the lines between private sector and research
institutions towards solid and meaningful proposals and research plans is a very real challenge. This
was very apparent around the timeframes in 2014 for the Vision Mātauranga funding round and also
the Callaghan internships.
There should be no reason why funding rounds can’t have a solid 3 months between announcement
of necessary detail (via RfPs) and close off dates for proposals. This should be even longer if the
funding round is open over the Xmas/Summer period. And end of financial year and other pressure
times for organisations should be taken into account also.
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science
that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are
under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
As per above, hard to comment. It might be easier to do so if I was privy to outcomes of the
investments (page 52 of the Statement document is interesting in this regard – re PGP projects’
projected value-adds…it will be interesting to see what these are finally estimated as, once projects
are complete and value-add has occurred).
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
If so, how?
3
I am observing both MBIE and Callaghan Innovation to be currently not well organised, last minute
and struggling to provide adequate information in response to enquiry. One example – calling
MBIE’s contact number proposed for Vision Matauranga funding and being told that they have no
idea what I am talking about. Calling MBIE one week in April to ask if there is a VM funding round in
2014, being advised ‘there will be, but no idea when, and no information yet’, when the very next
week, the Request for RfPs went public.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
I’ve had the recent experience of a proposal for Callaghan funding for a private company (for
Fellowship) seemed to get caught up in some commandeering of business for Callaghan
researchers…. Quite a questionable process in this instance. So, should a public research institution
also be the broker of funding for the wider research sector? And can they realistically separate their
interests in light of this ‘dual role’?
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
‘Estimated benefits’ (e.g. as per PGP Programmes, and also as per individual applications for funds in
Callaghan applications particularly) are what funding allocations are based on. These tend to be
based on real business activities/expected returns. Seeing how these stack up, in the final analysis,
and in relation to funded research projects, will help tell the story that needs to be told.
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure
those problems are being addressed?
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
Perhaps too many. It is certainly a bit confusing to see the National Science Challenges sit alongside
the Science Funding Round, and especially where there appears to be some overlap, and also a
general push across the funding landscape for collaboration. From what I am seeing also, sometimes
4
‘over-investment in collaborating’ at the expense of being able to ‘get on with’ actual research might
be a bit of a waste of time and precious resource.
I’ve also seen a recent example of ‘publicly funded research for a sector’ not adequately reaching
the industry it concerns, and then almost getting in the way of a private company making headway
in its own R&D efforts, designed at increasing its export revenues/growth. This is counter to the
intent I am sure!
I’ve also seen the university grappling with balancing ‘PBRF-related effort’ at the expense of finding
time/resource for contributing, where it might be useful to, to Callaghan-funded company-related
R&D. Providing ‘real and obvious’ mechanisms for universities to achieve university ranking
objectives via their contributing to NZ’s private sector R&D efforts would be welcomed.
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
5
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
YES, YES, and YES
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
I would not seek to restrict, but instead to keep things fairly ‘open’ so that opportunity can be
embraced. The ‘next big thing’ is not necessarily predictable. Sometimes it’s a small innovation on a
very pedestrian, accepted technology (witness a winner of international innovation in recent years,
which was a tweak on a hair curling? product – led to massive export earnings increase).
Niche manufacturing, and from some currently very small enterprises, is currently at risk of not
being well served by the policy/process that accompanies some of the funding streams, however it is
6
in this area that often great future opportunity and export revenue value and growth lies. 42
Below’s story is a classic example of this.
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
7
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs
into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI
objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds
are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
-
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that
we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
-
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
-
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
-
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
Your feedback on these matters might address the following questions:
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f. The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
8
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
26. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might
they be overcome?
9
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s
sector specific research funds?
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. We value your contribution.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
May 2014
10
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
Professor James Metson,
Deputy Dean Science
UniServices House
70 Symonds Street
Auckland 1010, New Zealand
Private Bag 92019,
Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Tel: 64 9 923 3877
Fax: 64 9 367 7111
Re: Response to the Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
General comments:
This is an excellent document in laying out in a clear and concise manner the structure of the
Government part of the New Zealand science funding system. It does not seek to be a strategic plan,
but signals possibility and invites critical comment on future direction. This is a very welcome
invitation.
It is particularly encouraging to see key priorities identified which map out a direction of increased
commitment to future need and building the resource base that enables these needs to be addressed.
With the notable exception of the National Science Challenges, the current New Zealand science
system, both in the nature of the provider institutions and the make-up of the funding mechanisms, is
largely reflective of its historical origins rather than alignment with New Zealand’s future needs.
In terms of balance of funding streams, there is a substantial opportunity to rethink how resources are
allocated across output areas. Within these streams there appears to be a historically based
overemphasis on particular sectors and the near absence of emerging areas of importance such as ICT
across the major providers and funding tools. This allocation of contestable funding into highly
prescribed portfolios also constrains the ability of the system to both take new direction and to
reward quality. In my view there is also a disproportionate emphasis on the right hand (industry and
mission led) side of the funding diagram (page 14); the equivalent of putting a very large bucket to
catch the flow through a very small funnel. If there is insufficient “churn” and generation of good
science and capability at the investigator and mission level, then capturing the benefit from flow
through the system has limited impact.
Despite the very positive identification of a target spend (as a % of GDP) in the document, the
constraint of available funding, at least through the public sector, is never absolute. Countries chose
their direction and align their funding capacity and priorities accordingly. A more knowledge based
economy requires strategy and investment commensurate with that ambition. A more critical way of
looking at this is the appetite for changing national direction in this area and in the New Zealand case
especially, finding the levers from public expenditure which build, rather than substitute for, private
sector investment in R&D.
Specific Suggestions:

There is a significant human curiosity driven element to a strong science system. The bullet
points at the top of Page 11 need to acknowledge also the pursuit of knowledge and our
curiosity of how the world works. This is particularly critical to attracting talent and thus
building capability, international connection and profile.

The span of what a science system seeks to achieve needs to match the size of the investment.
It is both inefficient and dilutes effort to sustain the number of funding instruments we
currently use within a government expenditure of 0.56% of GDP (even if this were pushed up
to 0.8%). The diagram on page 14 suggests we are also far better at creating new instruments
than we are at terminating initiatives which are not effective or efficient to deliver. Slimming
down the range of funding streams on page 14 is thus critical to a more effective and efficient
system.

This slimming down needs to significantly grow the mission led contestable funding pool,
while maintaining a balanced pipeline of funding across the span of investigator to industry
led science. Contest is important for several reasons – it is a critical element in quality control
and allows new entrants and new directions in research. It is notable that despite for example
the mandating of contestable funding within the National Science Challenges, the central pool
of contestable funding open to the rest of the science system has been significantly eroded to
support initiatives such as CRI core funding and the NSCs.

There is a clear continuum between the CoREs and the NSCs. While the former tend to focus
on investigator led science and the latter to mission led, there is a continuum between the
two. This argues for an alignment of structure and funding which prevents the “falling
through the gaps” of Centres which are of high strategic importance, do not meet the criteria
for a CoRE and only partially overlap with NSCs. The argument for a common box across the
diagram appears to be compelling. This includes simplifying Governance structures which
currently risk unnecessary duplication across these vehicles.

Placing the PBRF within the span of research funding on page 14 miss-states its purpose. A
fund to support a research led teaching environment across tertiary institutions is at best only
a fractional contribution to research support in science and innovation. Scholars of English
and Fine Arts might be justifiably concerned at this apparent capture. This also belies the
tertiary education based origins of this funding when the PBRF was created.

While there is a very reasonable emphasis on evaluation frameworks and “impact”, the art
will be to accurately assess this without a disproportionate overhead being imposed on the
system. We need to learn from best practice in other jurisdictions.

The current assessment processes are logistically unsustainable and have variable outcomes.
The number of panels and referees involved, all working to different criteria, presents these
assessors and MBIE with a near impossible task. For example the differentiation of enabling
technologies and targeted research is artificial and unnecessary. Simplification of funding
streams would help, but adopting a common and robust assessment process is equally
important. The first and most critical criterion is science quality, as downstream factors such
as path to market, are irrelevant if the science and capability to deliver are not sound.
Replacing the scattergun peer reviews with a common panel of external expertise which looks
across all funds is one option to address at least this initial threshold problem.

Any move to the right on the chart of the current shape of the funding system implies there is
privileged knowledge we can call upon to determine where the best impact of science will lie.
In practice no other country has demonstrated such an ability to pick winners.
Notwithstanding the highly non-linear path between discovery and application, international
experience does however suggest that a lot of activity on the left and middle of the diagram is
needed to enable the maximum chance of capturing outcomes and impact on the right hand
side (the funnel and bucket analogy). A more relevant question is whether there are enduring
themes of national (and often international), importance - which the NSCs will address in part
– where ongoing investment is required. Water is a key example of an area where many
facets of science intersect, while national effort is scattered and relatively ineffective.

How do we address the skills market? Current initiatives (Page 68) are both narrow and top
end (Rutherford Fellowships). While the Science and Society project seeks to promote and
build capability in the STEM disciplines more widely, a pipeline of more capable people is only
useful if we can rebalance the table on page 24 to dramatically increase science based
research and development roles both within our tertiary institutions and especially within
industry. The key question is how do we double the number of science jobs in industry?

Recent experiences highlight the difficulties associated with New Zealand capture of the
benefits from direct public funding of business R&D. In most developed innovation
economies, the universities and research institutes are the anchors which hold companies, but
we appear to lack both the structures around our institutions (with the possible exception of
Auckland UniServices Ltd.) and companies of the critical mass to sustain this. Also, the vehicles
we use to support research in companies need to be revisited. The use of loans, as opposed to
unconstrained grants, needs to be urgently instigated to provide some prospect of recovery,
particularly should the company, for example, move offshore. The tools of incentivisation are
critical. It is important that government funding encourages, but does not substitute for,
industries own expenditure on research. The PGP scheme for example is marginal research
expenditure at best and largely captured by the mature sectors which should already have
their own house in order.

Internationalisation. We need a strategy in this area, as it is critical that the science we do is
internationally competitive, well connected and maximises impact. The current investments
in international linkages appear scattered and defocussed. There is currently no follow-on
mechanism for the exploratory exchanges funded through internationalisation initiatives
because the political imperatives which drive internationalisation frequently lack alignment
with the contestable system. The budget either needs to double and be used differently, or
much of this activity discontinued and folded into other funding mechanisms. While we need
to be more aggressive and engaged in membership of international initiatives and
partnerships, most of this belongs within the current contestable system (and for example the
NSCs).

Research infrastructure. The NSSI recognises the importance of large scale science
infrastructure in enabling and delivering competitive science and updates the Governments
strategy in this area. It is recognised that the fully funded research environment in which we
operate has significant limitations in addressing problems in the collective acquisition and
operation of such national infrastructure. There are still significant questions over the
practical implementation of this framework and ensuring collaborative and timely action can
be taken in a robust selection process, and then maintaining, fully utilising and further
developing key infrastructure.
In utilisation there are numerous international models to draw upon where a contestable,
quality driven access regime is used to allocate time to users. This requires a collective model
to underpin operational funding recognising that the scale of such facilities precludes a
devolved, user based, fully costed approach. The only inherent value in such infrastructure
lies in the science generated, thus it is key that access arrangements set as low a threshold as
is possible to maximise quality use of these facilities without distortion of operational cost
across the wider science system.
Follow-on from responses:
In considering how to respond to feedback on the NSSI, an overarching issue is the short term capacity
of the system to handle any major restructuring. There is a strong sense of continually moving
goalposts and a wish to be able to stabilise the system with relatively minor tweaks to the current
structure and directions. This is particularly evidenced by the tension at the interface of the NSCs and
CRI core funding. It also impacts more widely on the capacity of providers to retain nationally
important capability, which core funding only partly addresses, while retaining the nimbleness to
move into emerging areas of activity.
The last year in particular has seen a very large sunk cost at institutional level in preparing CoRE and
NSC bids which we cannot afford to repeat in the near future. However I believe there are
opportunities to address a significant simplification and enhancement of our current structure and
priorities.
James Metson
Professor of Chemistry and Deputy Dean
Draft National Statement of Science Investment - Consultation Feedback
From: New Zealand Business Research Deans, NZBRD1
Date: 20 August 2014
As leaders of the New Zealand Business and Economics research community, we appreciate this
opportunity to provide some feedback as part of this consultation on the Draft National Statement of
Science Investment.
Overall Science Investment Outlook
1. National Science System?
The Draft Statement provides a detailed overview of the current New Zealand science and
innovation investments (shown in Chart 1) and the main objectives for the government’s
investment in science. Yet there is no clearly articulated description of the New Zealand
Science system showing all of the key players and stakeholders, and no connection to a higherlevel strategy for New Zealand (such as national strategic goals) or to performance outcomes
(metrics). To be able to assess recommendations for changes in the investment portfolios, it
is important to develop these types of over-riding reference points.
2. Definition of Innovation
We strongly support the government’s focus on science and innovation as important drivers
of improvements in economic growth, productivity, competitiveness, employment and social
wellbeing. However, the definition of innovation which underpins the New Zealand RS&T
research agenda and investments (even in the Business R&D portfolios) appears to be much
narrower than the OCED Oslo Manual standards. We recommend revising this definition so
that, for example, research on innovation and commercialisation of inventions in New Zealand
firms can be included within the mix of funded projects. Such research is vitally important
given UK research shows only 1 in 8 inventions achieve successful commercialisation.
3. Research Infrastructure Clarification
It is not clear what is included in the $30.2M of ‘Infrastructure’ administered by MBIE. For
example, does this capture the research conducted within the various government ministries,
departments and agencies e.g. by Treasury, IRD, MFE, MSD, NZTE, TEC, Ministry of Education,
the Productivity Commission and Te Puni Kokiri? Clarifying the scale of research investment
in these organisations would assist to show the levels of support that is currently targeting
specific sectors (such as Education, Maori, exporting) and issues (e.g. Productivity,
Environment).
4. Investigator-led Research
Given the size of the New Zealand science community, the investigator-led contestable
investment appears to be too low with less than 10% of proposals funded each year.
Recommendations from prior reviews of the New Zealand Science System (including the
OECD’s 2007 Review of the NZ Innovation System, the European Commission’s ERAWATCH)
1
NZBRD is a network of the Associate Dean Research or equivalent positions in the New Zealand University
Business Schools
1
have indicated that New Zealand is out of line with other countries and needs to significantly
increase the size of the Marsden Fund. Acknowledged as the premier source of funding for
New Zealand’s top researchers in their fields of expertise, the Marsden Fund is also recognised
as an important factor in attracting and retaining high quality researchers in New Zealand.
Although the PBRF is reported in Chart 1 as providing investigator-led investments, it is not
clear what proportion of the funding from the PBRF is made available for contestable research
funding within tertiary institutions and academic units. However, it is clear that in most of the
smaller institutions these funds still primarily reflect their origin as Vote Education top-ups for
postgraduate teaching and are incorporated into academic budgets to cover academic salaries.
5. Marsden Fund Panel for Economics and Business/Management
Given the government’s commitment to innovation and economic growth, we believe that it
is time to create a separate Marsden panel for Economics and Business/Management.
Economics is currently included in the quantitative Economics and Human and Behavioural
Science (EBH) panel; however, most of the Marsden applications from Business/Management
scholars are considered in the Social Sciences panel. In effect this means that over 90% of the
Business/Management researchers are not able to apply successfully for Marsden Funds as
their research focuses on ‘business’ or ‘commercial’ issues/outcomes, rather than ‘social’
issues/outcomes.
It is important to consider the role of the Business Sciences in New Zealand given their scale
(2nd largest panel in the 2012 PBRF), alignment with the NZ government’s economic growth
agenda, and exclusion from the other funding portfolios in the New Zealand science system.
Although businesses may now receive funding from Callaghan Innovation and Business R&D,
these funds quite specifically target the types of activities that are allowed – research on
business/markets etc. is explicitly excluded.
Establishing a specific Marsden panel for Business and Economics would support excellent
research to benefit New Zealand. Scholars in these disciplines focus on topics which are
directly relevant for managing in a dynamic global environment including innovation
processes and commercialisation, leadership and change, organisational culture, employees
and workplaces, product diversification, consumer behaviour, competitive advantage,
financial markets, supply chains, international trade, regional development, regulatory
frameworks, auditing processes, productivity, sustainability, industry and sector analysis etc.
In 2012, there were 318 scholars in these fields operating as world-class or international levels
(PBRF A & B grades). Internationally, New Zealand is out of line as the national science systems
in the UK, Europe, US and Australia all provide contestable funding for the Business Sciences.
Addressing this anomaly at this time seems important given the national importance of
improving economic growth, competitiveness and employment.
6. Industry Co-investment in Research & Development
While we concur with the Draft Statement’s acknowledgement that New Zealand has a
challenge to increase business expenditure on R&D (BERD), we note that small firm size and
our industry structure are critical to this challenge. In addition, the New Zealand definitions
of R&D and innovation act to restrict the types of investment that can be provided to assist
with economic growth and also what is able to be counted in the R&D statistics. There are
significant OECD programmes which adopt a broader framework and enable support for
2
innovation and growth in higher proportions of ‘mainstream’ small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs).
General Feedback on the Direction
7. Callaghan Innovation
At our June 2014 NZBRD Forum on Business Sciences in New Zealand, we began an excellent
discussion with one of the senior staff at Callaghan Innovation. It seems that most of the
expertise within the New Zealand Business Schools is not currently utilised within the New
Zealand science and innovation system. While there are many different reasons for this
situation (linked to history, definitions, incentives etc.), there is a strong will for our sector of
the tertiary system to contribute to the New Zealand science and innovation system. This
expertise is an overlooked resource which can be utilised at multiple levels e.g. to assist with
commercialisation of R&D, to examine innovation processes, competitiveness, and the factors
impacting on growth of New Zealand companies. In addition, we can potentially provide
insight/expertise on business and economics to staff at MBIE and Callaghan Innovation.
8. National Science Challenges
Evaluation of the investments in the National Science Challenges will be very important given
the size of the investment in these new longer-term projects. As concerns have been raised
over the processes for inviting participants to the conversations that shaped these Challenges,
it will be important to provide transparency on the progress and performance of the funded
projects. It terms of equity, these investments in collaborative research programmes also
need to be fully contestable.
Structure of Sector-Specific Research Funds
9. Contestable Sector-Specific Research
While we note the signal for changes to simplify the remaining sector-specific portfolios and
funding mechanisms (from the prior MoRST/FRST investment programmes), we believe it is
important to retain this level of funding for contestable and mission-led investments which
are accessible across the full spectrum of researchers and research organisations. We
recognise that changes to the allocations across these 6 sector-specific funds will have an
impact on the capabilities of the research institutions that are currently benefitting by
receiving funds from these portfolios. However, it is timely to review the impact of the prior
investments in these sector portfolios and to consider the industries/sectors where New
Zealand research investment will make a difference in future. Reducing the complexity of the
funding mechanisms seems appropriate at this time.
10. Investing in Business Science and Social Science Research
The Draft Statement appears to assume that increasing scientific knowledge by government
funded investment in the natural and physical sciences will increase economic and social
benefits to New Zealand. We take a broader view as we understand that ‘invention’ is only
the first stage in new product development and commercialisation processes. As taking new
innovations to market successfully requires a series of specific business processes, it is
important to invest in research on these business processes in New Zealand companies to
understand the drivers of successful growth.
3
We agree with the statement on page 10: “Science and innovation have crucial roles in
achieving high-quality economic, social and environmental outcomes for New Zealand. New
Zealand’s economic and social wellbeing depends on the productivity and competitiveness of
our economy and the knowledge we have to make informed decisions as a society.”
As discussed above, increasing scientific knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve
these outcomes for New Zealand. To realise the economic and social benefits of scientific
research it will be necessary to also engage the business and social science researchers. As
social, economic, cultural, institutional and other contextual factors are specific to New
Zealand, it is important to invest in research to understand the New Zealand context.
Examples of these contextual factors include: the economy, product markets, global supply
and distribution chains, regulatory environment, labour market conditions, social and cultural
systems and mores, workplace and consumer behaviours. We recommend that these areas,
which are the focus of the expertise in our New Zealand Business Schools and Social Science
faculties, be included in the revised Sector Specific investment portfolios in order to increase
the effective implementation of scientific research knowledge and inventions.
Please feel free to contact us for further details on any of the matters raised in this submission.
Professor Delwyn N. Clark
Chair, New Zealand Business Research Deans
Associate Dean Research, Waikato Management School
University of Waikato
Professor Adrian Sawyer
Research Director & Committee Chair, Faculty of Business and Law
University of Canterbury
Associate Professor Holger Regenbrecht
Associate Dean Research, Division of Commerce
University of Otago
Professor Trish Corner
Associate Dean Research (Acting), AUT Business School
AUT University
4
Associate Professor Jane Bryson
Associate Dean Research, Victoria Business School
Victoria University of Wellington
Associate Professor David Cohen
Chair, Postgraduate Committee, Faculty of Commerce
Lincoln University
Professor Kambiz Maani
Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor Research, College of Business
Massey University
5
036 – Wendy Nelson
22 August
Submission provided via email.
Submission on Draft National Statement of Science Investment
The development of a National Statement of Science Investment is an important and much
needed development. The research and science sector has undergone many changes over the
past 10-15 years. The analysis of the current landscape, and consideration of future pathways
to improve investment and science outcomes are very important steps.
I have a few specific comments on particular elements of the draft NSSI in addition to some
very general comments on the science system as a whole.
Collections and Databases
1. The Draft Statement makes minimal reference to the CRI collections and databases which are
critical infrastructure for a number of research programmes. The funding for many of these
databases and collections within CRIs is at critically low levels.
There is also no reference made to the other collection holding institutions across NZ. Natural
history & geology collections in New Zealand are funded by CRI core funding, Ministry of
Culture and Heritage (e.g. Te Papa), local body rate payers (e.g. Auckland Museum, Otago
Museum), universities, government departments (e.g. MPI). The issues around funding (for
development, maintenance and long term care) for natural history collections, and their critical
role as science infrastructure, have been identified for a long time but have never been
addressed.
2. The Draft Statement overlooked the Museum sector in New Zealand – its contribution to
research and science, and to science literacy/education and engagement, as well as the
collections and databases museums hold. In particular, museums are home to a range of
unique collections of natural history specimens. They are the only place where NZ’s marine
mammals, birds, fish are housed – and they also hold very significant and nationally important
collections that are not part of the designated “Nationally Significant Collections and
Databases” housed in CRIs. In addition the larger museums operate small but significant
research programmes (e.g. are/have been home to Rutherford fellowships and Marsden
research programmes as well as providing critical science to CRI programmes) for natural
history, geology, Maori, archeology, ethnology.
Museums and their collections need to be recognised as being essential to the science system,
including providing reference and voucher material for biological sciences, and the biological
economy, and a key resource for biosecurity. The collections and associated databases need to
have secure and long term funding to enable appropriate maintenance, and to ensure
accessibility of the material and associated data.
Constraints on funding and vulnerability resulting from managerial changes within museums
have been placing the collections and databases and the associated research increasingly at risk
over the past decade (e.g. impact of former Director of Auckland Museum on staff, collections
and resourcing; former CE of Te Papa announcing plan to move all natural history collections
from Wellington into storage in Auckland).
The concept of a distributed network of natural history collections (i.e. collections held in
different institutions across the country) is very important, and recognised as highly
advantageous, both spreading risk (e.g. from fire, natural disasters, etc.) as well as improving
accessibility of material for research workers, agencies and individuals wanting reference
environmental/biodiversity specimens.
I would like to recommend that the National Statement of Science Investment
1. recognises the role of the Museum sector in science and research, and science education
2. addresses the need for a coordinated approach to the natural history collections and
databases in New Zealand, not just those housed in CRIs, and develops a plan for the support
of this critical science infrastructure. Ideally this would be associated with the development of
a national strategy on biosystematics.
Strategic Overview
One important gap in the current science scene is a strategic overview that identifies NZ’s
research and technology requirements, and that reflects the insights of the science and
technology communities, government policy and agencies, and the wider community including
iwi, private sector and user groups.
The frequency of changes made to the science funding system over the past decade or so
(platforms, OBIs, Core funding, NSC) gives little confidence to the wider science community –
there is fatigue and uncertainty about future directions.
Strategic planning for the science sector and and consequent signals about planned changes to
priorities and funding need to be made in such a way as to enable the affected sectors to phase
in and out of research areas and to respond to signals, avoiding the policy direction lurches that
have happened over the past decade or so. A strategy that is refreshed every 3-5 years would
provide much clearer direction and messages for the science and technology communities and
also their communities of interest/people applying research findings.
Career Development and Stability
Career stability and career development, particularly for young and mid-career scientists, are
critical for the future of the science system in New Zealand. Investing in talent and providing an
environment in which talent can be developed and retained should be key targets – and one of
the key issues concerns support for post-docs.
Orientation of Research
Whilst business innovation and economic growth are very important to NZ’s future, these areas
of focus should not crowd out research directed on the environment and society and
particularly issues that are specific to New Zealand and that will not be tackled elsewhere –
research that cannot be purchased or adapted from international research.
The economic and applied focus has been very strong within recent years. There has also been
a strong trend towards projects that are close to being applied by specific sectors, and there
has been much less attention or support for underpinning or basic research. In my view there is
a risk in this current emphasis and a need for rebalancing the portfolios.
One of the proposed objectives of the Government’s science investment is “ensuring value by
focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the benefit of New Zealand” –
it is critical that the term “relevant” in this statement is not considered to only apply to
research that is low risk and close to being taken up by particular sectors – and that “benefit” is
not defined solely in terms of economic outcomes.
Competition/ Collaboration
Given the size of the science system in NZ, competitive pressures have in some instances
resulted in poor outcomes and prevented colleagues working in the same field but for different
institutions being able to combine forces to develop best team approaches.
In addition, the use of competitive funding tools when the research community within a specific
area is very small is also an inefficient way of obtaining targeted research. There is no true
competition occurring. Either direct contracting or some other mechanism may be more
effective in such cases – and it may be that there are useful lessons gained from the NSC
experiences to help develop new approaches.
The shift to greater collaboration (e.g. within NSCs) is seen by most in the community as a
beneficial development – and preferable to the sand pit approach.
In most areas of science NZ workers benefit from their links with colleagues in other parts of
the world and in many cases these links are critical to the advancement of their science.
Fostering links and assisting international collaborations are very worthwhile. It is good to see
this identified as one of the key objectives for science investment.
Contestable funding
It is not yet clear how the contestable rounds within the NSC will function – nor how the
contestable funds that sit outside the NSC will be aligned.
Given that a significant proportion of NZ science sits outside the NSCs, and in addition, that the
science within the NSCs is highly mission-led/focused, there will need to be some careful
consideration of the balance between mission-led science and investigator-led science outside
the NSCs.
RfPs – in recent rounds there has been a very high degree of specificity associated with the
research questions in the RfPs. This reflects the intention to direct research dollars to the areas
that end-users have identified as key priorities - and the specificity appears to have been
accentuated by the limited funding that is available in particular portfolios in particular years.
However, the downside to this specificity is that science-led solutions or approaches to
nationally significant issues are not being given the opportunity to be developed and flourish.
The narrow focus of the questions may serve to exclude research teams with the potential to
approach particular topics from novel directions.
Wendy Nelson
Draft National Statement of Science Investment
Submission from the University of Otago
22 August 2014
Executive Summary
This submission addresses the following key areas:
1. A response to the Priorities for Action;
2. Feedback on Section 1 – Introduction & Overview;
3. Feedback on future directions outlined in Section2 — The Current Science Investment
System;
4. Comments on health research
5. A comment on the proposed science system evaluation indicators
Introduction
The University of Otago (Otago) acknowledges the work that MBIE has undertaken in
developing this draft document. It offers a very clear and useful stocktake of New Zealand’s
current RS&T funding landscape. We are pleased that it has taken a 10 year implementation
framework, even if forward year funding cannot be specified at this point. Otago is also
pleased to see the explicit re-statement of the government’s goal to lift investment towards
0.8% of GDP from the current 0.56%, and views this as critical in achieving the NSSI
ambitions and the goals of the Government’s wider Business Growth Agenda. As an
investment in NZ’s innovative and competitive potential, we note that it is critical that new
appropriations for Vote S&I investment be prioritised, even in fiscally tight times.
From an allocation perspective we believe that it makes sense to identify broad areas for
priority funding, although we have specific comments about these priorities in the sections
that follow.
Otago appreciated the opportunity to attend workshops with MBIE to discuss the document
in more depth. We look forward to working with you further to finalise the document and in
the design and implementation of system changes that may result.
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
1
1.
Priorities for Action
The Draft NSSI outlines seven key priorities for action of the next five to ten years for the
Government’s science investments.
a) We fully endorse the first priority: ‘Producing excellent [research] of the highest quality’.
Excellence in RS&T matters regardless of whether it is investigator- , mission- or
industry-led and that all investment instruments should reflect this priority at the heart
of their assessment criteria.
b) We applaud Priority 3: “Commitment to increase investment over time” and
recommend it be elevated to Priority 2 to reflect its importance in making any
meaningful progress in any of the other priorities listed.
c) We suggest combining Priorities 2 and 4 to focus on RS&T that offers the greatest
potential benefits to New Zealand, with factors such as relevance, growth potential and
future need as key criteria. This approach would avoid the perception of pre-ordaining
which sectors have the most potential (‘picking-winners’).
d) We suggest Priority 5 be recast as a statement about increasing the commitment of
industry to RS&T, rather than scale of investment. Scale will come once commitment to
RS&T has been a more embedded culture within industry. Over the last 5 years there
have been significant increases in government funding to industry-driven research, and
the establishment of Callaghan Innovation. These changes need to be given the chance
to ‘bed-in’ so that their effectiveness in lifting the private sector’s RS&T expenditure can
be assessed.
e) Also related to Priority 5, we note that the majority of the MBIE contestable funds
currently require a very strong element of industry involvement. The Vote S&I
investment portfolio needs to be counterbalanced to support research that requires a
longer timeframe and scope that is beyond that of immediate relevance to industry.
f) We support Priorities 6-7 as currently worded.
2.
Feedback on Section 1 – Introduction & Overview
Specific comments on aspects of the NSSI are as follows:
a) The document should make clear that ‘science’ refers to the spectrum of research,
science and technology (RS&T) including research in social sciences, business, creative
arts, creative industries and humanities disciplines.
b) The document should broaden its focus so that ‘benefit’ to NZ incorporates
environmental, social and health & wellbeing improvements and risk mitigation, not
simply economic gain. For example, Otago research has led to the reduction of
incidences of campylobacter saving many hundreds of people from illness and several
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
2
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
millions in hospital costs. RS&T of this type needs to be recognised in a more balanced
fashioned across the document.
We are cautious about using the impact measure on p. 27 of “top 10%” citations. We are
not convinced that this the best or only measure due to the reality that important
‘national and regionally-focused’ research is unlikely to be as highly cited as similarly
focused research in larger regional economies such as Europe or the USA.
At least for the university sector, research impact might be better evidenced from the
ongoing tracking of PBRF, with the Ministry of Education in its Impact of PBRF paper
(Min Ed, 2013, Fig. 17). This shows that NZ universities share of world publications and
citations is on a very positive trajectory, which may be a better metric to use for
research output, impact and quality than the “top 10%” metric proposed in the NSSI.
These measures (share of world publications and citations) could be used across the CRIs
and other research providers with minimal additional cost.
Exchange of knowledge between researchers and end-users is criticized in the NSSI
(page 25), however, the small size of the NZ business-based R&D workforce relative to
comparator nations (Chart 7, p. 24) reflects the reality of the challenge that there is very
little capability within business for the RS&T provider community to connect and
exchange knowledge with. This illustrates a critical need to first build the R&D
absorptive capacity of the business community (see comments later) and in particular
within the predominance of SMEs and micro-businesses 1. This challenge is compounded
by NZ’s industrial structure, comprising predominantly of low R&D sectors. 2
The contribution of the university sector in supplying increasing quality and quantity of
business- and end user-ready researchers, as evidenced in the Impact of PBRF paper will
allow this imbalance to be addressed provided the system supports transition pathways
from higher degrees into industry and end-user agencies for early-career researchers.
CRI core funding enables the long-term retention of capability by removing funding from
contest. Similarly, the university sector has nationally important research activities that
would benefit from stable, long-term funding through an equivalent funding model. For
example, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study 3 is an
internationally recognised taonga in its fifth decade that has influenced or helped
inform policy makers in New Zealand and overseas. Similarly there are nationally
significant and inherently long-run environmental and geological research programmes
that generate critical data for endusers and policy makers, that cannot make long term
investment decisions within a contestable framework.
1
New Zealand is unusual internationally in that 50% of the total business R&D in New Zealand is accounted for
by firms of less than 50 employees, compared to Australia where it is 25%, the US where it is 10%, and Sweden
where it is 5% (McCann, 2009)
2
Schmidt-Ehmcke & Zloczysti, 2011, pp. 2-3
3
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
3
3.
Feedback on future directions (Section2 — The Current Science
Investment System)
Otago has generally supported the recent changes to the research system, including the
establishment of CRI core funding, boosting business-led R&D investment and an increase in
‘mission-led’ R&D - both through National Science Challenges and the evolution of the
Health Research Council (HRC), becoming more clinically and health-services oriented.
There is now, however, a shortfall at the investigator-led end of the spectrum, which is
highlighted in Chart 1 on p. 14. Rebalancing the system with new investment into this end
of the spectrum is critical if future mission- or industry-led initiatives are to succeed.
Otago is very concerned that their appears to be a strongly held perception within MBIE
that investigator-led research is somehow inconsistent with delivering tangible outcomes or
is otherwise ‘indulgent’. Investigator-led research is critical to achieving Mission, industry,
government and societal goals. It provides the critical feedstock of step-wise insight and
capability required to keep NZ at the international forefront of innovation and policy
making, and in many cases leads to direct and tangible outcomes in its own right. A good
example is the significant investment into fundamental genetic discovery through vehicles
such as CoREs and Marsden. Such investment into ‘basic’ investigator-led research has
enabled the very same researchers to provide answers to the kiwifruit industry on the
origins of PSA and to developing genetic techniques to breed varroa-resistant bees.
In terms of options for future directions Otago views the key priorities as follows:
A. Rebalancing the Investigator-led investment portfolio
i.
ii.
While PBRF has a very strong capability-development element to it, this leaves Marsden,
HRC , Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund and workforce-development schemes (such
as Rutherford Discovery Fellowships and early career support generally) as being
underweighted in terms of the overall percentage of Government investment. With
Marsden success rates consistently below 7-8%, and no significant increases to HRC, and
the Vision Mātauranga Capability Funds in the last 5 years, we would argue that there is
a strong case to significantly boost this part of the funding system, alongside the MBIE
contestable pool, as part of the reform of the contestable funding pools.
We also argue that new HRC funding is justified given the light funding for health
research relative to other sectors (Chart 5, page 22) and very light government
investment in health research relative to university investment (Chart 6, page 22). We
also note that significant HRC funding will now be aligned to National Science Challenges
(approx. $20million p.a.), which while increasing the mission-connected nature of this
investment, comes at the expense of a diminished pipeline of capability and relevant
discipline-driven research. We expand on this in Section 4 below.
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
4
iii.
iv.
We consider that a similar case can be made for new Marsden funding given the recent
changes to the Marsden terms of reference that explicitly emphasise the fund’s role in
supporting research with long-term value to New Zealand – hence its importance to the
‘pipeline’ of research. Having such a high quantum of demonstrably excellent and high
quality research not able to be funded seems contrary to the document’s for most
priority of supporting ‘excellent [research] of the highest quality’.
An increase investment into the MBIE contestable pool is also warranted to compensate
for that which has been migrated into the National Science Challenge framework and
(previously) CRI core funding. Keeping a vibrant stream of new ideas and capability into
these funds will be vital to sustain the sectors and stakeholders that they support.
The above would provide for a more balanced portfolio of science and research investment.
This will enable a true knowledge, innovation and capability pipeline that can deliver these
benefits, in the short, medium and long-term, and to stakeholders across the spectrum of
the economy, environment and society. It will also critically increase the research talent
pool available for exchange between the investigator-led investments and mission- and
industry-led investments.
B. Sustainable & Strategic RS&T Workforce Development .
It is critical more focus and support is provided for early career researchers. These are the
enduring ‘agents’ that exchange knowledge and expertise across discipline boundaries and
from academic into CRI, industry or policy sectors. This support is particularly important at
a time when the aging of our research workforce is an issue to ensure succession planning
for leaders of key research programmes throughout the science system.
A mechanism is also required that can support early career researchers and link them into
the wider RS&T system. There would be significant opportunities to expand the likes of
Smart Ideas scheme to support talented early career researchers (e.g. postdocs) focused on
innovative projects, and have these working alongside larger teams.
C. Building End-user RS&T Commitment and Capacity.
Universities play a key role in delivering career pathways to meet changing economic needs
and in actively fostering a culture of enterprise to build the pool of technology
entrepreneurs. However, to rapidly lift NZ industries RS&T commitment, additional
mechanisms are required to encourage the transfer and embedding of highly trained RS&T
personnel into industry and end-user organisations.
We believe greater efforts should be placed in building the technological absorptive capacity
and RS&T culture of the private and government sectors. This capacity needs to extend
beyond just the new technology incubator initiatives, and start to genuinely engage the NZ
SME sector. We see huge potential for harnessing the potential of NZ’s ‘postgraduate army’
as a means of transferring and building this capability and culture in an enduring fashion.
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
5
This will necessitate a redesign of the likes of the Callaghan Innovation R&D Student
Fellowships to make them more agile (e.g. via devolving a proportion to universities to
award directly) and attractive for the best students and innovative companies. We also see
merit in having a mechanism that would enable mid- and senior-career researchers’ mobility
to allow temporary transfer between research organisations, industry and policy sectors.
4. Comments on Health Research
The University of Otago is one of the two major providers of health research in New
Zealand. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to make specific comments about this part of the
research investment portfolio, in terms of the quantum of the investment, the opportunities
for contribution to New Zealand’s future, and the balance between applied research,
investigator-initiated research and capability development through this investment.
a) Quantum of health research investment. The NSSI describes the relative investment in
Heath research in Chart 5 (p. 23), with this representing 8.70% of the total government
investment. Relative to other economies this is unusually small with, for example, the
US investment in health R&D through the national Institutes of Health being set at
US$31.1bn or 44% of non-defense R&D (23% to total federal R&D expenditure)4. When
coupled with the low level of overall government investment in research in New Zealand
relative to comparator countries (Chart 3, p. 20) this makes a clear case for targeted and
rapid growth in health research investment in New Zealand as part of the drive to boost
government funding to 0.8% of GDP.
b) Contribution to New Zealand from Health Research. Our health research expenditure is
unusual compared to the other major investment areas (Chart 6, p. 22) in that the
majority of the expenditure is through the higher education sector. This may naturally
lead to interpretation that this expenditure targets basic research rather than
translational research and capability development over direct engagement with end
users. This is not the case, and there is ample evidence that our university-based health
research has played and will continue to play a leading role in the development and
improvement of treatments and service delivery to New Zealand’s public and private
health providers—the strong and embedded relationships between our major health
research universities and providers is key to this. Allied this is the role that a vibrant,
visible and well-funded health research system has to play in recruitment and retention
of our medical workforce—with the increasing emphasis on clinically-linked research we
risk losing our best practitioners and clinicians if health research is not well supported.
c) Future Benefit to New Zealand. Health research also has great and largely unrealized
potential to directly contribute to the Government’s Business Growth Agenda through
the development of commercially valuable IP and health technologies that could
4
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
6
underpin the growth of New Zealand’s high-value manufacturing and services sector.
Strengthening this relationship are a number of active and nascent inter-institutional
consortia focused on delivery of new science in this area, including the Consortium for
Medical Device Technologies 5, two new health-related Centres of Research Excellence 6
and five of the 10 National Science Challenges that contain significant health research
and technology-development goals. 7
d) Balance of investment in health research. The NSSI investment map (Chart 1, p. 14)
highlights the dearth of direct health research funding, with the majority of targeted
investment being through the Health Research Council (HRC) at $77m per annum, and
absence of investigator-led contestable funding in health. This leaves New Zealand
dangerously exposed to the loss of talent and knowledge by not having a strong base
and pipeline of investigator-led research underpinning and feeding in to the system.
New HRC investment should therefore foster investigator-led inquiry, guided and
informed by the overall long-term needs of New Zealand, and should span the range of
disciplines from basic biomedical sciences to underpinning knowledge in public health
and health economics.
5. Science System Evaluation Indicators
We support the intention that the initial thrust of change that will flow from the NSSI will be
in the contestable funding areas, to produce a stable funding environment with wellconnected and sufficiently resourced instruments spanning investigator-led to industrydriven research. Allied to this change is the desire to develop a more sophisticated
evaluation and monitoring framework for the investments (e.g., Chart 9 and Table on p. 29).
We take these as an initial attempt and recommend engagement with the sector specifically
on these measures to develop a robust set of indicators over time, ensuring that the
indicators themselves are properly evaluated before they start to get used to drive further
chance in investment policy or strategy. Initial engagement with the sector at MBIE-led
workshops in this area has been positive, and we encourage further co-creation of these
important metrics.
5
The Consortium for Medical Device Technologies (CMDT) is NZ’s medical technology network designed to
foster collaboration across industry, research & the clinic. The added-value derives from critical mass, the
capture of synergies and in identifying and leveraging NZ’s niche areas of global strength in medical
technologies. CMDT is a partnership between Callaghan Innovation and 5 Universities (Auckland, Otago,
Canterbury, AUT, VUW).
6
These are, Brain Research New Zealand - Rangahau Roro Aotearoa and Medical Technologies.
7
Ageing Well, A Better Start, Healthier Lives, High Value Nutrition and Science for Technological Innovation
2014 National Statement of Science Investment
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SUBMISSION
7
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
Distinguished Professor Ian R Reid BSc, MBChB, MD, FRACP, FRCP, FRSNZ
Professor of Medicine & Endocrinology, Deputy Dean
Office of the Dean/Administration
Level 1 Building 505
85 Grafton Road, Grafton
Auckland 1142, New Zealand
www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz
22 August 2014
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Feedback on draft National Statement of Science Investment
I present this submission as Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University
of Auckland, and also as in the head of one of the country's most productive research groups, the Bone
and Joint Research Group, at the University.
I applaud the initiative that has been taken to frame a 10-year strategy for government funding of
science. It is agreed that a well-supported and world class research infrastructure is a vital underpinning
to a modern economy. Sometimes this concept is interpreted narrowly in terms of research leading to the
production of specific products. However, the export education sector is now a multibillion dollar industry
for New Zealand and it relies heavily on the international academic reputation of our universities for its
continued prosperity. If our universities continue to decline in the international rankings, then we should
expect that foreign students will go elsewhere to spend their discretionary educational dollar. The
international ranking of our universities is strongly dependent on the quality and impact of their research
publications, and our medical faculties are the strongest contributors to high-ranking international
publications. Therefore, the success of health research groups across the nation is a critical contributor to
the success of our export education industry.
A second commercial sector which is also dependent on our international reputation for quality health
research is the medical tourism industry. While the practitioners involved in delivering healthcare to
overseas patients are not usually the same individuals involved in health research, the former benefit
from the international reputation generated by the latter. There is a substantial capacity for this sector to
grow, but it will remain critically dependent on New Zealand's reputation for excellence in health,
whether it be clinical practice or clinical research.
The third, and largest, sector of our economy which is also fundamentally dependent on our international
reputation for excellence in health research is the public health sector itself. The recruitment and
retention of senior clinical staff within our hospitals and universities is closely linked to the opportunities
afforded to them to undertake world-class research. Our attractiveness in comparison with those
countries with whom we compete for top level clinical staff is critical in this respect. At the present time,
Australia's per capita funding of health research is 3.4 times greater than that of New Zealand, in the
United Kingdom the funding is 4.5 times greater, and in the United States the difference is a factor of 9.7
(detailed analysis appended). This not only adversely affects our ability to recruit staff from overseas, but
is a major obstacle in persuading expatriate New Zealanders to return, and in preventing our existing staff
from leaving. Australian universities and hospitals increasingly offer more attractive research
opportunities than are available here and this is a very major factor in the loss of the very best staff from
our institutions. This problem has become progressively worse because of the decline in the purchasing
power of the Health Research Council over the last decade. During this period, the dollar value of health
1 of 9
research funding has remained static, but the costs of health research have escalated at more than 5%
per annum, so there has been a cut in research capacity of about 50% over this period. This is reflected in
the declining percentage of grant applications funded by the Health Research Council, which is a steadily
mounting problem for our health science faculties with respect to staff retention.
It had been hoped that the health-related National Science Challenges would, to some extent, address the
shortfall in health research funding. It is too early to judge their success, but current indications are that
more than 20% of their modest budgets will be swallowed up in administrative costs and that their net
contribution to research will, as a result, be even more modest. Because there is not an open,
competitive, peer review of the research offered through these Challenges, it is likely that research of a
lower quality than that usually funded by the Health Research Council will be supported, and this is a view
widely held by academics closely involved with the Challenges.
The emergence of the National Science Challenges follows the development of the Centres for Research
Excellence. Both represent a similar change in direction, towards long-term investment in small groups of
investigators, effectively locking up increasing sums of money in a small part of the research community.
In the past, large and successful groups have all become established based on their success in competitive
funding rounds. There seems no good reason to move away from this model, and it should be noted that
the nations which lead the world in the medical research all base their research funding around
investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed, research projects which are funded on the basis of their excellence.
The HRC is closely modelled on the NHMRC in Australia, the NIH in the United States, and the MRC United
Kingdom and those countries show no signs of disinvesting in this funding model. Investigator-initiated
research can easily be targeted to address specific issues via the "request for proposals model", and it
through the direction of research funds into priority areas.
In some areas of scientific endeavour, strong industry partnerships may be appropriate. In health
research, they are potentially problematic since research results are not predictable. If industry-funded
research produces results which are beneficial to the industrial partner, those results will be greeted with
scepticism by the international medical community because of the perception that the funder may have
influenced the apparent outcome. If research funded in this way produces results which are not what the
industry partner would wish, then there are many cases of industry partners attempting to block
publication of those research results. While such actions may be in the commercial interest of the
partner, they are not in the best interests of the health of the broader community. There have been
numerous examples of this type of behaviour with respect to nutritional and pharmaceutical products in
the very recent past, in this country and elsewhere. The only way that the efficacy and safety of such
commercial products can be established, is through meticulous research carried out independently of the
industrial partner. The Health Research Council, or something very much like it, provides the public-good
funding which provides the international scientific community with some assurance that improper
commercial forces have not been brought to bear in the conduct or interpretation of the research. The
support of our flagship research by public-good monies is an important principle to retain if we wish to
ensure the integrity of New Zealand science. If university scientists become merely the technicians of
industry, then the international academic standing of New Zealand universities will be severely adversely
affected.
In conclusion, I would suggest that our national science strategy should adopt the following principles
with respect to health research:
 That the bulk of health research funding should be for investigator-initiated proposals which are
subject to rigorous peer review as part of a competitive funding round. This process should be
coupled with directed funding to priority areas to ensure that expenditure remains relevant to the
nation's greatest health needs.
 That health research funding should be inflation indexed, to avoid the situation which has
obtained over the last decade, in which there has been a progressive erosion of effective funding
levels.
2
2 of 9


That our strategy over the next decade should include measures to close the widening funding
gap between New Zealand and those countries with whom we compete for academic medical
staff (Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States).
That measures be put in place to support early and midcareer researchers. This could be effected
by increased provision of post-doctoral fellowships.
Yours sincerely
Ian Reid
Professor of Medicine & Deputy Dean
3
3 of 9
THE NEW ZEALAND
MEDICAL JOURNAL
Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association
Government funding of health research in New Zealand
Ian R Reid, Peter Joyce, John Fraser, Peter Crampton
Abstract
An analysis of levels of government health research funding carried out in 2008
demonstrated that funding in New Zealand, after adjustment for population size, was
less than one-third of that in Australia, less than one-fifth of that in the United
Kingdom, and about 10% of that in the United States. This was perceived to be a
major obstacle to the recruitment and retention of clinical and academic staff in our
hospitals and universities.
We have now repeated these analyses to determine the current state of these
comparisons. From 2009 to the present funds for direct funding of research through
the Health Research Council (HRC) have remained static at $54m. As a result of
inflation of research costs (principally salaries) this represents a decrease of
approximately one-quarter in the quantum of research funded by the HRC over the
last 4 years.
Current funding rates in the comparator countries, population-adjusted and converted
to NZ$, are 3.4-fold higher in Australia, 4.5-fold higher in the United Kingdom, and
9.7-fold higher in the United States. Urgent and sustained action is needed to correct
these major disparities in government health research funding if the quality of
academic and clinical staff in our public institutions is to be maintained.
Research provides a fundamental under-pinning of medicine, and has transformed
clinical practice over the last 50 years. Maintaining familiarity with the research
literature is an integral part of continuing medical education for all doctors, many
doctors expect to remain research active as part of their clinical duties, and
universities require research activity of their academic staff. As a result, opportunities
to undertake research and its resourcing are key requirements for the staffing of our
hospitals, general practices and medical schools.
Unfortunately, research funding in New Zealand has not always been internationally
competitive. An analysis of levels of government health research funding carried out
in 2008 demonstrated that funding in New Zealand, after adjustment for population
size, was less than one-third of that in Australia, less than one-fifth of that in the
United Kingdom, and about 10% of that in the United States,1,2 a state of affairs that
attracted international editorial comment.3
This is a major challenge to the recruitment and retention of clinical and academic
staff in our hospitals and universities. The global financial crisis has been a major
obstruction to increasing funding levels in New Zealand so, as that ebbs, it is timely to
re-assess funding levels here and in the countries with whom we compete for our
clinical and academic staff.
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
4 of 9
Page 25
©NZMA
Methods
Data describing funding levels of the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the National Health
and Medical Research Council, in Australia, were obtained directly from those organisations. Funding
information relating to the National Institutes of Health (US), Medical Research Council (UK), and
National Institutes of Health Research (UK), was obtained from those organisations websites.
Population data for each country are based on recent census figures, accessed via Google.
Results
HRC funding 2007–2013—Figure 1 demonstrates the levels of funding provided to
the HRC from 2007 to the present. The only significant increase occurred in the first
year of the present government, when total funding of the HRC increased 11.2%,
from $73.96m to $82.28m.
Figure 1. Government funding (from Vote Science) of the Health Research
Council of New Zealand, 2007–2013
Note: The red area represents that portion of funds spent on administration within the HRC.
Of these figures, $3.19m was committed to management costs within the HRC, and
the balance was disbursed as research grants. However, 37% of this research
investment is paid in overheads to maintain research infrastructure within the host
institutions (usually universities or hospitals). Thus, in the 2012-2013 financial year,
only $53.6m was available for direct research support.
The figure demonstrates that the dollar amount available to support research has been
static over the last four financial years which, in the presence of ongoing inflation,
means that the quantum of research able to be supported has been steadily declining.
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
5 of 9
Page 26
©NZMA
HRC figures prior to the capping of project grant budgets demonstrated an annual
inflation of approximately 9%, and this is broadly consistent with data from the
NHMRC which show that the average cost of a project has increased 62% over the
decade to 2012, or 6.2% per annum. Thus, when these inflationary effects are taken
into account, there has been a decrease of approximately one quarter in the quantum
of research funded by the HRC over the last 4 years. This shrinkage in effective
funding levels runs counter to staff numbers in our hospitals and universities over this
period.
The Performance Based Research Fund census of academics in the areas of Medicine
and Public Health, shows an increase in numbers from 523 full-time equivalents in
2006, to 723 in 2012, which is probably a reflection of the progressive expansion of
undergraduate medical student numbers during this period.
As a result of these opposing trends, the success rates in HRC project grant funding
rounds have progressively declined, reaching 7% in 2012. This contrasts with the
situation in Australia, where progressive increases in total funding have maintained
project grant success rates at about 23% between 2000 and 2011.
International comparisons—We have previously highlighted the much lower per
capita funding rates of health research in New Zealand, and have updated those
figures in Table 1. From 2007 to 2012, the NHMRC budget, which does not pay for
institutional overheads, increased 19.6%, increasing the per capita annual investment
in health research in Australia to NZ$41.
Table 1. 2012 funding of national health research bodies: international
comparisons
HRC
New Zealand
NHMRC
Australia
MRC + NHS
United Kingdom
NIH
United States
Funding per annum
NZ$ 53.6m*
Au$ 761m*
£1852m*
US$ 30.9b
Funding per capita
NZ$ 12.0*
NZ$ 41.0*
NZ$ 54.3*
NZ$ 115.7
*Excluding overheads.
In the United Kingdom, the government research investment through the Medical
Research Council and the National Institutes of Health Research (the latter mostly
channelled into research carried out in the National Health Service) increased 47.5%
between 2007 and 2011, which maintained per capita annual funding in New Zealand
dollar terms at NZ$54.
In the United States, funding of the National Institutes of Health increased 7.9%
between 2007 and 2011, producing an annual investment of NZ$116 per head of
population.
Thus, the disparities in government health research investment that we highlighted in
2008 have been maintained, with comparative funding rates being 3.4-fold higher in
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
6 of 9
Page 27
©NZMA
Australia, 4.5-fold higher in the United Kingdom, and 9.7-fold higher in the United
States.
Discussion
In 2008, we documented static funding levels for the HRC over the previous 4 years
which, in the face of substantial inflation in research costs, had resulted in a one-third
decrease in the quantum of research funded over that time. This contrasted markedly
with the patterns of health research investment in Australia and the United Kingdom,
where there had been a long-term commitment to annual funding increases which had
resulted in progressive growth of medical research activity in those countries.
As a result, New Zealand's per capita funding levels were only a fraction of those in
the countries with whom we compete for staff to run our hospitals and medical
schools. The government's capacity to actively address this problem has been
curtailed by the global financial crisis, but that has also impacted heavily on the
United States and the United Kingdom.
Despite this, and the substantial devaluation of their currencies, their per capita
funding of health research in New Zealand dollar terms has maintained its substantial
margin over what obtains here during the last 5 years.
The present analysis has only considered HRC funding. While this is by far the major
source of government health research funding, there are also contributions from other
sources including the Marsden fund, grants administered by the Ministry of Business
Employment and Innovation, the Performance Based Research Fund, and support for
Centres of Research Excellence.
The proportions of these funds that hitherto have come into health research are small,
and do not invalidate the international comparisons since the comparator nations also
have a diversity of funding sources (e.g. Australian Research Council, National
Science Foundation in the United States, and the other constituents of Research
Councils UK together with European Union funding in Britain) which also support
health-related research.
Up to now, these non-HRC funds have explicitly not supported clinical research, the
final common pathway between all discovery research and clinical care, so this area
has been particularly disadvantaged in comparison to the United Kingdom were the
National Institute of Health Research channels funds specifically to this area.
The progressive decline in grant application success rates in the HRC demonstrates
that these other funding sources are not significantly addressing the imbalance
between supply and demand for health research funds.
Thus, we can look back on a decade of diminishing investment in health research in
New Zealand. During this time, investment in our hospitals has substantially
increased, as have the number of academic staff working in medicine and public
health. As a result, an increasing number of would-be researchers have been pursuing
a progressively diminishing pool of resource to support research, resulting in funding
rates in HRC grant rounds which are among the lowest in the world, and one-third of
those in Australia.
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
7 of 9
Page 28
©NZMA
Such low rates of grant success discourage individuals from submitting grants, but
also discourage academics from working in New Zealand. The medical faculties in
both Otago and Auckland suffer a steady loss of academics disgruntled by the
research funding environment, who move overseas, most commonly to Australia.
We also face a continual battle to recruit academics, including expatriate New
Zealanders, because there is the perception that moving to New Zealand necessitates
abandonment of serious medical research activity.
Thus, the failure of successive governments to recognise health research funding as
being an integral part of their total investment in health is compromising our ability to
train the health professionals that the nation requires in order to build the health
service that it needs. Academically able clinicians have no incentive to be come and
work in our hospitals and general practices.
The current crisis has arisen because there has been no indexing of research funding
to the cost of research, nor to the size of the workforce that should be research-active.
Structural changes need to be put in place to ensure that these parameters guide future
levels of funding. Funding levels should be indexed to salary levels in our hospitals
and universities, since these represent the bulk of the research costs.
Academic staff numbers have increased 40% over the last 6 years to meet the greater
needs for health workforce training. Such increases are likely to continue over the
next 4 years as we complete a programme of doubling medical student numbers.
If academic workforce numbers are to increase, then research funding must be
recognised as an integral part of supporting that workforce. Changes in the academic
and clinical workforces must be explicitly considered when determining the size of
the HRC budget.
At a practical level, there is an immediate requirement for a 30% increase in HRC
funding to match the substantial disinvestment which has occurred over the last
decade as a result of cost increases.
While there was no increase in HRC funding in the 2013 Budget, there was the
announcement of the 10 National Science Challenges, three of which have a primary
focus on health. This could potentially produce an increase of $10m annually in health
research funding, so is a very welcome addition to the support available. However, it
falls well short of correcting the erosion in effective funding levels that has occurred
over the last decade, and which will continue to occur due to ongoing inflation in
research costs (particularly salaries), the expected increases in staff and student
numbers in our medical faculties, and the growth in clinician numbers driven by
ongoing population growth.
Assuming that the National Science Challenges are operationalized successfully,
health research funding will still be $10–20m behind where it was a decade ago, and
still be in need of an explicit plan to deal with growth in the sector.
For a long-term investment policy to be implemented, the nation needs to change its
attitude to health research. It is not just a luxury which we can purchase in times of
plenty. Rather, health research is an integral part of health training and practice which
also provides financial returns to the nation through its support of the international
marketing of our education and private healthcare sectors (including medical
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
8 of 9
Page 29
©NZMA
tourism), and through its direct contributions to the agricultural and high-tech
industrial sectors. This is the view that our competitor nations have taken and it is a
view that we must adopt if we wish to retain our most able graduates and to enjoy the
levels of healthcare and affluence that those nations accept as-of-right.
Competing interests: Nil.
Author information: Ian R Reid, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Medical and Health
Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland; Peter Joyce, Dean, University of Otago,
Christchurch; John Fraser, Dean, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University
of Auckland, Auckland; Peter Crampton, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Division of Health
Sciences & Dean, Faculty of Medicine University of Otago, Dunedin
Correspondence: Professor Ian Reid, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. Email:
[email protected]
References:
1.
2.
3.
Reid IR, Joyce P. Health research: a critical investment for New Zealand. Auckland:
University of Auckland, University of Otago; 2008.
Joyce PR, Reid IR. Health research funding: international comparisons with New Zealand. N
Z Med J. 2008;121:7. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1280/3210/content.pdf
Anon. Time to add health research to New Zealand’s election agenda. Lancet. 2008;372:690.
NZMJ 14 February 2014, Vol 127 No 1389; ISSN 1175 8716
URL: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/127-1389/5992/
9 of 9
Page 30
©NZMA
044 – The Auckland University of Technology
22/08/2014
Submission provided via email.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment
2014- 2024 (NSSI). This response comes from the Auckland University of Technology’s Research and
Innovation Office (RIO) which was formed at the beginning of this year through the merging of the
University Research Office with the Business and Innovation Office to provide seamless support for
researchers across our University. The merger allows us to support our research staff from application
phase, through contract negotiation and management, to the protection of intellectual property, the
facilitation of technology transfer and to commercialisation.
As a University, we focus strongly on science investment, actively supporting University-wide
collaboration on truly novel research projects through AUT’s Strategic Research Investment Fund (SRIF)
which is managed by RIO. Cross-Faculty research collaborations can apply to SRIF for research funding
through a rigorous contestable process, and we regard this initiative as being in line with the direction of
the Government’s own investment processes in science development in New Zealand.
However, the role and value of RIO goes beyond support for AUT’s researchers and extends into
Industry and Government partnerships in a proactive and collaborative way. Our mission is to enhance
research excellence, research relevance and its impact on, and for , New Zealand.
AUT has been pleased to offer feedback to the NSSI document through its membership of, and
participation in, Universities New Zealand (UNZ), University Research Offices of New Zealand (URONZ)
and the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ), and we support the comments
contained in their respective submissions.
Kind regards,
Filomena Davies
p.p. Dr Rosanne Ellis
Director of Research Strategy and Management
Filomena Davies
Associate Director – Research Management
Professor Al Gillespie
Pro Vice-Chancellor Research
Vice-Chancellor’s Office
The University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
Facsimile + 64 7 838 4333
Email:
22 August 2014
[email protected]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The Reply of the University of Waikato to the
Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the University of Waikato to comment upon the
National Statement on Science Investment (NSSI). To provide suitable input into this very
important discussion, we have undertaken a comprehensive consultation process throughout the
University. If you have any specific questions about our submission, please contact me directly.
Yours faithfully
Professor Alexander Gillespie
Pro Vice-Chancellor Research
Professor of Law
With regards to the overall questions designed on the best ways to achieve excellent science
of the highest quality, in light of the NSSI, we offer the following comments:
1. Whilst we agree with the importance of research of short-term economic benefit, we
do not wish the government to lose contact with the importance of ‘blue skies’
research, as many of the greatest innovations will not come from what is predicted.
2. The funding of research must not be overtly short-term, and must take a longer term
focus in terms of both development and innovation, of both research and researchers,
in both terms of individuals and teams. In this regard, we urge the reiteration of the
importance of sustainably funded, long-term investigator-led research as being
critical in knowledge that lead to innovation and changes in thinking.
3. Within the focus on science for economic growth, both environmental and social
considerations should not be considered to be of lesser importance. We are
particularly concerned at the possibility that humanities related research may be
increasingly downgraded. This would be of great detriment to the country over the
longer term.
4. That is, if the ‘science system’ is to effectively respond to ‘unique’ economic,
environmental and cultural challenges, it needs to ensure funding models also engage
with social science and humanities research going on inside universities, so that the
full social context of science and its application is fully utilized to the benefit of the
country as a whole.
5. All investment in science should, where appropriate, be matched by accessible and
effective educational components. This is essential if we wish to have a scientifically
literate population that will help facilitate rational and informed decision-making and
creative responses.
6. The processes, evaluations and evaluation indicators linking the funding of excellent
science to excellent results, are missing. Investment must be clearly linked to highlevel strategy for New Zealand (such as national strategic goals) and performance
outcomes (such as metrics), especially in line with many of the considerations we
have noted above. Without these over-riding links, effectively measuring change will
be impossible.
7. Transparency, facilitated by appropriate criteria, should be an essential part of the
investment process. All stakeholders, including interested citizens, researchers,
research organisations and research utilisers should be able to easily understand all
parts of the investment process by government ministries, departments and agencies.
However, this is not always clear, in terms of which ministries are involved, nor the
scale of the research in each area. This is particularly important to help display which
disciplines do, or do not, have access to various funding streams; and also to avoid
duplication, and help critically assess the success of the research projects in each
area.
8. Linked to the need for identifying a national innovation system for New Zealand, is
the definition of innovation which underpins the research agenda and investments.
Based upon the criteria for the current investment schemes, even in the Business
R&D portfolios, the New Zealand definition appears to be much narrower than the
international OECD Oslo Manual standards. Growth of the New Zealand economy,
which is comprised of small firms, requires much more than R&D inventions. To
achieve improvements in economic growth, competitiveness and employment, as
well as investing to support commercialisation, there needs to be some investment in
research on innovation and commercialisation in New Zealand firms (currently
excluded from the current investment).
1
9. If the goal is to ensure excellent science of the highest quality and of direct value to
the economy, it is our understanding that industry incentives rather than grant
schemes have proven to be more appropriate mechanisms of structural adjustment in
OECD countries. These include the tax-incentives associated with R&D expenditure
in the EU, and these should be factored into the research funding matrix.
10. Although international competitiveness is a very important consideration, it is our
view that decision makers also need to be realistic about our international
competitiveness and ensure that we maintain areas of research expertise that make
unique contributions to the global knowledge economy in general, and New Zealand,
in particular. That is, research funding should not lose track of what makes our
country and our aspirations unique. Often these considerations are not
commensurable with goals of international competitiveness. However, they are
equally as valuable.
11. Too many of the government schemes for enhancing research result in exclusionary
behaviour. Whilst the need, in every instance, to ensure that the best researchers from
within New Zealand are gathered for the collective benefit, is uppermost, it is equally
necessary to ensure that these selection processes are fair, equitable and transparent.
12. A final overall gap that will prevent New Zealand developing and building an
outstanding body of researchers is the lack of post-doctoral opportunities. In all
sectors, this is an overt weakness, as often whilst we can seed the first part of the next
generation of research excellence, creating enough opportunities to retain them here
after they graduate, is an overt problem.
2
With regards to the major Science and Innovation investments, we offer the following
comments:
The Performance-Based Research Fund, (PBRF)
1. It is heartening to see an acknowledgement that the PBRF has led to an increase in the
research performance and productivity in the tertiary education sector, and that the real
value of the fund is set to increase slightly over the next few years. The revised primary
objectives, to increase the quality of both basic and applied research, to support worldleading research and research-led teaching, to maintain or lift competitive international
research rankings, and to provide robust reporting to stakeholders, are not inconsistent
with the perceived purpose of PBRF.
2. Of the significant changes which were recently confirmed with effect from 2015, there
are some concerns about the robustness of the evaluation processes, particularly with
regard to the increased recognition of user perspectives, and the simplification of the
quality evaluation process to reduce transaction costs. Until now, the evaluation process
has been based largely on internationally recognised and implemented standards and
measures. Ensuring that the processes remains on this footing will be a challenge
moving towards the next quality evaluation exercise. Fundamentally, chances for
‘game-playing’ must not be expanded in any revised process, as this will not only
negate the objectives of the PBRF, but it will also significantly increase compliance
costs and undermine the standing of the PBRF as a positive contributing element of the
NZ research scene.
3. The University of Waikato is concerned that changes which reduce the weighting of
research quality performance by tertiary academics and increase the weighting of
external research income moves the overall PBRF system to invest more of the fund on
quantity rather than quality. This change potentially increases the funding to the larger
Universities and in particular those with Medical Schools.
4. In addition, positioning this Vote Tertiary Education fund in the Institutional and
Investigator-led quadrant of the overall Science Investment Chart 1 (page 14), is
somewhat misleading as many of these funds provide salaries for academics to teach
undergraduate and postgraduate students. It would be useful to collect the data on the
application of the PBRF funds across the sector and see what proportion is able to be
invested in specific investigator-led research projects, vs research infrastructure, vs
Faculty and Department level contestable funds, vs academic salaries.
Centres of Research Excellence, CoRE (TEC)
5. The CoRE’s multi-investigator (usually multi-institutional) driven research is an
essential component of the funding landscape and complements the Marsden Fund in
generating world-class research. The University of Waikato remains convinced that
CoRE’s make good sense in New Zealand. We welcome the call for an additional round
of CoRE’s.
6. However, the original intent for the Centres to become self-sustaining has not been
realised, nor – in the current New Zealand context – may it have ever been possible.
Accordingly, it is very important that the funding considerations underpinning CoRE’s
be critically re-evaluated.
3
7. Our greater concern with CoRE’s is the dominance of CoREs within only a few
geographical locations. We are of the view that these decisions are not necessarily
reflective of the innovative and world-class research being conducted in all of the
Universities.
8. Accordingly, we recommend that when all CoRE’s are reviewed, the considerations
should not only be on their scientific outputs and funding, but also, and fundamentally,
their ability to be as inclusive and representative of the best scientific talent in the
country.
Marsden Fund (RSNZ)
9. The University of Waikato considers the Marsden Fund to be an exemplar of successful
research funding producing outstanding research within New Zealand. However, this
foremost mechanism, in terms of both process and result, is remarkably underfunded.
As such, we are strongly of the view that one of the best ways to increase research
excellence that will benefit New Zealand, is to keep increasing the Marsden Fund – at
a minimum, to comparable OECD levels.
10. The Marsden Fund has a key role in the New Zealand science system as the only major
source of contestable investigator-led research funding. For some disciplines, this is the
only fund to which individual researchers can gain access to research funds for specific
projects - especially the Humanities, but also areas covered in science, engineering and
mathematics, and social science broadly defined. More often than not, this Fund
provides increased stretch for research ideas that are currently not part of mainstream
funding opportunities. It therefore occupies a highly significant space in the system and
its ‘blue skies’ funds are highly contested. In addition, it is one of the only funds which
provides direct support to early career research projects (Fast Starts) across three years.
11. The Marsden Fund panels have to make tough decisions about capping budgets in order
to fund more projects each year. The overall success rate (average 8-10%) reflects the
funding available, rather than the quality of the proposals. Concerns have been raised
that the process of ‘rationing’ the funds in some panels means that decisions may not
be purely based upon merit. This is an imbalance of the highest significance that the
government should address, if the goal is to create excellent research.
12. The University of Waikato is pleased to see the terms of the Fund staying consistent
with previous years – to allow for a wide range of research that benefits New Zealand
in all kinds of ways, including researcher skills development, a strong research base for
many disciplines to make us competitive internationally, and to ensure that we can
attract international staff into our universities (who will want to see evidence they can
apply for such research grants as in their home countries, including Britain, Australia
and the United States).
13. The University of Waikato is concerned that we continue to develop emerging
researchers through postdoctoral awards and grants. However, Marsden Funds are
usually too tight to enable this very much in most areas.
14. It is vital that the independent status of the Fund and its management by the Royal
Society in terms of processes, auditing and reporting in maintained.
15. While recognising that changes to the Marsden panel structure are restricted by the size
of the Fund, it may be timely to review the role of the Business Sciences given their
scale (2nd largest panel in the 2012 PBRF), alignment with the NZ government’s
4
economic growth agenda, and exclusion from the other funding portfolios in the New
Zealand science system. Although businesses may now receive funding from Callaghan
Innovation and Business R&D, these funds quite specifically target the types of
activities that are allowed – research on business/markets etc. is explicitly excluded.
16. Establishing a specific Marsden panel for Business and Economics would support
excellent research to benefit New Zealand. Scholars in these disciplines focus on topics
which are directly relevant for managing in a dynamic global environment including
innovation processes and commercialisation, leadership and change, organisational
culture, employees and workplaces, product diversification, consumer behaviour,
competitive advantage, financial markets, supply chains, international trade, regional
development, regulatory frameworks, auditing processes, productivity, sustainability,
industry and sector analysis etc. In 2012, there were 318 scholars in these fields
operating as world-class or international levels. Internationally, New Zealand is out of
line as the national science systems in the UK, Europe, US and Australia all provide
contestable funding for the Business Sciences. Addressing this anomaly at this time
seems important given the national importance of improving economic growth,
competitiveness and employment.
CRI Core Funding (MBIE)
17. The creation of CRI Core Fund was essential to retain critical capability and
infrastructure within these organisations. However, it is not clear how this fund has
improved the financial viability of CRIs as in most cases the funding is around 40-50%
of their operating budget and therefore they compete vigorously for competitive publicgood science funding and commercial income. This results in difficulties in developing
multi-institutional research programmes and ‘best teams’ practice.
18. Even within the existing budgets, there is often a considerable lack of transparency, in
which it is uncertain what percentage of CRI Core Funding is used for capability
development and in particular for graduate students.
19. The establishment of joint graduate schools between CRIs and universities on a regional
basis, is on balance a positive development and it enables the best utilisation of
intellectual capital in an environment with constrained funding to develop capability.
20. The University of Waikato considers these types of developments as both essential and
axiomatic. Allowing inclusive measures to ensure that the best scholars from
universities are encouraged to meaningfully interact with their CRI colleagues to
produce excellent science for the benefit of the country is obvious. However, whilst the
CRIs and some universities are trying to encourage this type of work, it is far from
apparent that the funding models actually support these outcomes.
National Science Challenges (MBIE)
21. The University of Waikato welcomed the National Science Challenges (NSC). We
considered this a very laudable project that was well designed to harness public opinion
and weld it to positive thinking about the future needs of New Zealand. It has been very
good in terms of bringing together some of the best scientists in New Zealand, who
would not otherwise, have been assembled.
22. In the first stages of proposal review however, there was widely held consideration that
the goals for high profile science, transformative science, and science that will lead to
5
an enhanced economy with a lessening of environmental effects, (as envisioned by
Government on behalf of the country), have not been reached. This is evidenced in the
fact that a number of the Challenges have been returned by the Challenge Review
Panels for 're-working' as they had drifted from the intent as specified in the Challenge
Titles.
23. It is the view of the University of Waikato that there was an eagerness for the
Challenges to provide fresh perspective, but unfortunately many have lapsed to the
existing writing teams often led by CRIs as a consequence of the great proportion of
'mapped' funding they are required to contribute.
24. It may be useful in the future to critically review the final outcomes of the National
Science Challenges, to examine how ‘new’ they really are, whether they are actually
addressing the real needs of New Zealand in the future, and whether they are adequately
representative, inclusively holding all of the best researchers in the country.
25. This last point is of critical concern to the University of Waikato, as the diversity of
approaches taken with the National Science Challenges meant significant expertise
within our University were not always included in the NSCs, and key decisions about
representation and inclusion were sometimes made to the exclusion of smaller
universities. This lack of transparency, in some instances, enabled ‘capture’ of specific
areas by individuals/groups to the unjustifiable exclusion of others.
26. Further questions to be considered are: what is the overall balance between various
funding mechanisms – collaborative, contestable, institutional, and business led
mechanisms, and in particular, is there enough funding in the NSC process given the
scale and complexity of the challenges?
27. Finally, an issue that needs to be examined is how the NSC challenges have been
adequately reconciled with both social contexts and associated goals, and commitment
to Vision Mātauranga.
Health Research Council, HRC (HRC)
28. The need to clarify the overlap between HRC funding and the health-related NSCs is
an important one going forward.
29. From the experience of the University of Waikato with the HRC, we believe that it is
time to examine the sustained quality and consistency of the HRC reviews and the
assignment of reviewers.
30. As the HRC funding pool is limited, we are also concerned that new researchers/teams
have great difficulty getting into this fund, and a much greater emphasis upon new and
emerging researchers should be investigated.
Primary Growth Partnership (MPI)
31. The objective of matching central government funding with industry/private funding to
drive innovation and efficiency gains in primary industry for the benefit of NZ is
essential for our primary sector organisations to remain competitive in the face of
significant global competition. The funding mechanism appears to work well for those
sectors with a cohesive industry fee-paying levy body, but it potentially stifles
innovation from smaller players within these sectors. If we use the biotechnology sector
as an example, most innovation in biotechnology fields is delivered by small companies
6
as distinct to large pharma. Large pharma invest in/acquire technologies from these
smaller entities, as in general they are not as fast, nimble and innovative.
32. The University of Waikato notes that some of programmes are not driven primarily by
an increase in revenue, but to create a sustainable industry with lower environmental
footprints. We welcome this approach.
33. In the Table (page 52): Announced PGP Programmes speculate on widely different
estimated benefits. These appear quite optimistic, and it will be necessary to have a
close evaluation and review prior to investment, during the programme and postprogramme to make considered investments and to demonstrate the success or not of
these programmes.
Business Research and Development – Callaghan Innovation
34. As almost all New Zealand firms are small, New Zealand has lower R&D investment
levels than other countries. The increase in the government’s business R & D funding
over the last several years is important to encourage and increase non-governmental
investment into innovation for NZ companies.
35. Business R & D investment and support structures have been through a period of
considerable change over the last few years with the changes from TechNZ to MSI to
MBIE, followed by the creation of Callaghan Innovation and how multiple
commercialisation agencies from University commercialisation vehicles, NZTE,
KiwiNet, EDA, Incubators, Angel and Venture Capitalists work together.
36. Whilst many of these new developments are welcome, the University of Waikato is
concerned that all of these areas need to be as simplified and synchronised as possible,
so as to avoid creating a confusing landscape for businesses. Some consolidation and
mapping of services, followed by communication of these mechanisms is also needed.
Business R&D – Commercialisation (MBIE/Callaghan Innovation)
37. It is the view of the University of Waikato that the importance and the true cost of
commercialisation are understated. It would appear that MBIE staff believe that
businesses, Regional Councils etc. will ‘find’ the outputs of research and
adopt/implement/commercialise with minimal assistance from researchers and their
commercialisation partners. This is not our understanding.
38. The majority of research outputs from public-good funding are not in a format that is
readily identified as useful or in a form to be transferred. Additional funding is required
to further develop and to undertake technology transfer to get new innovations across
the valley of death! The majority of companies in NZ do not have R & D capability or
financial resources to take innovations from proof of concept through to
commercialisation. They are not prepared to undertake this level of risk.
International Relationships Fund (MBIE)
39. International Relationships Fund can facilitate far sighted strategic initiatives to
enhance the opportunity for generating considerable research leverage for New Zealand.
The funding needs to be made available for strategic science. However, in the
experience of the University of Waikato, the support from this (and other governmental
sources) has been very disappointing.
7
40. For example, the University of Waikato has experienced this with the INTERCOAST
program, a postgraduate research and training collaboration with the University of
Bremen and funded on the Germany side by the only International linkages program
for that Country with anyone in the Southern Hemisphere. Specifically, their funding
agency, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf, has invested 7 million Euro in this
collaborative relationship for the period of 2010-2018. This collaboration has permitted
fast tracking of the peak international cross disciplinary research mixing law, social
science, biological and physical sciences, and ecology associated with human
development in a Coastal environment. In addition, access to some of the world’s
highest technology submarine surveillance equipment (MARUM), has magnified this
New Zealand’s ability to do cutting edge science enormously. Examples range from
using a submersible geotechnical probe to examine the channel floor stability of
Tauranga Port (New Zealand’s largest commercial port) prior to dredging to permit
larger ships and use of the Electromagnetic profiling submersible to examine metallic
debris contamination of the Bay of Plenty region from Waihi to Maketu and out to
Motiti Island following the Rena ship wreck. Despite all of these benefits, and whilst
the German government has invested millions of euros in their side of the relationship,
the New Zealand government has barely invested less than a few hundred thousand.
Much to our disappointment, the considerable short-fall in costs has had to be picked
up directly by the University.
Large Scale Research Infrastructure (MBIE)
41. Central government support for large-scale, multi-institution research infrastructure is
essential to the continuing success of many science disciplines. However there are
significant questions to be asked around governance and access arrangements.
Similarly the value and impact of these commitments must be adequately linked to
Science in Society outcomes as well as maintaining science capability (Science
Workforce).
42. In this regard, it is the opinion of the University of Waikato that it is necessary to have
appropriate strategic planning systems in place (such as the Treasury’s Better Business
Case), coupled with an open and frank dialogue about the long term needs.
43. The role of the Chief Scientist should provide key insight to the future needs of New
Zealand through coordinated input from across the STEM sector as well as within
society. Similarly the current focus on National Science Challenges must inform the
Large-scale investments in order to address the needs of society.
44. Our final concern in this area is that infrastructure funding is currently focussed on
capital expenditure, yet the operating costs (including technical and research support)
are frequently left to the side. A decision for significant investment that subsequently
is at risk due to funding mechanisms that have different drivers, leaves these large-scale
investments at risk (such as has been experienced with the Australian Synchrotron).
Accordingly, it is necessary for us to rethink these investment decisions by creating
strategies to provide aligned support to appropriately utilise these resources.
Science in Society (MBIE)
45. The current engagement between Science (STEM disciplines in general) and Society is
insufficient. Several of the programmes in the Engaging New Zealanders portfolio are
8
mirrored in other OECD countries. The focus on teachers is critical from Years 0 to 13
and would benefit from a stronger disciplinary focus, rather than solely associated with
elements of education pedagogy. To foster this, programmes such as the US National
Science Foundation YK-12, encouraged the engagement of Universities with Primary
and Secondary Schools through support for postgraduate students with the development
of long-term partnerships. The incentives created by this programme were two-fold:
Primary and Secondary Schools benefited from development opportunities, supporting
education outcomes with enhanced delivery, and development of fit for purpose toolkits
oriented to local applications; and Universities benefited from support for RHDs while
simultaneously increasing RHDs (and academic staffs) ability to communicate science
to society in an effective fashion. The engagement with students at earlier stages
reinforces the relevance of STEM disciplines and the accessibility of tertiary education.
46. The need for a greater focus on Science Communication is a second element of this
suite of programmes. This is currently poorly done. As such, the University of Waikato
endorses the recommendation that MBIE revisit the purposes and objectives of
Engaging New Zealanders to reinforce the primary outcomes being sought.
47. Another issue that is overlooked in this area, is that promoting and encouraging students
to consider ‘science as a career’ without addressing the attractiveness of ‘careers for
scientists’ within the New Zealand science system. Incentivising programmes within
the education system without addressing the Science Workforce issues is probably not
in the long term interests of New Zealand if the goal is to retain the best scientists
domestically.
48. The analysis done at the University of Waikato suggests “Science in Society” needs to
be interpreted with a much broader lens that is holistic and recognises other types of
innovation beyond the laboratory. Thus, although STEM subjects are important, to get
those new ideas to market you also need FAME expertise i.e. Finance, Accounting,
Marketing/Management, and Economics.
Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund, VMCF (MBIE)
49. VMCF is a specific mechanism which supports capacity building. However, whilst the
University of Waikato welcomes the goals of this mechanism, we are concerned with
regards to its alienation from other research streams, its funding level, and the need for
an external review of what it has achieved.
50. The amount of funding available for the VMCF fund is a particular concern as this pool
has been reducing over the last 10 year period.
51. Of each of the funds included in the Draft NSSI there are only three clearly defined
areas of Māori research, development and innovation funding. The Health Research
Council maintains a Rangahau Māori portfolio of around $7.7 million (approximately
10% of total funding pool), Vision Mātauranga Māori has a funding pool of $6.5 million
– however not all is allocated to or led by Māori researchers and there is funding for
one Māori CoRE at $5 million per annum. As such the total dedicated Māori research
funding is only approximately $19.2 million in an annual National budget investment
of $1.5 billion. This is less than 1.5% of the total budget that is provided directly to
Māori led research.
52. The nature of the schemes adopted under the VMCF is also a concern as they do not
necessarily support development of Vision Mātauranga capability to engage in
9
collaborative or contestable investment mechanisms. Additional schemes should be
developed under this mechanism. In particular, there are Māori areas within the Science
and Innovation investment areas that are funded through the mainstream mechanisms,
however these remain minimal and as such there is a critical issue in regards to the
funding of Māori research and in particular the direct accessibility of funding for
projects initiated by Māori for Māori development.
53. The Draft NSSI does not appear to provide any recognition or meaningful engagement
with Māori as Treaty partners. Nor does it provide for the needs of Māori communities
to determine and define the priority areas of research need and funding for our people.
54. To provide specific Māori directed research funding allocations the University of
Waikato recommends,
a. Establishing a National Māori Research Institute that receives direct funding from
the existing funding currently allocated to mainstream agencies for distribution,
b. Providing for the allocation of at least two Māori CoRE to provide more adequately
for the research needs and aspirations of Māori,
c. Ensuring that each agency which is charged with the distribution and allocation of
funding with a defined Māori research allocation, is defined and determined by
Māori,
d. Ensuring a clearer defined budget allocation for Māori research and embed
processes to ensure that those requirements are met in line with Kaupapa Māori
approaches.
Sector-Specific Research Funds (MBIE)
55. The University of Waikato recognises Sector Specific Research Funds as critically
important to the New Zealand Science Investment system as they enable investment in
strategically important RS&T from across the full spectrum of researchers and research
organisations.
56. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the National Science Challenges, retaining a
significant investment in key sectors that fall outside of the Challenges is important to
ensure specific innovations and problems unique to New Zealand can still be addressed,
either individually or not be allowed to ‘fall between the cracks’ with the established
funding mechanisms which continue to be refocused. The University of Waikato
considers this a particular risk with regards to both environmental, health and social
research.
57. It is timely and appropriate to consider the specific sectors and the funding mechanisms
to be used to invest these funds ($189 million). We agree that simplifying the
mechanisms are needed. However, it is our concern that the desire by MBIE and the
government to simplify funding mechanisms appears to be somewhat contradictory.
The establishment of National Science Challenges and the associated mapping of
research funds from MBIE contestable pools and Core CRI funding, in addition to new
investment has increased the complexity of the funding landscape. Each of these
National Science Challenges will operate a contestable fund, so in affect we have
multiplied the number of public funding bodies.
58. A case can be made to remove the distinction between targeted and enabling funding
mechanisms as they are not well understood in the first place and to have one funding
mechanism for industry-driven public-good science funding would appear to be
10
appropriate. The use of cash co-funding as a proxy to gauge industry support needs to
also be re-examined. Research that is at an early stage is unlikely to receive significant
cash co-funding, nor is research that generates IP for the NZ-good as distinct to
company-good. Perhaps research can be stage-gated (on proof of principle being
reached, prototype developed etc.) in a way that at certain stop/go points further coinvestment (cash or forward commitment) is required before public-good funding is
released.
59. Smart Idea funding should be retained and enhanced as this is the primary mechanism
within MBIE that allows novel innovative ideas to be developed from all research
providers. However, more thought has to go into the model of “2 years funding, plus
potential additional funding of 2 more years”. Currently, only a third of Smart Idea
Phase I funding receive funding for Phase II. This appears to be an arbitrary decision,
not based on the quality of research done and its future potential. If all projects have
generated positive outputs and there is a good case for additional funding, they should
receive it. Similarly if none have been successful, and they do not have potential for
further success, they should not receive further funding. Despite these considerations,
it remains our overall view that the Smart Ideas funding mechanism should be increased
to allow research to be funded that is of higher risk and is positioned in the medium to
long term time frames. The area/sector of funded research should not be overly
prescribed.
60. Improving the system used to evaluate the outcomes from RS&T investments is also
required. MBIE needs to develop a process for this which goes beyond reviewing the
final reports and research outputs, to include metrics for innovation, commercialisation
and growth of industries/firms which can be included within this process.
61. Finally, it is the view of the University of Waikato that it is important to recognise that
New Zealand firms are almost all small to medium sized (SMEs). This impacts on the
scale of their investments in R&D. In addition, the definitions used for innovation and
R&D impact significantly on what types of projects can be counted in the statistics or
funded by the RS&T system. OECD guidelines on innovation have considered a
broader set of definitions and metrics. Although these OECD definitions align well with
the current government’s economic growth agenda, the NZ RS&T system has
historically taken a much narrower view. It is timely to review the NZ definitions as
part of this re-evaluation of our national science investment.
11
Draft Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024 Response from
UniServices Limited
Overview
UniServices Limited welcomes the opportunity to have input into the National Statement
of Science Investment.
UniServices’ focus is on the translation of research capability into new companies, new
products and to provide high quality consulting and sponsored research capability to New
Zealand businesses and society. We have focused our comments on this particular
aspect.
We support the Statement’s first objective and priority for action. All of the successful
commercialisation and knowledge transfers from the University of Auckland, whether
spin-outs, licenses to existing companies, consulting or sponsored research contracts are
underpinned by world class research.
In the current science investment environment there is an emphasis on existing
industry-led funding or trying to predict what might have the most impact for the benefit
of New Zealand. While we believe that there should continue to be incentives to
encourage the private sector to engage in increasing its investment in R&D, we believe
that there should be less of an emphasis on co-funding of public good grants as a proxy
for quality, relevance or potential impact. The current proxy mechanism results in a
short term, conservative approach of research applications supporting existing industries
i.e. using public funds to support what is mainly private good at the expense of the
opportunity to support public good.
A flow-on effect of the current system is that it then leads to a conservative approach to
technology transfer with IP being automatically transferred or trapped through
acquisition by partial funding. Some of this IP is accordingly misallocated as the
acquiring company does not or cannot fully exploit the intellectual property.
We believe that to balance this proxy effect, just as much emphasis needs to be placed
on high quality investigator-led fundamental research, supported by good
commercialisation which is how breakthroughs happen that lead to a better balanced
commercialisation portfolio of contract research, licenses to existing industries and
importantly to spin-outs. Examples of this include the University of Auckland’s wireless
power transfer technology (four start-up companies and two global licenses) which came
from fundamental research undertaking as part of the supervision of PhD students;
research into wound healing by Professor Colin Green which developed into Coda
Therapeutics; fundamental research into dispersion of nano-particles in solution that
could revolutionise the metals coatings industry - both from Marsden funding; and
Proacta which is derived from a combination of NIH funding from the US and HRC.
Furthermore, a focus on investigator-led fundamental research also encourages work
that is exposed at an international level which is always a driver for high quality staff.
To continue to be able to attract and retain the world’s best international talent means
that we will continue to be able to develop world class, internationally focused start-ups
and engage with the word’s best companies.
Commercialisation
Pre Seed Accelerator Fund (PSAF)
PSAF is an essential intervention and, used appropriately, has demonstrated a significant
return to New Zealand. We believe that there should be more PSAF available to
accelerate the impact that this program has on commercialisation in New Zealand.
Auckland UniServices has typically “overmatched” its fund matching requirement of 1:1
by approximately 3:1 and we do not believe that we have, as yet, reached the point at
which the volume of projects we advance using PSAF investment has exhausted the
supply of high-quality projects that we could still pursue. In effect, the limited availability
of funds means that we have to ration PSAF and that we leave potentially good projects
on the shelf.
An increase in PSAF would mean that our ability to match the fund would be fully utilised
and we would see an increase in both the number of projects and the rate of transfer to
the private sector. An increase in both quantity and quality of deal flow would be
possible, for a relatively modest sum, if PSAF were to match UniServices rather than we
match PSAF.
Details of UniServices use of PSAF over 10 years are shown in the table below and in
detail in the appendix attached.
HISTORICAL PSAF REPORTING SPREAD SHEET
Total
Aggregate commercial benefits (from all PSAF funded projects since their inception)
Number of commercial deals
Potential revenue to PRO in first 5 years of sales
Actual revenue to PRO from sales to date
Potential revenue to NZ from export earnings in first 5 years of sales
Investment from external sources
Employment generated – Number of jobs generated
No of unique employees employed that year
$
$
$
$
Projects active in reported year (i.e. all new/active/terminated/ongoing in reported year)
Disclosures
Number of new projects receiving PSAF funding in year
Completed in reported year (project-specific details to be provided in "project information" tab)
Abandoned in reported year
228
643,360,607.00
115,425,503.00
1,362,762,345.00
83,526,000.00
232
235
789
565
n/a
n/a
Total amount of PSAF funding received & distributed in year
$
9,043,017.83
Co-funding (in the current year)
$ of investments from research organisations
$ of investment from external investors
$ of funding from other government grants that has been reprioritised
Total $ of co-funding and investment (auto-calculated)
$
$
$
$
23,512,968.00
83,526,000.00
3,954,419.00
27,467,387.00
Whilst the formation of the Technology Incubators has increased focus on deriving
invention towards innovation and is a welcome addition for the start-up sector, the PSAF
amount has not increased in line with baseline R&D funding in the past ten years and
accounts for less than 0.65% of the total Science Investment.
Accordingly we recommend that the allocation to PSAF should be at least doubled. This
would still only bring the investment in early stage commercialisation to just over 1% of
the total Science Investment.
PSAF is precisely the tool that is required to increase the quantum and quality of projects
into these incubators and its small size is constraining both for start-up companies and
existing companies. Incubators do not assist in developing technology that existing
firms typically take up in the form of licenses and PSAF is also critical in reducing the
uptake risk for existing firms. It is important therefore that PSAF is grown alongside the
Technology Incubator Funding.
PSAF should continue to be devolved to the Institutional level so that decisions can be
made fast and locally. Experience has shown this is critical. UniServices was able to
obtain patent security three weeks before major competition from overseas because an
investment decision could be taken in a week. The competition is now a sub-licensee of
one of UniServices' licensee spin-outs, based in New Zealand.
We also believe that the current allocation methodology is slightly artificially based on
number of research organisations “clubbing” together, or research footprint. We think
that the allocation should be made based on track record, process, ability or
commitment to co-invest AND number of projects. This should then be made in
conjunction with an “unders and overs” reserve fund that provides additional funding on
demand as required.
PSAF works best when it can work fast and as such we believe that the programme
should limit artificial barriers such as the percentage that can be invested in IP such that
there are no artificial business model constraints for value return to New Zealand.
PSAF should have a defined output focus on number and quality of projects transferred
to the private sector.
We note Objective Number 3 in the National Statement: Committing to continue
increasing investment over time. We welcome this as an objective but would observe
that PSAF and CPN funding as a total pool has not increased since 2003. We believe that
it should.
Commercialisation Partner Network
Overall the concept of a Commercialisation Partner Network is positive and should be
continued.
However, we recommend some changes that need to be addressed to ensure full
participation, benefits are maximised and optimal outcomes to New Zealand are
delivered.
There is a superficial “attractiveness” to translate a New Zealand Inc. approach into the
idea that there should be only one centralised unit supporting the commercialisation
functions in research organisations. UniServices has had experience in both models of
collaboration, having been involved in both a distributed network model (Return on
Science) and a closed membership model (Tasman Commercialisation Fund with
Monash, Adelaide, Flinders and South Australia). Our experience is that the latter tends
to drive everything to the median rather than increasing quality. By its nature a closed
membership model prejudices either the very small units or the very large units it is
designed to serve. Accordingly, we believe that the CPN should continue to be a network
in the literal sense, which leverages the best wherever it sits, not a single national
entity.
The CPN needs to be more focused on activities that increase the rates of formation of
technology or IP that firms can use and the rates of formation of investable entities.
This is best achieved by providing rapid specialised and rapid commercialisation support
through additional commercialisation manager resources and independent specialised
investment committees ensuring the rapid and appropriate allocation of PSAF. This will
ensure that commercialisation capability is continuously improved.
The CPN should not seek to replicate activities that are already in provided or in place,
either by existing TTOs, other Government programmes or the private sector. A critical
component of the CPN is to access expertise from around the country, and globally, to
ensure that the best available resources are able to be utilised on the project at the time
that it is needed. We would observe that this expertise is seldom fully utilised across the
whole of the CPN on domain specific projects, with the end result that some CPN projects
end up with generalists where an expert is required.
A decentralised, non-compulsory or non-membership based service such as Return on
Science that can find this expertise and bring it onto projects has repeatedly
demonstrated an increase in the quality and quantum of the commercial outcomes.
Another key component of this success has been the ability of Return On Science to
engage industry and technical expertise directly from the major markets that New
Zealand is seeking to commercialise its technology into.
In addition the system should avoid the duplication of other interventions such as
Callaghan Innovation and NZTE that are designed to form links between Research
Organisations and individuals with capabilities and interests in commercialisation. For
example, there is already a significant private sector community of intellectual property
advisors and investors including the Government’s own Seed Capital Investment Fund
(SCIF) administered by NZVIF. We believe that the CPN should leverage these resources
rather than attempt to duplicate them.
Care should be taken that the other “softer” CPN objectives, such as forming stronger
links between research organisations and forums with capabilities and interests in
commercialisation does not simply result in the formation of a large number of
government sponsored agents. These typically simply add an additional layer between
the Research Organisations and the private sector by seeking to replace or marginalise
Technology Transfer organisations.
In carrying out its mission, the CPN should respect individual institutional policies and
processes and avoid causing confusion within individual institutions. Importantly it
should not do anything that deliberately or inadvertently contaminates the Intellectual
Property rights of Inventors and their Employers and their customers and partners.
No part of the network should have compulsion. Return On Science operates a value
added service, with a provision of specialist advice, guidance and decision making
functions. These specialist services are of particular value where projects have a distinct
and difficult potential market. Return On Science has provided these services to over 250
projects coming from 15 organisations (including universities, CRI’s, government
agencies, and private companies), without the requirement for beneficiaries to become a
member of Return On Science.
The CPN should be able to move fast and make decisions quickly. The ability to make
fast, fact based, and market informed decisions means getting technologies into the
hands of investors, start-ups, or large companies as quickly is possible, and results in
the optimal outcome having a significantly greater chance of being realised. If the advice
is to discontinue these efforts then the resources and money that may have been
invested into that project can be repurposed into additional projects that require it.
The CPN should foster collaboration where it makes sense, not try and impose it.
Collaborations are based on human interactions, and require a demonstration of mutual
goals, expertise, flexibility and trust. A legal requirement, and particularly one that uses
a financial incentive to enforce that requirement, will result in engagement but an
ongoing collaboration is highly unlikely to result from this, and definitely will not survive
any kind of competitive bidding process for ongoing funds.
The CPN should not force institutions into processes that individual institutions have not
found optimal from past experience. Process based on demonstrated best practise is
important, but equally the ability to adapt to specific technology and/or market
requirements based on expert advice is crucial. If funded by Government, the CPN
should seek to treat all TTOs equally and should exist to serve ALL TTOs without favour
for the component funded by Government.
The Government should fund the activities it sees as either bridging gaps or driving an
increase in specific outcomes rather than individual legal entities that may have
conflicting reasons they exist, but still endeavour to utilise Government funding.
Appendix
HISTORICAL PSAF REPORTING SPREAD SHEET
Aggregate commercial benefits (from all PSAF funded projects since their inception)
Number of commercial deals
Potential revenue to PRO in first 5 years of sales
Actual revenue to PRO from sales to date
Potential revenue to NZ from export earnings in first 5 years of sales
Investment from external sources
Employment generated – Number of jobs generated
No of unique employees employed that year
Projects active in reported year (i.e. all new/active/terminated/ongoing in reported year)
Disclosures
Number of new projects receiving PSAF funding in year
Completed in reported year (project-specific details to be provided in "project information" tab)
Abandoned in reported year
Total amount of PSAF funding received & distributed in year
Co-funding (in the current year)
$ of investments from research organisations
$ of investment from external investors
$ of funding from other government grants that has been reprioritised
Total $ of co-funding and investment (auto-calculated)
2004
2005
2006
2007
5
7
8
12
$3,473,334
$6,530,759
$6,365,360
$8,951,808
55
17
58
17
63
23
65
21
Year ending 31st December
2009
2010
2008
2011
2012
32
37
59
20
27
$10,586,602 $11,846,069 $11,013,000 $28,047,422
72
64
82
107
86
63
90
92
$13,207,238
104
87
2013 Total
21
$
$15,403,911 $
$
$
114
74
228
643,360,607.00
115,425,503.00
1,362,762,345.00
83,526,000.00
232
235
789
565
n/a
n/a
789,662 $
1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $
1,039,805 $
867,064 $
9,043,017.83
$ 1,082,683 $ 1,173,837 $ 1,976,618 $ 2,034,492 $
1,772,884 $ 2,292,909 $ 3,850,547 $ 3,922,486 $
2,993,524 $
$
945,720 $ 1,474,857 $ 1,067,766 $ 466,076 $
$ 2,028,403 $ 2,648,694 $ 3,044,384 $ 2,500,568 $
$
$
$
$
1,772,884 $ 2,292,909 $ 3,850,547 $ 3,922,486 $
2,993,524 $
2,412,988 $
$
$
2,412,988 $
23,512,968.00
83,526,000.00
3,954,419.00
27,467,387.00
$
394,788 $
622,200 $
929,499 $
Definitions
Commercial deal: does not include an NDA, MTA, MOU, etc.
Revenue: cash received by organisation
Investment from external sources: cash or capital from external source
Disclosure: invention disclosure made to organisation
Completed project:project successfully completed via a sale, licence or spin-out. If a project is successfully completed, you will need to fill out the form on the "project information" tab
Abandoned project: project ceased because of low/no liklihood of success, technical difficulties or other issues
RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S DRAFT NATIONAL
STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
Submission by Lincoln University August 2014 Executive summary  Lincoln University considers that the draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an excellent description and useful overview of the New Zealand government’s targeted investment into science. As such it provides a valuable framework for discussing how the system can be further improved, and we welcome the government’s openness to this review. However as it considers all research funds, e.g. Marsden, its focus needs to extend beyond science. 
Lincoln University does not accept the claim that science investment has grown by 70 per cent across Government since 2007/08, and argues that there remains a strong case for R&D funding to be increased. 
Lincoln University is very keen to see more contestable funding made available as this has significantly decreased in recent years, and the current emphasis of co‐funding by industry partners should be re‐examined. 
It is also Lincoln University’s belief that the New Zealand science system would be more efficient if the number of contestable funds was reduced, with those remaining managing a greater pool of funding than is currently the case. Lincoln University also supports more flexibility within the fund management to allow a wider scope of definition and greater creativity. 
Lincoln University would strongly support an increase to Pre‐seed Accelerator Funding (PSAF) as it sees this as an important part of the commercialisation pathway, and supports a reduction in the matched funding requirement to 25% as this will create a greater incentive for research organisations to pursue commercial applications. 
We believe access to capital and skilled entrepreneurs is a gap in the current investment statement which needs addressing. 
Lincoln University believes that initiatives, such as the Lincoln Hub are key to leveraging synergies between universities and CRIs and should be promulgated. 
A fourth category of “education‐led” research should be articulated. This should include provision of a contestable fund to develop new and emerging researcher capability, which is currently not adequately provided by VOTE Education monies. 
We encourage greater collaboration and alignment across government departments (MBIE, TEC, MPI, and MFAT in particular) and ways of facilitating this needs to be articulated and implemented. 
The proposed NSSI performance framework for measuring outcomes from investment in science is too focused on interim quantitative indicator metrics and these are both too many and relevance to outcomes are not well articulated. Full Response Lincoln University welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014 – 2024 (NSSI). We consider this document provides an excellent description and useful overview of the New Zealand Government’s targeted investment into science. As such it provides a valuable framework for discussing how the system can be further improved, and we welcome the government’s openness to this review. However, as the report deals with all research funds, e.g. Marsden, it should be considering all types of research not just science. The following comments are provided for your consideration and we ask that you note that while change is inevitable, we are hopeful that it is kept to a minimum to ensure that recent initiatives are given the chance to succeed, and that the good sound footing that has already been established can be maintained. Lincoln University recognises the challenges faced in reaching the right balance and mix of funding decisions, and we appreciate the fact that under the current system each institution is given fair and equal consideration. We also note that despite recent increased investment we do not accept that this investment has grown by 70% across Government since 2007/08 as there appears no evidence for such a claim. The inclusion of PBRF probably exaggerates the investment level, as it was always part of the ecosystem, contributing to baseline university funding. By reclassifying it in this way has, we suggest, artificially boosted the ledger. Caution needs to be taken in regards to considering this fund in this way as it predominantly rewards outputs, not outcomes. However, we do accept that science funding has increased somewhat over the period, but strongly believe there is still a strong case for science funding to be further increased as government and business investment in research and development, even with the inclusion of PBRF, still remains well below OECD norms. In particular, Lincoln University feels that the amount of contestable funding made available should be increased, as due to the introduction of CORE funding for CRIs and the advent of the National Science Challenges, this type of funding has significantly decreased in recent years. Contestable processes are generally considered superior to non‐contestable as they are more transparent, more independent, attract a greater diversity of ideas (including disruptive, innovative and unconventional ideas), are less susceptible to capture and are associated with lower governance and management costs. It is also Lincoln University’s belief that the New Zealand science system would be more efficient if the number of contestable funds was reduced, with those remaining managing a greater pool of funding than is currently the case. Whilst there may be small contestable pools in the NSCs, and we acknowledge that these are an important part of the NZ science environment, the NSCs are still at a too early stage for their success to be assured and they are hugely expensive to implement, requiring massive time investment. In addition, Lincoln University would support more flexibility within the fund management to allow a wider scope of definition and greater creativity. It therefore, supports the recommendation to move to a larger, more flexible funding system. We acknowledge that this may result in significant overbidding, with less chance of success, but believe individual institutions should introduce triage processes to manage their bidding activity and prioritise key areas of strategic importance for support. International collaboration in particular, would likely be more successful if the money allocated to this activity was in one or a limited number of schemes. The many small current schemes have high transaction costs and lots of restrictive rules. Also, there is poor follow‐up on in‐
bound and out‐bound missions, with disconnect between mission identification and the priorities of the research community, allowing further opportunity for improvement. There is also an overall acknowledgment that industry‐ready investments are hard to create in the current system. Lincoln University believes that the current emphasis of co‐funding by industry partners, of what are generally relatively early stage projects, should be re‐examined. This focus can sometimes lead to inappropriate parties capturing all the rights to commercialise at the end of the project, limiting the impact of the research. In contrast, where multiple industries need to benefit, as is the case with the Enabling Technologies investment tool, it is difficult to get buy in, as one industry sees itself as cross‐subsidising another. The criteria for co‐funding therefore, needs to be re‐examined, with options pricing potentially presenting a valid alternative. Lincoln University would strongly support an increase in Pre‐seed Accelerator Funding (PSAF) as it is an important part of the commercialisation pathway. It is currently a disproportionately small proportion of the overall science investment portfolio. As well as increasing PSAF monies Lincoln University also believes that a reduction in the PSAF matched funding requirement from 50% to 25% should create a greater incentive for research organisations to pursue commercial applications. It is worth noting that research grants typically require no institutional matching of funding and technology incubators require only 25%. The need to find the matching 50% acts as a barrier to commercialisation activities, in particular, a barrier to recruiting external expertise to support commercial activities. One criteria for receiving this funding should include demonstrable links not only to end‐users but also to investors, incubators and Callaghan Innovation, which are positive components of the ecosystem. We also believe that access to capital is a key issue to emerging firms, and ways to increase the size and number of investment pools needs to be addressed. Likewise, the gap in experienced science entrepreneurs and global companies to act as training grounds in highly focussed, commercial science, also needs to be filled. Lincoln University also believes that closer alignment between universities and CRIs will allow opportunities to increase the production of high quality, relevant research while reducing duplication of effort and infrastructure. Initiatives, such as the Lincoln Hub are key to leveraging these synergies and should be promulgated. Integrated within the research categories of ‘investigator‐led’, ‘mission‐led’ and ‘industry‐led’, a fourth category should be identified for ‘education‐led’ research, especially given the inclusion of the PBRF fund, in the research funding ecosystem. An important factor in universities being able to provide excellent science of the highest quality is ‘the investment made in future capability’. A gap currently exists between VOTE tertiary education funding and funding for postgraduate students to undertake research. VOTE education, while extremely important, is not the complete answer because the development of ‘new researchers’ once they have completed their education is critical, as is the need to retain their expertise within our shores, rather than losing them to attractive overseas scholarships. We also note that the lack of operational funding for Universities can be hugely constraining. We are unlikely to receive the full value of our postgraduates and postdocs if we are unable to provide funding to allow for more extensive (and at times capital intensive) research. We believe strengthening the funding support for postdocs and postgraduates is an important component in achieving the required level of capability development to support the nation’s enduring goals in research development. We therefore propose the establishment of a contestable education‐led research fund for both postgraduate students and post‐docs, aimed at enabling them to quickly and effectively establish industry and end‐user contacts and research profiles that will support their career, be it within or outside academia. Ideally, this fund would be devolved to individual universities for dissemination as they are far better placed to recognise the strategic importance of the research being undertaken. In support of development of this fund we note that: 




Universities currently often miss the opportunity to expand on the value their postdocs can provide; The opportunity to work closely alongside a key researcher broadens the experience of a new doctorate, feeds their enthusiasm and enhances the experience for both teacher and learner; Postdocs free up key researchers to enable them to focus and advance their research in their particular area of speciality and focus; The ability of key researchers to have 1‐2 postdocs working with them has been proven to increase outputs; This fund would help to free up the science leaders to maintain and enhance their cutting edge research. Centres Of Research Excellence are applauded as collaborative/partnership features and these type of initiatives are encouraged, but they are not aligned with the current MBIE strategy and it is Lincoln University’s opinion that greater collaboration and alignment across government departments (MBIE, TEC, MPI, and MFAT in particular) is essential and ways of facilitating this, needs to be articulated and implemented. Finally, regarding the measurement of outcomes from investment in science, the proposed NSSI performance framework is too focussed on interim quantitative indicator metrics as opposed to actual impacts. The links between these metrics and the impacts sought are not well articulated and there are too many. There would be benefit in focussing on a smaller number, targeted at measuring societal, environmental and economic benefits per se. Also the concept of value for money is also not considered and ways of assessing this should potentially be developed. In conclusion, we welcome the NSSI document. It forms an excellent framework for starting the dialogue on how the research system could be improved. We are pleased to have been asked for feedback, and Lincoln University looks forward to working closely with Government in identifying and developing improvements as we move forward. Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
Submission from the University of Auckland Leadership Team
Vice-Chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon
The University of Auckland Leadership Team welcomes this opportunity to have input
into the National Statement of Science Investment.
To make this submission, we have carefully considered the draft Statement and the
issues it raises; collated and assessed evidence for the various options; and canvassed
opinion from University researchers via fora such as the University Research Committee.
In this submission we comment on the draft Statement’s objectives, and then address a
number of its specific questions.
We commend the two priority objectives of the Statement: realising research excellence
and impact. This submission is made with the aim of enhancing New Zealand’s
achievement of these two goals, and ensuring they can continue to be realised for the
foreseeable future.
Recommendations
1. A greater proportion of funding needs to be allocated via contestable, transparent,
robust, peer-reviewed processes, as is international best practice, in order to
support NSSI objective 1 “excellent science of the highest quality”.
2. Affiliations between Crown Research Institutes and the tertiary sector – already
established in initiatives such as joint graduate schools – should become closer, in
order to achieve economies of scale for CRIs and increase their flexibility,
collaboration, training and employment opportunities.
3. More funding priority needs to be placed on investigator-led research, so that
Government is funding the medium-to-high risk, potentially very high impact
research that would otherwise not take place.
4. Less emphasis needs to be placed on industry-led funding, to shift the balance
towards funding vital fundamental research that could not otherwise take place,
including research with possible medium- to long-term benefits for sectors other
than industry.
5. Career development, including postdoctoral fellowships, should be the responsibility
of the research institutions.
6. Project funding should be fully-costed.
1
7. In a highly competitive system, early-career and mid-career researchers need
opportunity to apply for ring-fenced, staircase funding such as the Marsden Fast
Start grants. Similar opportunities should be provided in other funding mechanisms.
8. Vision Mātauranga content and understanding within all research funding
applications needs to be assessed and graded when funding decisions are being
made.
9. Evaluation of impact should assess the impact of the NZ science system as a whole,
over the long term (15+ years) rather than any less-effective measures focussing on
individual projects or contracts.
10. When evaluating impact, care must be taken that:
a. a narrow focus on only short-term benefits is not mistaken for impact
b. social, environment and cultural objectives are included
c. Vision Mātauranga objectives and indicators are considered
d. the performance indicators are appropriate and allow sufficient time for
unanticipated impact to develop.
11. Government should consult widely and consider a variety of options as to how best
to increase research impact before settling on a course of action.
12. Multiple small funding mechanisms should be replaced with fewer, larger funding
mechanisms addressing clear strategic objectives and allocated by simplified,
consistent, peer review processes prioritised first on science excellence.
13. The international support fund should either be redirected into fundamental
contestable research programmes, or managed to support a clear, longterm and
transparent international research engagement strategy based on excellent research
programmes.
14. Large scale infrastructure for NZ science needs to be supported via a long-term,
stable funding pool that funds both operation (OPEX) as well as depreciation
(CAPEX).
Objectives (p16&17)
Realising research excellence and impact, and ensuring they can continue to be realised
for the foreseeable future, are the primary objectives for any science system. We see all
other Government science investment objectives as supporting the achievement of these
two overarching goals.
Objective 1:
Producing excellent science of the highest quality
We unreservedly commend this as the draft Statement’s first objective and
priority for action. It is a worthy aim in and of itself, in that excellent
science allows us to better understand the world in which we live. In
addition, research that is excellent is much more likely to have major
impact. Poor quality research is a waste of money and worse than no
research. We therefore consider that research excellence should always be
the first threshold for consideration in decisions about any Government
funding of research.
2
Objective 2:
Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with the highest potential for impact
for the benefit of New Zealand
We agree that impact is important, and that increasing NZ research impact
would be positive. Indeed, one of the University of Auckland’s Strategic
Objectives 2013-2020 is: “Dissemination of high quality research that has
the greatest possible impact on and value for New Zealand and the world.”
The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) defines impact as ‘reach’
and ‘significance’ and impact can encompass “the effect on, change or
benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health,
the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia”. It is important to
remember that impact can come in a large variety of guises.
However, we do not agree that it is appropriate for all – or indeed most –
Government science and innovation investments to “have clear relevance
to the most pressing… needs” (p16). This signals an inappropriately
narrow focus on short-term impact, whereas game-changing research
impact often requires very long periods before it is fully matured.
Similarly, “potential for impact” is extremely difficult to identify, and we
would be very concerned if anticipated short-term benefits of research
proposals were used as a proxy for all possible impact. All excellent
science has potential to have impact in the long term, although the form
of the impact cannot necessarily be predicted. Ensuring that all, or even
most, funded investments “have clear relevance to the most pressing
industry, social and environmental needs” will only ensure that New
Zealand fails to undertake breakthrough research which gives high but
often unpredictable benefits in the medium- to-long term.
Instead, ensuring that all worthwhile impact is realised from all funded
research would be another, complementary focus. For example, for some
research, emphasis on the research question may not be as productive as
reviewing the results, to determine all possible applications. It may be
valuable to resource impact-increasing activities such as dissemination
vehicles. For other research, consulting potential users throughout the
process, including when designing the research question, is highly
recommended, but this is not the same as ‘user-led’ or ‘industry-led’
research.
We recommend changing this objective to “Increasing the value and
impact of New Zealand science by supporting knowledge exchange and
user engagement with science for the benefit of New Zealand and the
world.”
Objective 3:
Committing to continue increasing investment over time
We commend the commitment to increasing investment over time, and
recommend that, as additional investment becomes available, it is used to
boost funding in already existing mechanisms, rather than proliferating the
number of different funds, as has been the case in the past.
3
As an interim measure, a commitment to at least maintaining the value of
current investment by CPI adjustment of all existing funds would be of
substantial assistance. Such regular adjustment to science investment, in
the same way as regular adjustment is made to other important
Government investments such as health and education, would provide an
important signal of Government commitment to the science sector, and
help to give the sector much-needed stability.
Objective 4:
Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
An increasing focus on objectives rather than sectors per se would be of
greater and more cost-effective benefit for New Zealand. For example, one
objective might be “to increase New Zealand export income”. This allows
quality proposals which match this objective to be funded, no matter what
their industry sector. Similarly, instead of combining ‘health care and
social services’ into one ‘sector’, the objectives could something like “to
improve the health of all New Zealanders” and “to ensure all New
Zealanders have access to life’s necessities, in the most effective and
efficient way.” Objectives focus attention on desired outcomes, rather than
on other less relevant mechanistic aspects of each project, such as its
industry sector, research discipline or provider. Sector alignment of funds
is less than a decade old, and the previous non-sector specific funds NERF
and RFI were more appropriate and flexible than the sector model, and
more likely to support greater transformational innovation than the
current sector based funds.
Objective 5:
Increasing the scale of industry-led research
We do not support this objective for Government-funded research. For
reasons explained in the relevant sections below, Government’s current
science investments over-emphasise industry-led research. Since, as the
Statement (p20) sets out, industry-funded research (BERD) is extremely
limited in New Zealand, a better objective would be “Increasing the scale
of industry-funded research”.
Objective 6:
Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
We support this objective. Vision Mātauranga is an increasingly important
part of the science system and its implementation needs to be enhanced
(as outlined in the relevant section below) rather than just continued as
business as usual.
Objective 7:
Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of
our science system to benefit New Zealanders.
We commend this objective, and make some suggestions as to how this
might be best achieved below, bearing in mind that the most important
international relationships in science are those between scientists
themselves. There also needs to be research to support New Zealand’s
commitments to international conventions and agreements, thus
increasing the international profile of New Zealand, its research
institutions, and its scientists on the world stage.
4
Overall Science Investment Outlook
Investment Balance
Contestable Funds:
Question 1a: Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds?
Recommendation 1: A greater proportion of funding needs to be allocated via
contestable, transparent, robust, peer-reviewed processes, as is international best
practice, in order to support NSSI objective 1 “excellent science of the highest quality”.
Reasons:
•
Currently, less than 10% of Government science investment is contestable
funding allocated via transparent, robust peer-reviewed processes. Such
processes are international best practice to ensure that excellence is supported
and encouraged. They are also the least expensive to administer.
•
The process of competitive grant rounds generates excellent ideas and innovation
which are likely to be lost with direct institutional funding. Institutional funding
risks ensuring support for the “lowest common denominator” or “least valuable
players” who are least likely to succeed in a contestable peer-reviewed system.
•
There was a large shift of the science investment away from contestable funds
with the establishment of CRI core funding (Figure 1), and this imbalance will be
exacerbated with the movement of funds from contestable funds to National
Science Challenges in the near future.
Figure 1: Vote RS&T Budget (Non Dept, Non-Capex) by Category ($M)
600
500
400
TOTAL available
research contestable
300
TOTAL CRI capability
200
TOTAL available
business
100
Total OTHER
Source: Govt Budget documents. See endnote for category explanations.
i
Figure 1 shows that research funding potentially available via contestable
processes decreased nearly 12% from 2003/04 to 2012/13 from $444M to
$391M. Figure 2 shows that the CPI inflation-adjusted amount in 2012/13 was
only 69% of the 2003/04 amount in real terms.
5
Figure 2: Vote RS&T Research Contestable Actual and Inflation-Adjusted amounts ($M & %
of 2003 total)
600
120%
500
100%
400
research contestable raw
amount
80%
300
60%
200
40%
100
20%
0%
Cost-of-Research inflation
(4% pa) adjusted annual
spend (2003 dollars)
CPI inflation adjusted
annual spend (2003
dollars)
Source: Govt Budget Documents.
•
In 2007, the OECD found that, judged by citation counts, Marsden-funded
publications have a significantly greater impact than other New Zealand-authored
publications, and that Marsden-funded articles have a higher rate of international
collaboration than New Zealand-authored articles. ii
•
For mission-led research, contestable funding is more flexible than established
institutional funding: RfPs can reflect Government’s current and new priorities. It
also attracts fewer administrative costs for the sector as a whole.
Institutional funds
Question 1b: Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry?
Recommendation 2: Affiliations between Crown Research Institutes and the tertiary
sector – already established in initiatives such as joint graduate schools – should become
closer, in order to achieve economies of scale for CRIs and increase their flexibility,
collaboration, training and employment opportunities.
Reasons:
•
The mix of New Zealand’s public institutions reflects historical sector alignment,
not current or future priorities. CRIs are mostly small, without access to many
economies of scale, and they have narrow foci, more or less fixed at
establishment. CRI core funding ensures support for the status quo. This rigidity
makes it difficult to move resources and expertise towards any new Government
priorities.
•
New Zealand’s proportion of funding for government research agencies (CRIs) is
unusually high and against international trends (Figure 3). Small does not
necessarily mean nimble or flexible; the number of patents filed annually (PCT
filings) by the CRIs trended downwards for the 2003-2012 decade, from 34 in
2003 to only 11 in 2012.
6
Million PPP Dollars - Current
prices
Figure 3: 2010 Govt expenditure on R&D performed by Universities and Public Research
Organisations for Small Advanced Economies group
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Government sector (Public
Research Organisations)
Higher education
Source: OECD, OECD.Stat Extracts, available from
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=GERD_FUNDS
•
Closer links to tertiary institutions would be consistent with international norms,
achieve economies of scale for CRIs, and increase their flexibility, collaboration,
training and employment opportunities.
•
Depending on the arrangement, the New Zealand science system may benefit
from improved international rankings if CRIs were more closely linked to tertiary
institutions. International rankings are important to attracting top quality
researchers and international funding as well as students.
•
Money saved through economies of scale could be released as contestable
funding, so that (i) the best research would be funded, no matter what the
institution, and (ii) Government funding can follow Government goals, rather than
being committed to CRI sectors for historical reasons.
In 2007, the OECD recommended that New Zealand “consider, as a medium- or
long-term target, consolidating the public research sector. There may currently be
too many PROs (tertiary education institutions and CRIs) on too many different
sites.”ii
Investigator-led and industry-led funds
Question 1c: Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and industryled funding?
Question 12: Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth? If not, towards what high-level
outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in our science investments?
Question 15: How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science
investments? What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
Recommendation 3: More funding priority needs to be placed on investigator-led
research, so that Government is funding the medium-to-high risk, potentially very high
impact research that would otherwise not take place.
Reasons:
•
Investigator-led funding leads to valuable breakthroughs with wide implications
and impact beyond the original projects.
7
Case study:
Investigator-led research with cross-sector, national and international benefits
In 2005, Prof Anthony Rodgers at the National Institute for Health Innovation
(University of Auckland) published the first ever randomised controlled trial on a
health intervention delivered solely by text message – STOMP for smoking cessation.
This intervention based on brief intervention messages was successful at doubling
short-term quit rates. As a result, the Ministry of Health decided to fund STOMP as a
free national service. Researchers worked with The Quit Group to help implement the
intervention. The researchers also collaborated with the London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine to adapt the intervention for the UK, where it was also shown to
double long-term quit rates and to be cost-effective. This research has led to
worldwide development of text-messaging smoking cessation programmes and
stimulated widespread research into the use of text messaging and mobile phones for
other healthy behaviour change and for health interventions.
•
In 2007, the OECD found that the Marsden Fund “plays a key role in supporting
excellent blue sky research which is important for ensuring that New Zealand
does not miss unexpected opportunities.”ii The bigger the fund, the bigger the
probability of successful, high-impact research yielding a big pay-off for society.
•
Investigator-led research relies overwhelmingly on Government funding; there
are very few other potential funders. Government needs to take risks that the
private sector will not or cannot, to fund research that may be of considerable
benefit in the long term. The country will lose out completely on break-through
innovations if Government does not prioritise investigator-led funding.
Case studies, from the UK:
Ground-breaking, blue skies research with wider applications
o Research into growing gallium nitride on silicon unexpectedly led to the ability to
produce low-cost LED lights and the first manufacture of LEDs in the UK.
o A 1980s punt on catalysis by gold (thought to be highly unlikely to work) has hugely
advanced the direct synthesis of hydrogen peroxide, and is being advocated for
water clean-up.
o A DPhil student study of insect movements led to the development of algorithms that
now power games on smart phones and animation in blockbuster movies – the
subsequent company, NaturalMotion, sold for $527 million in January 2014.
o Research into Raman microscopy led to a highly sensitive technique for the detection
of art forgeries.
o A researcher ‘making interesting molecules’ containing lots of nitrogen atoms led to
the discovery of the brain-tumour drug temozolomde, which became a 'blockbuster'
in 2008, some 30 years after its initial synthesis. The drug has now amassed sales of >
$8.5 billion and that doesn't include the generics.
Curiosity-driven ‘Blue Sky’ Research: a threatened vital activity? (2013) by Sir John Cadogan
8
•
There are actually multiple pipelines and tight connections between investigator-led
and industry-led research. If the first is squeezed, the second is also squeezed in the
long run. Investigators often become business people in their own right;
investigators are not always separate from industry, even if they work in public
research institutions. Spin-out companies form directly in universities and research
centres; and Government investment in fundamental research leads to others
investing in applied research, increasing BERD and international investment. In any
year, across the eight NZ universities combined:
between 50 and 100 patents are issued
about 10 companies are set up
50 to 70 new licensing arrangements are negotiated iii
o
o
o
Case study:
Government-funded basic research leads to spin-out companies and external investors
Engender Technologies is a company spun out of the Photon Factory at the University of
Auckland in 2011 to commercialise a novel way to sort sperm for the dairy industry.
The two key people in the development of the sperm sorting technology were Associate
Professor Cather Simpson and Dr Charles Rohde, a postdoctoral researcher; researchers
with a deep understanding of the interaction of light with matter, thanks to investigatorled contestable grants.
Because of their fundamental science expertise, the researchers could design the sperm
sorting device to use microfluidics and photonics. They applied for an international
patent in January 2014.
The sperm project started with an approach from Pacific Channel venture capital firm to
Associate Professor Simpson. About $150,000 from NZ investors and Auckland
UniServices started the company. The research was supported further as a small
component in a major MBIE Targeted Research grant on Laser Micromachining and
Microfabrication.
If successfully deployed in New Zealand, this new technology will improve cost
efficiencies in large animal reproduction, but much more importantly, it will accelerate
genetic gain and therefore productivity. This will have a material impact on the NZ
economy.
Further, Engender, if successful in securing just 20% of the global dairy artificial
insemination market, would generate $79 million of licensing revenues. Engender is also
pursuing applications to more niche areas such as endangered animals, zoos, and
animals raised for sport.
If Dr. Rohde and I had not spent years in very fundamental research, Engender
Technologies, the patent, the potential economic impact of this project simply
would not exist.
One does not invent the lightbulb – a transformational technology – by studying
candles…. My concern with the NZ science funding landscape is that the balance is
tilted too far in the short-term, incremental gain direction. In 10 years we will not
have people trained in cutting edge, fundamental science and engineering. We will
have no strong foundation upon which to build tomorrow’s technologies.
-
Associate Professor Cather Simpson, University of Auckland and Engender Technologies
-
9
•
Research itself is an export-income earning industry for New Zealand. For example,
over the last three years, University of Auckland-generated export research income
alone has been approximately $54 million per annum.
“Innovation processes are not linear; they are both science-pushed and market-pulled, with complex
feedback loops.” – OECD 2007 Review of Innovation Policy: New Zealand
•
PBRF is not primarily a research fund, so the funding of investigator-led and
mission-led research is actually considerably less than shown in the NSSI diagram
on p14. From 2004, student component funding at degree level and higher, in the
form of ‘top-ups’ which were intended to compensate for the higher cost of researchinformed teaching, was diverted from direct institutional funding to the PBRF funding
pool. Reflecting its origins in degree top-up funding, PBRF monies are primarily used
for educational rather than research purposes.
The PBRF fund is intended to support degree-level and postgraduate teaching and, in
particular, postgraduate and other research training and supervision. This includes
teaching staff salaries (by far the largest component), some student research costs
– for example student research expenses and doctoral scholarships – and research
career development of tertiary academic staff.
Thus, the PBRF fund is primarily educational funding, particularly funding for
research training, and not a research fund. This is why the Sector Reference Group
for the 2012 PBRF evaluation recommended that the name be changed from PBRF to
“Tertiary Research Performance Assessment”. iv
Universities have regularly protested against MORST’s, then MSI’s and now MBIE’s
misleading and inappropriate inclusion of PBRF funds in Government funding totals
for research, as PBRF funds are primarily to support education.
Recommendation 4: Less emphasis needs to be placed on industry-led funding, to shift
the balance towards funding vital fundamental research that could not otherwise take
place, including research with possible medium- to long-term benefits for sectors other
than industry.
Reasons:
• Not all crucial research for New Zealand is of interest to industry – for example,
much public health and education research (such research can have positive effects
on the economy – by increasing productivity, for example, and decreasing costs –
without being of short-term interest to industry). Research is also critical to
addressing social, environment and other policy issues.
10
Case studies:
Health research innovations and impacts
o Sparx is an international-award-winning mental health e-therapy for adolescents
launched by the Prime Minster in 2013. It was developed as an investigator-led
project by Associate Professor Sally Merry and her team with funding from the
Ministry of Health and the Health Research Council.
o
Investigator-led fundamental research by the Auckland Bone and Joint Research
group led to a decrease around the world in the prescription of calcium
supplements for prevention of osteoporosis. The group found that calcium
supplements increased the risk of heart attack and stroke by about 15-30%,
outweighing any benefits that calcium supplements might have in preventing
fractures. Between 2007 when the research was published, and 2012, in New
Zealand calcium prescriptions fell by 66%, leading to savings of approximately $4
million for Pharmac over this time.
o
The National Immunisation Advisory Centre based at the University of Auckland
and its collaborators have undertaken research supporting immunisation in New
Zealand for over a decade. Projects funded mostly through HRC or the Ministry of
Health and have included such topics such as identifying barriers to childhood
immunisation; responses such as education and use of decision-making tools in
the antenatal period, and improving provider systems such as early enrolment;
identifying costs of immunisation in the system; and coverage rates. This
research has influenced and supported policy initiatives leading to an increase in
full immunisation rates from less than 60% of 2-year-olds in 1991, to over 90% in
2011. In addition, equity gaps have closed: in 1991 only 42% of Maori, and 45%
of Pacific, 2-year-olds were fully immunised; 20 years later that had changed to
88% and 94% respectively. In 2007, there was a 9.5% coverage difference
between the children from the lowest socioeconomic decile and those from the
highest decile, which by June 2011 had closed to a 4% gap.
o
Researchers from ESR, Auckland Healthcare and the University of Auckland
published evidence in 2000 that household crowding is a major risk factor for
epidemic meningococcal disease in Auckland children. This led to Housing New
Zealand’s Healthy Housing project, which successfully renovated thousands of
state homes for low income families.
•
The current over-emphasis on industry-led research risks short term, conservative
research supporting existing industries; in other words, using public funds to support
what is mainly private good at the expense of the opportunity to support public
good. Government should be focussed on funding research that will provide the
basis for future industries, rather than prioritising the vested interests of current
industry.
•
Current policies also risk further discouraging industry investment in research as
businesses can rely on Government to “pick up the tab” on research they may
otherwise have fully funded.
11
•
There seems to be an assumption that only industry-led research has benefits for
industry. This is emphatically not the case. At the University of Auckland, 26% of all
investigator-led Marsden Grants 1998-2013 have resulted in either protected
intellectual property or follow-on research contracts with industry.
Case Studies:
Fundamental, investigator-led research leading to business ventures
o
Almost 20 years ago a surprise discovery was made. Rather than making a brain
injury worse, a synthetic DNA sequence that reduced cell-to-cell communication
actually limited how far the lesion grew. That serendipitous finding began one of the
first Marsden-funded research programmes, led by Professor Colin Green. Another
chance event, the successful healing of a seemingly untreatable chemical eye burn,
took the research team in the direction of non-healing wounds. Now Nexagon – a
clear gel that is dripped onto wounds such as venous or diabetic leg ulcers – is ready
for Phase III clinical trials, and is also leading to novel approaches to cancer therapy.
The spin-off company, CoDa Therapeutics, had raised $75 million by 2012, from
backers in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Russia, and has offices in New
Zealand and the USA. From the time of its initial funding in October 2006 over $22
million of the money CoDa raised has been spent in New Zealand, and the company
has created numerous highly skilled jobs.
o
Dr Christian Soeller’s 2008 Marsden project "The new nanobiology: seeing signal
transduction with greater clarity" resulted in two patents licensed to a global
microscope and camera company.
o
IP from Professor Andy Philpott’s 2007 Marsden project "Infinite dimensional
auctions" was licensed to Stochastic Optimisation Limited and is now used by
electricity market regulators worldwide.
•
The current heavy funding emphasis on research for industry assumes that industry
knows what the questions should be. Researching for “pressing needs” is too late,
and research addressing the needs of current industry does not support the
development of new industry, essential to New Zealand’s future growth.
•
An understanding of the pipeline of research is missing. For example, end users
should often be involved in the design of the research but there is a failure to
recognise that that is not the same as co-funding and investment, which usually
come later.
•
In other cases, forcing engagement too early with industry limits the potential
pathways for innovation and routes to market.
•
Commercial opportunities can be secured by close dialogue with commercial people,
so that any IP will be captured, rather than expecting them to drive the process.
Engender Technologies is an example of this – not only did it require large amounts
of fundamental research, but also it required the opportunity for researchers and
industry to talk to each other. This has already been happening reasonably
effectively in New Zealand over the past few years (Figure 4 overleaf).
12
Figure 4: Proportion of business-financed R&D carried out by public sector, 2010 (2009 for
Israel) for Small Advanced Economies group
14.00%
13.30%
12.00%
10.00%
% spent in Higher Education
sector
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
3.12%
1.56%
% spent in Govt (CRI) sector
3.77%
2.13%
2.04%
0.00%
% spent in HE and Govt
combined
Source: OECD http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm
•
The Statement claim on p25 that New Zealand has poor connections which need to
be improved between researchers and business is misleading. NZ businesses that
invest in R&D are far more likely to collaborate with public research institutions than
their counterparts in comparable countries, and the proportion of business spend in
the higher education sector is larger than in any other small advanced economy
(Figure 4). The measures mentioned in the Statement reflect not a lack of
cooperation, but a lack of business R&D investment overall. The 2011 Global
Innovation Index Survey, to which NSSI refers, supports this analysis: New Zealand
is ranked 39th for R&D financed by business but leverages this into 20th for
“university/industry collaboration”. The Statement has also omitted a consideration
of the unusually high level of cooperation between CRIs and business.
Case study:
Investigator led public-good research leads to new industry benefits
The technical basis for Orion Health IT products including Rhapsody (the number one
healthcare-dedicated integration engine in the world, used by thousands of
organisations and health departments globally) can be traced back to a collaboration
between John Hosking and Rick Mugridge from the University of Auckland Computer
Science department and the Building Research Association of New Zealand on a
public good science fund project (1992-1995). One outcome of this collaboration was
a language which formed the basis of a PhD thesis, originally designed to translate
from one information model describing a building product to another. Some years
later (in 1999), this work informed a Technology for Business Growth project with
Orion Health, which led to Orion’s Symphonia Mapper (released 2001) and Rhapsody
products.
13
Career development
Question 10. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of
investment in science?
There is clearly general agreement throughout the sector that career paths in research
are lacking, particularly at the post-doctoral level. We also acknowledge that there are
differences of opinion across the sector as to how best to respond to this. Our
recommendation acknowledges the realities of a very limited research funding
environment. If more funding were available, our recommendations would be different.
Recommendation 5: Career development, including postdoctoral fellowships, should be
the responsibility of the research institutions.
Reasons:
•
Current funds for researcher career development are too small to make any real
impact on the workforce.
•
The institutions would invest appropriately in career development in response to
consistent, long-term signals about future research opportunities (and hence
workforce requirements). However, this will only be possible if all Government
funded research is fully costed. The current arrangement whereby most
ministries continue to ignore the Ministerial Directive of 2003 that all the costs of
research should be fully funded means that research providers are unable to
adequately support a robust career development programme for all researchers,
and particularly for those early in their career. The steady reduction in
opportunities to contest for research funding in recent years has also inhibited
research institutions in investing in career development.
Recommendation 6: Project funding should be fully-costed.
Reasons:
•
Because much research funding in New Zealand is not currently fully-costed
(charities, most government departments, some MBIE-funded schemes), research
providers are having to subsidise their research activities from other parts of their
businesses, and are unable to invest significantly in longterm capability funding.
•
PBRF is not primarily a research fund, so the funding of tertiary sector research is
considerably less than shown in the NSSI diagram pg 14.
•
Full cost funding would enable institutions to better invest in Governmentindicated priorities such as career development. The 2007 OECD Review of NZ
Innovation Policy recommended a strategic task should be to “reinforce the public
research system’s capacity to contribute to innovation and to human resource
development, notably via improved steering and financing mechanisms.”
Recommendation 7: In a highly competitive system, early-career and mid-career
researchers need opportunity to apply for ring-fenced, staircase funding such as the
Marsden Fast Start grants. Similar opportunities should be provided in other funding
mechanisms.
14
Reasons:
•
Workforce development and succession planning are required in order to support
research excellence and impact into the future.
•
New Zealand has low levels of staircasing, when compared internationally. For
example, the New Zealand science system competes directly with the Australian
system for its workforce, but every year Australia offers:

200 three-year Discovery Early Career Researcher Award postdoctoral fellowships, including salary and some project costs.

200 mid-career Future Fellowships, supporting research in areas of
critical national importance, and aiming to attract and retain the
best and brightest mid-career researchers. These include some
funding for infrastructure, equipment, travel and relocation directly
related to each Fellow’s research, as well as salary.

17 Australian Laureate Fellows at Professor level. These do not
include salary but do include a salary supplement.
Impact, Assessment and Evaluation
Question 5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Question 11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the
relevance and impact of research?
Question 17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Recommendation 8: Vision Mātauranga content and understanding within all research
funding applications needs to be assessed and graded when funding decisions are being
made.
Reasons:
•
There is no incentive to create change for different forms of knowledge production
unless its inclusion impacts on funding decisions. If researchers are certain that
Vision Mātauranga is not applicable to their application, comprehensive reasons
should be given.
•
The current situation in which often only lip service is paid, means that New
Zealand is missing out on opportunities to generate new knowledge.
•
The demographic shifts New Zealand is currently undergoing present both
opportunity and risk, if the system is not proactive in meeting them.
•
Since many researchers and evaluators struggle to understand and apply the real
meaning of Vision Mātauranga, serious consideration should be given to reviewing
this policy so that its implications are more readily understood and implemented
by the research community.
15
Case study:
Vision Mātauranga research with benefits for all
Māori have voiced a range of concerns regarding the aerial application of 1080 bait and
expressed the view that alternatives to 1080 are needed. One idea is that there may be toxins
already present in plants in New Zealand's ecosystems that could provide alternative pest control
tools.
A Lincoln University research project, funded by Centre of Research Excellence Ngā Pae o te
Māramatanga documented mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and scientific literature of
plants that have bioactive properties. Three hui were held with Tūhoe representatives to discuss
cultural issues surrounding the use of toxins and identify key attributes for acceptable pest
control. An extensive literature review was completed in relation to toxins in New Zealand plants
and their recorded effects on humans and animals. This first stage of the research completed in
2009 found 11 native plant species recorded as having poisoned people and stock, with others
having some toxic effect, and nine species of native plants used by Māori for their anti-fertility
properties. This could be a particularly important area of future research, allowing the
development of baits that render pest populations infertile.
The team moved on to the second stage of the research with funding from the Ministry of
Science and Innovation. The team tested the most promising plants against animal pests, and
tutin (contained by tutu) emerged as the flagship example of a naturally occuring toxin. Next
steps include determining toxicity to rats and assessing tutin palatability for potential addition to
bait material.
This work provides a good example of how end-user groups can be involved in all aspects of the
research process – as initiators of research ideas, as research partners and as end-users.
Recommendation 9: Evaluation of impact should assess the impact of the New Zealand
science system as a whole, over the long term (15+ years) rather than any less-effective
measures focussing on individual projects or contracts.
Reasons:
•
We support efforts to examine the effectiveness/ impact/ benchmarking of the
whole system. The science system delivers enormous benefits for New Zealand
and demonstrations of this are important. However, not every individual project
will deliver impact in a foreseeable timeframe – if they do, then the balance of
investment is wrong. For every major breakthrough, a number of risks need to be
taken, otherwise only small incremental projects will be funded.
•
Assessing potential impact of research at the beginning of individual projects is
very difficult for most research. Research is by its very nature dealing in
unknowns.
•
It is possible to expend large amounts of resource on quantitative assessment of
funding applications and still not spend money “more accurately”. There is no
perfect evaluation instrument, so resources should not be spent constantly trying
to find one. The compliance costs of any potential changes to assessment,
monitoring and evaluation must be realistically calculated and carefully
considered to balance against the potential benefits of such changes.
16
•
We would strongly discourage Government from any move which determines
future funding at institutional level from past impact. As discovered in the UK and
Australia pilot schemes, it is difficult to attribute the exact percentage of an
impact to individual researchers or institutions, and impact can happen decades
after the actual research. Evaluation of impact and funding accordingly can create
perverse incentives such as discouraging collaboration, and is extremely
expensive.
Recommendation 10: When evaluating impact, care must be taken that:
a.
b.
c.
d.
a narrow focus on only short-term benefits is not mistaken for impact
social, environment and cultural objectives are included
Vision Mātauranga objectives and indicators are considered
the performance indicators are appropriate and allow sufficient time for
unanticipated impact to develop.
Reasons:
•
Impact often takes decades to be realised.
Case study:
Widespread benefits realised over several decades
The Soil Survey was launched in the early 1930s under the leadership of Norman
Taylor in the then DSIR Soil Survey Division which became the Soil Bureau of DSIR
in 1946. This led to much of the critical work on the national survey of soils which
was carried out post-war between 1951 and 1985. It essentially provided the key
land-use potential (and risk profile – for example hill country erosion) that is the
basis for our agricultural economy today. A much quoted outcome was the
recognition of cobalt deficiency in the volcanic soils of the central North Island
which was a critical enabler in turning this into productive land.
•
Aspects that are evaluated tend to get priority over those that are not. Social and
environmental objectives are important, as are economic objectives, and all
should therefore be assessed. For example, indicators on pg29 include graduates
in STEM subjects; such indicators should also include graduates in Social
Sciences.
•
In order to ensure Vision Mātauranga is given the focus and priority it requires, it
needs to be evaluated alongside other outcomes.
•
Performance indicators and ‘target concepts’ need to be carefully considered. For
example on pg29, “$3b for universities from Vote Tertiary Education” is listed as
a target concept, with no acknowledgement that most of this money supports
education, and not research. We hope to have a robust discussion with
Government about potential indicators, as part of the consultation process also
mentioned on p29. We appreciate that the draft Statement suggests several
indicators which use data already collected, as a way of keeping assessment costs
down.
17
Recommendation 11: Government should consult widely and consider a variety of
options as to how best to increase research impact before settling on a course of action.
Reasons:
•
The draft Statement only suggests changing funded researcher behaviour, via
assessment of potential impact of projects, whereas there is more than one place
to make an intervention in the science system to improve impact and there are
also other players to influence, such as pan-sector bodies, media, individual
organisations and institutions. There are also other ways of changing behaviour to
increase impact. For example, the ability to include dissemination activities as a
budget line for project proposals (not just industry-relevant projects but also
projects on health, education, community building etc) would be very welcome,
and would greatly enhance the ability of researchers to participate in knowledge
transfer.
Organisation of funds (including but not limited to MBIE contestable)
Question 8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could
they be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be combined,
changed or removed to simplify the system?
Question 20. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so what direction
of change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
a. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to
reduce the number of funds and the complexity of funds
c.
the sector-based nature of funding tools
Recommendation 12: Multiple small funding mechanisms should be replaced with fewer,
larger funding mechanisms addressing clear strategic objectives and allocated by
simplified, consistent, peer review processes prioritised first on science excellence.
Reasons:
•
This would reduce application and administration costs, and improve the quality
of research funded. In 2007, the OECD found that one of New Zealand’s
weaknesses was “a fragmented system of government support to R&D and
innovation” contributing to difficulty in “allocating public resources in a strategic
manner” and potentially to “wasteful duplication of effort and sub-optimal scale of
many support programmes.”ii The system has not simplified since then (Table 1)
18
Table 1. Examples of the change and expansion of some government funding
mechanisms from 2007 to 2014
Key:
no fund equivalent
2007
Fund
Subfund
New Economy Research
Fund
Supporting promising
individuals
International Science and
Technology Linkages Fund
Talented Young NZers
Research
manufacturing
for
and services
Industry
bio industry
hazards and
infrastructure
Mechanism
Research Projects/
Programmes
Post-doctoral
fellowships
Tuapapa Māori
fellowships
Travel grants
Fund
Subfund
Research Projects/
Programmes
Research Projects/
Programmes
Research Projects/
Programmes
Sector
funds
HVMS
2014
Hazards and
infrastructure
Energy and
minerals
Research Projects
Environmental
research
Research Projects/
Programmes
Research Projects/
Programmes
Research Projects/
Programmes
Research Projects/
Programmes
Support Grants
Envirolink
global change
natural ecosystems
productive
eco-systems
sustainable
resource use
Research Projects
Smart ideas
Targeted
Bio-industry
Māori knowledge and
development research
Social research
Mechanism
Te Pūnaha Hihiko Vision
Mātauranga Capability Fund
Social research
Environmental research
Enabling
Technologies
Smart ideas
Targeted
Enabling
Technologies
Smart ideas
Targeted
Enabling
Technologies
Smart ideas
Targeted
Enabling
Technologies
Smart ideas
Targeted
Smart ideas
Targeted
Enabling
Technologies
Envirolink
19
Support Grants
2007
International investment
Research Projects
opportunities
Pre-seed accelerator fund
Devolved funding
grants
Research consortia funding
Research
Programmes
Technology
Technology
Development Grants
New Zealand for Business
programmes Growth
Technology
Fellowships
in Industry
Fellowships
Teclink
Support Grants
2014
International relationships
fund
Pre-seed accelerator fund
Research partnerships
funding
Callaghan
Incubator
Innovation: support
Standard grants
Fast start grants
Fellowships
fellowships
Centre grants
James Cook Fellowships
Teacher Fellows
Centres of Research
Excellence
HRC
Project grants
Programme grants
Career development grants
International Investment
Opportunities
Partnership programme
grants
Devolved funding
grants
Research
Programmes
Global expert
introductions
R&D Growth
R&D Project
Grants
Grants
R&D Student
Grants
Experience Grants
Careers Grants
Fellowships
Course and
consultant costs
Standard grants
Fast start grants
fellowships
fellowships
Centre grants
Better by Lean
Marsden Fund
Research Projects
Marsden Fund
James Cook
Endeavour Teacher
Centres of Research
Excellence
HRC
Project grants
Programme grants
Career development grants
International Relationship Fund
Partnership programme grants
Feasibility grants
Independent Research
Organisations Capability Fund
Explorer grants
Emerging researcher first grants
CRI Core funding
Non-contestable
funding
Carbon capture and storage
investment funds
Primary growth partnership
Devolved
funds
Programme funding
Rutherford Discovery
Fellowships
National Science Challenges Devolved
Programme funding
20
•
The number of assessment panels can be reduced. Having six independent
advisory groups (assessment panels) as MSI did in 2011/12 is unnecessary. v
•
The economies of scale that can be achieved with larger funds are perhaps
indicated by the pattern of administrative costs incurred by the Centres of
Research Excellence: in general, the bigger the CoRE budget, the lower the
percentage spent on administration.
Figure 5. Percentage of annual budget spent by CoREs on administration
vs annual budget size ($M), 2010-2013
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
2
4
Annual
Budget ($M)6
8
10
Source: CoRE annual reports and websites
International
Question 9: How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How
well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could
advance this goal?
Recommendation 13: The international support fund should either be redirected into
fundamental contestable research programmes, or managed to support a clear, longterm
and transparent international research engagement strategy based on excellent research
programmes.
Reason:
•
Funding to support international research and attract international investment is
vital. However, current funding to support international research is very limited
and used to support short-term political objectives of little scientific value.
Isolating support for international research in separate funds is ineffective
because it rarely matches up with the research need. We have been unable to
find an example of a significant outcome of the international support fund.
21
•
International collaboration is not an end in itself, but extremely valuable for
progressing many high quality research activities. It takes time and energy to
develop and sustain, and is fundamentally based on relationships of mutual need
and respect between individual researchers. Thus long-term support of
opportunities for researchers to interact is essential.
•
New Zealand has signed up to several international initiatives (e.g. Group on
Earth Observations, Convention on Biological Diversity) and spends significant
staff time and travel in participating. There should be ring-fenced funding to also
fund research that provides practical high-profile contributions to these initiatives.
This will increase the international standing of New Zealand and its institutions
and scientists, attract international collaboration, and open doors to overseas
funding opportunities.
New Zealand scientists are regularly invited to partner in research funded by the
USA National Science Foundation, European Commission and EU COST Action
programme, but have no easy access to local funding to contribute to such
partnerships. Such support would help leverage these international funds to
support the New Zealand science system.
•
Large scale research infrastructure
Question 10. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of
investment in science?
Recommendation 14: Large scale infrastructure for NZ science needs to supported via a
long-term, stable funding pool that funds both operation (OPEX) as well as depreciation
(CAPEX).
Reason:
•
Current expectations of purchaser matching funds and user-pays costing
structures can result in instruments wastefully sitting idle as using them can be
too expensive for researchers or institutions.
•
Optimal use of expensive research infrastructure requires specialist expertise; if
this is not funded at the same time as the equipment, usage can be inefficient or
inappropriate.
•
Ad hoc funding for specific projects leads to “lumpy” funding demands and does
not allow for longterm coordinated planning for the infrastructure needs of the
entire NZ science system. There is currently neither the mechanism nor the
incentive for different parts of the system to do this.
22
Notes and References
i
For Figures 1 & 2, the RESEARCH CONTESTABLE category includes all research funds directly
accessible by research organisations: Biological Industries Research (apart from Tech NZ transfers),
Energy and Minerals Research, Environmental Research, Fellowships for Excellence, Hazards and
Infrastructure Research, Health and Society Research, Health Research, High Value Manufacturing
and Services Research (apart from Tech NZ transfers, Technology Transfer Initiatives and Technology
Development Grants), International Investment Opportunities Fund, Māori Knowledge and
Development Research, Marsden Fund, New Economy Research Fund, Pre-Seed Fund, Research for
Industry, Rutherford Foundation, Social Research, Support for Primary Health Research, Supporting
Promising Individuals, Sustainable Energy Development, Vision Mātauranga.
In addition, for Figure 1, the CRI CAPABILITY category includes all funds only available for CRIs:
Advanced Network CRI Tariffs, CRI Capability Fund, Crown Research Institute Core Funding, National
Measurement Standards, Non-Specific Output Funding [for CRIs], Science Collections and
Infrastructure.
The BUSINESS category includes: Biological Industries Tech NZ transfer, Global Technology
Partnerships, HVMS Tech NZ transfer, HVMS Technology Development Grants, HVMS Technology
Transfers initiatives, Tech NZ
OTHER category includes: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION (Development of International Linkages,
International Science and Technology Linkages, International Relationships), INFRASTRUCTURE
(Advanced Network, Advanced Network Capability Building, Australian Synchrotron, Convention Du
Metre, Genomics Research Infrastructure, National eScience Infrastructure), PUBLIC RELATIONS
(Engaging NZers w/ Science & Technology, Promoting an Innovation Culture, NSCs public campaign),
ADVISORY (R&D Facilitation & Promotion).
ii
OECD (2007) Review of Innovation Policy: New Zealand
iii
Te Pokai Tara Universities NZ (2012) University Research Commercialisation report
http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/files/UCONZ%20booklet%20FINAL.pdf
iv
PBRF Sector Reference Group (undated). “Recommendations on Redesign of the PBRF Quality
Evaluation 2012”. Available from TEC website:
http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-srg-recommendations-and-tecresponse.pdf
v
The Ministry of Science and Innovation (2012) Annual Report 2011-12
http://www.msi.govt.nz/assets/MSI/Corporate-Publications/Annual-Report-2011-12.pdf
23
059 Dr Matthias Lein
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an overview of the current
state of New Zealand’s public science system and a statement of Government’s investment in science. As such, it serves as a key point of reference for looking at where we stand, compared to
where we want to be.
The Minister wants to shape the strategic direction of the science and innovation system, and is
seeking your insights and feedback on what that direction might be.
GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS
To contribute your feedback, please download this form and enter your responses under the
relevant questions. You do not need to answer all questions. You may answer as many questions as
you wish.
Please supply your name and organisation, and indicate whether you are providing feedback on
behalf of your organisation or as an individual.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of Government’s wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
Investigator led funding is the only approach that combines the benefits of high
quality research with the principles of academic freedom. While mission led
funding certainly has its place in the government's portfolio of science investment,
overall its scope should be limited in order to preserve the space for investigator
led, free research: Trying to pick winners in research is bound to fail every time. In
the same vain: There is no space for industry led funding in New Zealand. I see
no reason why public funds should subsidise private profits.
1
059 Dr Matthias Lein
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are
under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
There is a strong need for a re-introduction of postdoctoral fellowships to support
early stage scientists during their first years of independent research in the
country.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
If so, how?
The performance of the National Science Challenges to date is questionable. The amount of time
and money that has already been spent in terms of defining the challenges and
distributing/allocating resources to the challenges combined with the dissatisfaction of the majority
of scientists in New Zealand with this process casts doubt on the legitimacy of the NSCs as a
whole. The system should be abandoned and the funds reallocated to a working system (eg the
Marsden Fund). If strategic (mission led) funding is the express wish of the government, then a
new panel under the Marsden umbrella would undoubtedly do a better job than the current
framework.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
Independent research at the universities should be strengthened. Currently too
much emphasis is on strategic funding through/to the CRIs.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
The PBRF system should be revamped. The basic idea is good, but the
compliance costs (as well as the incentives to "game the system") are too high.
2
059 Dr Matthias Lein
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure
those problems are being addressed?
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in science?
3
059 Dr Matthias Lein
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment. These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
4
059 Dr Matthias Lein
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
5
059 Dr Matthias Lein
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
6
059 Dr Matthias Lein
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI
objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds
are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
-
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
-
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
-
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
-
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
Your feedback on these matters might address the following questions:
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f. The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
7
059 Dr Matthias Lein
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
8
059 Dr Matthias Lein
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
26. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might
they be overcome?
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s sector specific research funds?
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. We value your contribution.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
May 2014
9
Draft National Statement of Science Investments
Submission from engaged Social Science | Hui Rangahau Tahi (eSocSci)
Introduction
engaged Social Science | Hui Rangahau Tahi (eSocSci) 1 welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI). We appreciate the
work of MBIE in providing a picture of the contemporary funding landscape and your
request for feedback.
eSocSci is the largest network of social scientists in New Zealand (we have over 1,000
members subscribed to our website). We are a project committed to building
interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral relationships for richer research and better informed
social action. Through our website and virtual seminar support we provide a mechanism to
connect research producers and research consumers nationally without the economic and
environmental costs of travelling. The NSSI report is a valuable resource for eSocSci; by
featuring information from this report on our website knowledge about the New Zealand
science system will be more widely and directly accessible to our members.
We bring our experience of encouraging collaboration among social scientists and between
research users and consumers to our comments. The value of eSocSci is demonstrated in
the speed with which we have been able to elicit, collate and seek endorsement for the
issues outlined in this submission. The list of contributors, from across our networks and the
universities, speaks to the strength of collective voice. Our fundamental question for the
National Statement is: Where are the social sciences located in this statement on science
investment?
In New Zealand there is a tendency to discriminate between
• Natural, biomedical, behavioural sciences, engineering, mathematics (broadly STEM,
although STEM does not automatically include behavioural science); and
• Social sciences (SocSci).
In every day conversation in New Zealand, ‘science’ is often presumed to describe only the
disciplines and sub-disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and, sometimes
earth sciences such as geology. In the primary and high school curricula, for example,
‘science’ is routinely distinguished from social science. 2 Overall, this distinction appears to be
used in the NSSI document. The ‘Science Investment’ framework and what constitutes ‘the
eSocSci (formerly the BRCSS Network) has had funding from MBIE since 2012. The contract expires 30
September 2014 but the job of the network is far from done.
1
2 As the Looking Ahead (2011, p3) report suggests, ‘science as “that which most parents think of … physics,
chemistry, biology and mathematics”. Looking Ahead: Science education for the 21st century (2011, p3)
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Looking-ahead-Science-education-for-the-twenty-firstcentury.pdf
1
science system’ appears to relate almost, but not entirely, to the natural, physical,
biomedical sciences along with mathematics, engineering and technology.
eSocSci appreciates that this is probably not a deliberate framing 3 as it is generally recognised
that the study of human society and social relationships is critical to the production and use
of all science and innovation and to any process of economic development (without people,
for example, it is entirely irrelevant whether cow’s milk is a suitable food, or that particular
bacterial reproduction can be controlled by penicillin, or that climate change may or may
not be occurring).
An approach that does not incorporate social sciences is ‘unbalanced’ and naïve. This kind of
skewed research environment is associated with places such as China, Japan and Russia
where the humanities and social sciences make a very slight contribution to research
productivity. 4 This imbalance is not reflected in international jurisdictions against which we,
as New Zealand researchers, routinely compare ourselves: the UK, USA, Canada, Australia,
and the EU have specific institutional (organisational and funding) mechanisms for
supporting not just the social sciences but also the humanities alongside other research
domains. We would strenuously encourage this balanced and international approach be
reflected in the investment statement.
With this as our clear starting point, this paper outlines the role that social science has, or
needs to have, in the wider research system and identifies some significant areas of concern
that should be picked up in the next version of the NSSI.
Summary
This submission works through the three sections of the NSSI on which we have been asked
to comment. The main conclusions are highlighted immediately below:
1. That a clear and comprehensive set of research domains be identified within our ‘science
investment’ landscape. These could include broad definitions of research capacities and
capabilities based around research domains that include: Health Sciences, Life Sciences,
Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities (see ICP 2013, p71), or, relying
on the Revised Frascati Typology 5 comprising Natural sciences, Engineering & Technology,
Medical and Health sciences, Agricultural sciences, Social sciences, Humanities.
3 Discussions led by the Chief Scientist, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, would indicate that he, at least, sees
social science as clearly part of the system (see http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/blog/the-changing-culture-ofscience/)
4 International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013. (ICP 2013). A report prepared by
Elsevier for the UK’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Revised field of science and technology (fFOS) classification in the Frascati Manual (2006)
http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/38235147.pdf
5
2
2. That science investment include the establishment of ring-fenced institutional,
contestable and collaborative funding mechanisms that profile and support
contribution of the social sciences to the understanding and management of complex
social problems (including, for example, the human implications of climate change,
disasters and hazards, social and economic inequalities, demographic change including
migration, digital worlds, security and conflict, ageing, medical, scientific and
technological innovation and interventions, and social diversity).
3. That a funding stream be developed to facilitate ‘infrastructure, workforce and Vision
Mātauranga’ engagement across Vote Tertiary Education and Vote Science and
Innovation and empower universities and CRIs to jointly support initiatives such as:
o
o
o
o
ongoing review of the PBRF process and its potentially perverse
outcomes
increasing funding to universities for education across the life course (not
just the under 25 year olds)
increasing funding to specifically support the development of post
doctoral positions (potentially some of which can be in relation to
‘industry’, including some of the ‘less tangible’ industries that deal with
things such as media and communications, marketing, policy analysis,
creative works, intellectual, human, social, cultural and organisational
capital, data and information, knowledge and capabilities 6.
Ring-fencing funding to prioritise the contribution of Mātauranga Māori
(as is suggested through the proposal for a new Māori CoRE).
4. That roles and functions be clarified to:
a. Specify the role of social sciences in the science landscape in a systematic way
that addresses misconceptions between scientists, policy and decision-makers,
and science in the community through education, training of media, and
workshops in government agencies.
b. Foster high quality social science education in schooling and tertiary education
that recognizes the role of social science in building a prosperous nation as well
as stimulating and managing innovation and economic development.
c. Prioritise science communications training that is capable across all knowledge
domains. This requires greater support for communications qualifications in
universities and polytechnics.
d. Invite Māori to develop processes and protocols for ensuring that Māori
knowledge is developed, applied, and enabled to contribute to both science and
society.
6 See, for example, Thomas Diefenbach, Intangible Resources - a Categorial System of Knowledge and other
Intangible Assets
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc6/papers/diefenbach.pdf
3
e. Provide significant resources to develop stable, long-term funding for interinstitutional and international collaboration through digital technologies
(many-to many such as SeeVogh, rather than the more limited one-to-many
such as Scopia), and face-to-face opportunities such as He Waka Tangata and
the Oxygen group that ‘did’ experimental, low cost, collaboration that built
significant capacity across disciplines and research spaces.
Growth in these areas could be funded requiring a portion of the funding allocation
for the substantive research be used for education, relationship building and
communication.
5. That MBIE consider the merits of establishing something like the ESRC (Economic and
Social Research Council that profiles the value of the social sciences, enables
international and interdisciplinary linkages, and holds a portfolio of funding opportunities
that encourage the engagement of social scientists in pressing social issues.
6. That improving the evaluative system requires:
• mapping where evaluation currently does and does not happen,
• identifying the evaluative approaches that are used where evaluation is taking
place,
• evaluating the current tools and approaches,
• identifying and then addressing priority gaps in evaluative evidence,
• making ongoing changes to the system on the basis of robust, evaluative evidence,
• developing more transparent mechanisms to ensure both constructive and negative
feedback is effectively managed.
7. That relevant agencies (MBIE, TEC) work together to identify a range of innovative and
challenging metrics against which research outcomes can be measured that include
ascribing value to public intellectuals, social media outputs, and open source publications
in both national and international contexts.
Given the great number of questions asked in the feedback form, we have only highlighted
the first 7 recommendations. All our responses outlined below contain suggestions and
potential recommendations so please do continue reading.
4
A. Feedback on overall science investment outlook
In view of the inherent bias in the document toward sciences other than the social, we
would stress the need to rethink the ‘science domains’ as they are currently represented in
the document.
Recommendation 1
That a clear and comprehensive set of research domains be identified within our
‘science investment’ landscape. These should include very broad definitions of
research capacities and capabilities based around research domains that include:
Health Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts and
Humanities (see International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base –
2013, p70).
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus
more contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
No.
The balance (as set out on page 14 of the NSSI) does not draw value from the social sciences.
Indeed, it is leaving a significant potential public good dividend lying around waiting to be
picked up. On both the efficiency and effectiveness criteria, we are not doing all that well in
maximising value from public research spend when contestable social science funding is not
prioritized. In the proposed model, funding for social science research only comes from
shared resources (PBRF; social science in Vision Mātauranga, the CRIs, COREs, MBIE
contestable, HRC, Marsden). In all of these settings the funding is diluted across multiple
demands and the social sciences’ share is minimized by competition.
There is no institutional core funding for social science led R&D or anything comparable to
the Callaghan Innovation funding. Nor is any contestable fund dedicated to social research
compared with Business R&D, the Primary Growth Partnership, or the HRC; and no
collaborative funds that privilege the social sciences compared with the National Science
Challenges. Significantly it is not just the absence of social science in this statement of
investment priorities that is at stake, but the signals that the document sends about the
value of social science. For example, it seems currently destined to become simply a
reference point, rather than a key driver, for other processes of valuation and investment (in
for example the internal organisation of NSCs).
Recommendation 2
MBIE consider establishing ring-fenced institutional, contestable and collaborative
funding mechanisms that profile and support contribution of the social sciences to
the understanding and management of complex social problems (including, for
example, the human implications of climate change, disasters and hazards, social
and economic inequalities, demographic change including migration, suicide, digital
worlds, security and conflict, ageing, medical interventions and social diversity).
5
b.
Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities,
independent research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that
balance be and why?
Not quite / Nearly
Universities have a responsibility to undertake research but also to train new and
emerging researchers and well-informed citizens capable of interpreting, using and
responding to the demands of innovation and social change. The overview of the science
and innovation investments (p15) suggests that value is only drawn from the PBRF
($300m), whereas value is also drawn from the education of the wider workforce as well
as the education of new generations of specialist researchers and social innovators. 7
Furthermore, there is an absence of a robust post-doctoral scholarship structure in New
Zealand that would help ensure talented scholars, especially in the social sciences, stay
here. Incentivising emerging scholars to stay in country where they have trained is as
important for the social science workforce, and our international research contribution
and reputation, is as important for social scientists as it is for medical praticitioners.
There is a risk in this context, as in others across the NSSI, that the value of synergies
among different categories of investment are not recognized and may not, as a result,
be fully realised. This risk is compounded by narrowly conceived evaluation frameworks
that may lead to recalibration or reprioritization of future investments in terms of these
initial categories.
Much of this work is a critical part of the ‘infrastructure, workforce and vision
mātauranga’ highlighted as part of the Vote Science and Innovation (Chart 1 p 14).
Organisations such as eSocSci that are working to demonstrate the value of joining
researchers together across distance and through new technologies, train emerging
researchers, encourage public conversations about matters of concern to the wider
society, and engage with Māori research. There is no funding stream to facilitate these
kinds of engagement. Empowering universities and CRIs to jointly support these kinds
of inititatives across Vote Tertiary Education and Vote Science and Innovation would be
enabling.
Recommendation 3.
Develop a funding stream to facilitate ‘infrastructure, workforce and Vision
Mātauranga’ engagement across Vote Tertiary Education and Vote Science and
Innovation and empower universities and CRIs to jointly support initiatives such
as:
o
o
ongoing review of the PBRF process and its potentially perverse
outcomes
increasing funding to universities for education across the life course (not
7 While this educative call goes more to the heart of the Science in Society challenge; see
http://www.msi.govt.nz/update-me/major-projects/science-and-society-project (making sure we have
more ‘curious minds’ ready to engage ‘science’) is also utterly devoid of social science.
6
o
o
just the under 25 year olds)
increasing funding to specifically support the development of post
doctoral positions (potentially some of which can be in relation to
‘industry’, including some of the ‘less tangible’ industries that deal with
things such as media and communications, marketing, policy analysis,
creative works, intellectual, human, social, cultural and organisational
capital, data and information, knowledge and capabilities 8.
Ring-fencing funding to prioritise the contribution of Mātauranga Māori
(as is suggested through the proposal for a new Māori CoRE).
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, missionand industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
No
Related to the point above, there is insufficient ‘set-aside’ funding for the ‘citizen-focused’
work of universities and associated organisations such as RSNZ, Science Media, eSocSci, that
facilitate the communication of science and research which, in turn, underpins society’s
capacity to identify problems worth solving and opportunities worth pursuing, and to
discover the seeds of promising ways to improve living standards and wellbeing. The recent
RSNZ Our Futures: Te Pae Tāwhiti (Royal Society of NZ, 2014), for example, was written by an
expert panel to identify the trends that will shape the future of New Zealand. The seven key
themes identified (diversity, population change, tangata whenua, migration, households and
families, regional variation, and work) for the basis of the kind of ‘citizen-focused’ science
envisaged here.
Funding for social science looking at the implications of diversity for New Zealand is
particularly important in the context of the ‘constitutional’ place of tangata whenua, the
‘Pacific’ place of research relating to Pacific peoples, and the ‘demographic’ place of other
new migrant groups – especially in relation to Asian source countries and Auckland
destinations. These kinds of research often sit at the boundaries of social science and
humanities work (think of books like Jade Taniwha, films like Sione's Wedding and
conferences like Diverse Bananas – Global Dragons).
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in
science that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are
parts that are under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of
the system that are less important, that could be scaled back over time?
Yes – the ‘Infrastructure, Workforce & Vision Mātauranga’ is under emphasized
and needs to grow.
In keeping with the theme of this submission, clarification of the roles and functions of the
8 See, for example, Thomas Diefenbach, Intangible Resources - a Categorial System of Knowledge and other
Intangible Assets
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc6/papers/diefenbach.pdf
7
social sciences in relation to developing our understanding of human society and social
relationships is critical. (ALL other science intimately depends on this knowledge. For
example, there is no point developing new crop or animal products unless we understand
what motivates people as consumers; nor any point in developing new technologies unless
humans and their use practices are enabled to access it or adopt it). Therefore we would see
the ‘Infrastructure and workforce and vision Mātauranga’ segment as underdeveloped on
four counts.
First, more funding needs to go into the promotion, interpretation and acceptance of social
science evidence, new forms of knowledge, and new forms of questioning and valuing that
knowledge, that take seriously non-western epistemologies – and the implications of these
impacts across all knowledge.
Second, the assumption that is commonly made is that the handmaiden role of the social
sciences is to help ‘scientists’ translate their esoteric knowledge for policy purposes. The role
of science communication is as much required for the social sciences as it is for any other
specialist form of knowledge.
Third, the concept of ‘infrastructure’ is central to digitally mediated and collaborative science
and more needs to be put in to making cutting-edge, world-leading, collaboration
architectures available to all NZ science endeavours.
Fourth, Vision Mātauranga is not a tool through which lip-service can be paid to Māori ways
of knowing. A more coherent set of Māori-led invitations to contestable and collaborative
funds would help clarify expectation in this space.
Recommendation 4.
•
•
•
•
Specify the role of social sciences in the science landscape in a systematic way
that addresses misconceptions between scientists, policy and decision-makers,
and science in the community through education, training of media, and
workshops in government agencies. This could include interventions such as a
standing committee reporting to the PMCSA, or to the CE of MBIE, or within the
Royal Society possibly modeled on the He Waka Tangata /Oxygen group
approach.
Prioritise science communications training that enables university and
polytechnic learners in all areas of specialization to communicate across
knowledge domains.
Invite Māori to develop processes and protocols for ensuring that Māori
knowledge is developed, applied, and enabled to contribute to both science and
society.
Provide significant resource to develop stable, long-term funding for interinstitutional and international collaboration through digital technologies
(many-to many such as SeeVogh, rather than the more limited one-to-many such
as Scopia).
Growth in these areas to be funded by apportioning funding from new or existing
research allocations – so that perhaps a percentage of the funding allocation for the
8
substantive research be required to be used for communication.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system
perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to
improve their performance? If so, how?
Unequally
The investment system is fragmented. There are few mechanisms to enhance collaboration
and knowledge across the sectors. While having funds administered by different agencies
(HRC, Marsden, MBIE, NSCs for example) allows scope for different kinds of criteria to be
used and different applications sought, there are few mechanisms for uncovering what
research is happening where. eSocSci, for example, has had to spend hours trawling through
funding websites to find the researchers (and their research fields) demonstrating social
science excellence. Furthermore, the Government could consider ring-fencing investments in
interdisciplinary science, which, in addition to being appropriate for many aspects of our
increasingly complex world, could go some way to reducing some of the unhelpful
competition and positioning efforts as our scientists attempt to fit their best ideas into overly
constraining funding categories 9
Also, there could be an argument for establishing a stronger, central, peak body of some sort
for the social sciences – this has been discussed within eSocSci. One of the issues for social
sciences is that social science is ‘everywhere and nowhere’, and fragmentation and limited
funding means that our ability to draw value for social science is limited in many ways.
Recommendation 5
That MBIE consider the merits of establishing something like the ESRC (Economic
and Social Research Council that profiles the value of the social sciences, enables
international and interdisciplinary linkages, and holds a portfolio of funding
opportunities that encourage the engagement of social scientists in pressing social
issues.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
Possibly not
It is somewhat unclear, in the New Zealand context, what actually comprises a “public
research institution”. According to the SSC website 10 such institutions could include the
universities (we probably have enough of them); wānanga (possibly not well enough
integrated into the ‘science system’); and the Crown Research Institutes (overly focused on
the natural sciences with too little funding for infrastructure, relationship building and
embedded social science). Overall, the lack of dedicated core funding for ‘social science’
means that it is difficult to build the cross disciplinary synergies required to draw out the
9
see http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_04_009_interdisciplinarity_research_final.pdf.
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/State_sector_organisations
10
9
social values of CoRE work – the increased role for social scientists in many of the CoREs
recognises the critical (but seriously underfunded role) of social science input in these
institutions. See Recommendation 5 above.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
In many ways
Skilled social scientists, trained in evaluative methodologies, could undertake both the
monitoring and evaluation of performance across institutions, policy instruments, and at
system level. New Zealand evaluation capability is still in its infancy so having support for
developing education pathways for evaluation is also part of this mix. Making evaluation
(particularly formative rather than summative) based on robust criteria, a more or less
mandatory aspect of organizational development and capacity building is a sensible
approach to increasing quality, productivity, and performance.
Also, the New Zealand innovation system has yet to be effectively measured or mapped. This
is a fundamental prerequisite for making and evaluating investments. The innovation
ecosystem is a social system. Social scientists are best placed to do this work and to to do so
on an on-going basis.
New Zealand is under-resourced with evaluation capability, and evaluation is often assumed
to comprise monitoring and audit rather than a set of tools and approaches that would
support on-going system improvement. Research institutions could be invited to evaluate
their own research performance against a range of benchmarks (the PBRF, for example,
alongside its undoubted effectiveness as an academic peer-review system, contains a
number of perverse incentives that discourage NZ researchers from publishing in NZ, from
publishing for policy audiences, or publishing in new forms (social media)).
Recommendation 6
Improving the evaluative system would require:
• mapping where evaluation currently does and does not happen,
• identifying the evaluative approaches that are used where evaluation is
taking place,
• evaluating the current tools and approaches,
• identifying and then addressing priority gaps in evaluative evidence,
• making ongoing changes to the system on the basis of robust, evaluative
evidence,
• developing more transparent mechanisms to ensure both constructive and
negative feedback is effectively managed (not just “good news” stories).
6. Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system
that are particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring
10
performance?
Yes
Researchers in our institutions are part of ongoing national and international benchmarking
and monitoring procedures (peer review and PBRF, for example). However, perverse
outcomes associated with these measures need to be monitored and addressed. We
currently have no idea how the current funding and benchmarking systems affect and
pervert the choices of up-and-coming researchers. So saying, academic independence is
a crucial pillar of democracy and healthy societies. Benchmarking the performance
of university-based researchers against government priorities comes with
significant risks.
Evidence from overseas about efforts to measure and benchmark research impact
contributions is mixed, but confirms that overly metricized approaches provide
perverse incentives that may lead to disruptive reallocations of resources and
initiate an entirely new set of games playing.
We are aware that public blogs are considered an avenue for demonstrating ‘research
impact’ within New Zealand and overseas and see this less formal mechanism as a way of
bringing research into the public domain. In order for this to be effective in New Zealand we
need to shift some of the emphasis on the PBRF as the metric of relevance.
Recommendation 7
That relevant agencies (MBIE, TEC) work together to identify a range of innovative
and challenging metrics against which research outcomes can be measured that
include ascribing value to public intellectuals, social media outputs, and open source
publications in both national and international contexts.
7. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies
and processes, and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical
problems either in the science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes
could be made to ensure those problems are being addressed?
The critical problem of the underfunding of social science research and humanities
endeavour means that our whole science system is unbalanced. The complex, human
problems confronting us in the 21st century will not be faced effectively by any science in
isolation. The current outbreak of ebola, for example, is not a failure of pharmacology that
has yet to invent a cure in a pill, but a failure of our understanding of social systems at all
levels: inequality and poverty, education, health services, availability of diagnostic facilities,
transport, and so on. Most, if not all, of the concerns harboured by humanity about
the consequences of environmental, biological and geophysical change have root
causes in processes of social change and conditions of vulnerability.
As an agricultural nation, with food production as a major economic earner, research into
food is essential for future progress and development. Social science has much to contribute
11
to food research, in terms of marketing, preferences, taste (in the broader sense) use and
commensality, social relationships, identities, exchanges, international relations, politics and
so on. Yet most of this research potential is under-utilised, ignored, unexplored and devalued. At present, within our unbalanced system, there are very limited ways in which this
contribution can or could currently be realised.
This could point to an argument for an interdisciplinary ‘Marsden-type’ blue skies
contestable fund that would encourage innovative problem identification and research
around complex questions. See, for example the Transformations to Sustainability funding. 11
This programme specifically aims to “support researchers from the social, behavioural and
economic sciences to take the lead in developing international Transformative Knowledge
Networks”
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together?
Could they be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have
enough investment mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If
too many, which could be combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
Unclear, yes
A comprehensive evaluation would be needed to determine this. However, coherence could
be increased by at least three mechanisms – all of which would require funding.
1. Linking expectations around communication of research – for example, linking the
National Science Challenges to eSocSci and Sciblogs by ‘requiring’ blog writing and research
publications’ upload to the websites as part of deliverables.
2. Developing cross-mechanism infrastructure such as SeeVogh (many-to-many life size
videoconferencing facilities), currently supported by the National e-Science Infrastructure
(NESI) project. These kinds of technologies are expensive to set up and maintain but funding
from all of the funded streams could be allocated to ensure that infrastructure is up to date,
broadly available, widely accessible, and shared across science platforms with maximum
end-user engagement. Delivering seminars and running workshops that are accessible
beyond individual projects will increase coherence.
3. Ensuring integrated training for technical staff in universities, CRIs and government
agencies who can then develop collective understandings of the different communication
purposes and end user needs of enabling research communication technologies to bring
better focus to the success and utilization of the infrastructure that is set up.
9.
How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and
cooperation? How well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy
changes or new mechanisms could advance this goal?
Several ways
11 http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/transformations/
12
Funding ‘connecting’ organisations – like Science Media Centre, Sciblogs, eSocSci, and
linking these organisations with their international counterparts; encouraging researcher
participation in international science organisations (such as ISSC, ICSU – but also a host of
more specific disciplinary initiatives) with a ‘funding for feedback’ incentive system – not a
written report going back to the funder but well publicised blogs, public lectures, news
items. Identifying individuals who have the capacity and vision to be ‘innovation
coordinators’ – participating in national and international events and linking others to
events, seeing and articulating opportunities. Developing a formative evaluation framework
around this and any other new initiative that will allow the success to be measured and the
role and or programmes modified as they develop.
Continuing to value face to face connections between academics through ongoing support
for attendance international conferences.
10. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of
investment in science?
Yes
The Humanities are very easily overlooked in any discussion about science. However,
Humanities have a critical role to play in extending NZ’s competitive advantage – not least
in the space of encouraging abilities in international languages to facilitate research
engagement in languages other than English. The UC CEISMIC Digital Archive
http://www.ceismic.org.nz/ represents the kind of scholarship and innovation at the
human life interface that the Humanities exemplify. Futhermore, “solving problems
requires more than just developing tools to address a need. The thinking that happens
before action, the crucial framing of the issues, is essential. In arts and humanities, students
learn to contemplate and frame questions differently; creative and metaphorical thinking
come into play. Questions are placed on a broader canvas, with context and an
understanding of implications from the perspectives of individuals and groups. Not all
thinking is problem driven. It is in the augmentation of possibilities—the things we never
knew existed—where remarkable opportunities lie” (McCormick 2013 n.p.) 12
QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGES IN DIRECTION PROPOSED IN THIS STATEMENT:
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the
relevance and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For
example, should investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across
most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to impact and application, even if long
term?
Yes, & No
Terms like ‘quality’, ‘relevance’ and ‘impact’ are problematic as they beg the questions
‘quality against what criteria’? ‘relevance to whom’? ‘impact on what’? These kinds of terms
12
http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/magazine/fall-2013/view-from-the-intersection.html.
13
need to be very carefully defined. To do so effectively requires deep social scientific
understanding and research.
Investigator-led research might be measured against agreed quality standards (currently peer
review is the accepted standard) but often its relevance to any current policy programme, or
public interest may not be obvious in any straightforward way. Support for investigative
research is one of the only ways we can cultivate knowledge about the unexpected, the
unanticipated, the, as yet, unthought.
There is too little investigative research in New Zealand. Marsden research funds are wildly
oversubscribed (1157 preliminary applications with only 109 funded across ten ressearch
domains). Incentivising new and emerging researchers to push the boundaries of knowledge
in all domains increases our research resilience and creates opportunties for ‘brilliant’
science, not just ‘useful solutions’. A sound pathway to ‘brilliance’ may be much more
illuminating about the nature of society in the long run than the invention of any clever
technology. 13
But we need a balance. Increasing Marsden funding to say $141 million (comparable with
Business R&D at least) balanced equally across the five existing domains of Health Sciences,
Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities, and across a new
domain of complex interdisciplinarity, would develop the international reputation of New
Zealand research and give us a foot in the door of international research credibility, create
opportunities to attract new and emerging researchers from overseas, and develop the
research capabilities of new and emerging researchers to respond to the unpredictable.
13
See, for example Brian Cox
14
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a
stronger contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
Yes & No
We favour ensuring investments are oriented to the sort of balanced portfolio that fits best
to the country’s strength and position and looks forward strategically. This may require
broadening the ways in which innovation and growth are conceived, and overcoming the
tendency to tie them to business and the economy. Better knowing (via other than the
insights offered by behavioural economics) the relationship between social
relationships/contexts and economic activity would be a sensible thing to do.
Investment in science for innovation needs to be predicated on much stronger social
scientific research into the efficacy of those investments. Current understandings of the
innovation economy are unsophisticated, and need to be augmented with an analysis of the
shape of that economy and the beneficiaries of public investment, and by analysis of flows of
capital over time. Research focused on sustainable growth, as another example, rather than a
‘growth at all costs’ approach, requires social science framing around the complex interaction
of economy, environment, society along the lines of the Treasury advocated Living Standards
model 14
If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
A careful balance between growth and sustainability – ‘growth’ is impossible to sustain long
term and we need to understand how and in what ways that is true, who are the ‘winners’
and who are the ‘losers’ in ‘growth scenarios’. We need robust social science that considers
the social benefits and costs of growth.
13. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our
science investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken
to date? What is the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and
competition?
New Zealand is a small country and collaboration can help us maximise our research
capabilities and potential. Our existing competitive models across the tertiary and research
funding environments make it challenging to develop the high trust inter-organizational
relationships, and cross sectoral partnerships that seek to combine the competencies of
different sectors that deliver benefits for and from collaboration.
The appropriate balance between collaboration and competition will depend on the context
of each research project. Some projects are necessarily collaborative and broad. Other
projects may be more in-depth and localized. In short, this is difficult to answer in the
abstract and would benefit from some focused social science research.
14
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/abouttreasury/higherlivingstandards.
15
14. How might the current set-up of New Zealand’s research institutions either
encourage or discourage across-research institution collaborations, international
researcher collaborations, or user collaborations?
As outlined above. Competition discourages collaboration but as we have not done the
research we do not really know to what extent or how this could be different.
15. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science
investments? What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
Promoting meaningful engagement involves having different voices at the policyformulation, research design, funding and other executive tables (as per participatory
budgeting). Such a very ‘end-user’ approach sees the ‘end-user’ as a citizen rather than a
consumer.
16. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction
of change?
The need to establish broadly constituted advisory groups that can work directly with
government agencies to debate and inform future directions.
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Develop effective evaluation systems. Develop more effective ways of engaging researchers
with research users: ways that begin by ensuring extended periods of contact before during
and after research. At present, our models of engagement are linear and based on the
assumption that each actor has specific expertise and pre-defined interests. Recent social
research in New Zealand is beginning to model different forms of engagement in the socioeconomic and socio-environmental realms that are helping both to reshape the questions
that need to be researched and understandings of the value of research.
18. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and
industry-led research? If so, how?
Each of these is very different and each should be evaluated differently. Investigator-led
does need to measured against metrics of rigour and excellence and mission-led and
industry-led might be better measured by metrics of rigour, ‘use’, and social value.
YOUR FEEDBACK ON THESE MATTERS MIGHT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS:
20. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so what
direction of change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
16
a. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of
funds and the complexity of funds
It would be too easy to ditch babies with bathwater in any ‘simple’ approach to streamlining
funding. Beginning from a premise of ‘domains and interdisciplinarity (see Recommendation
1.) would be an important starting point. In some cases, it is appropriate to have more,
smaller, and more directed funds. In others, such as the NSCs or Marsden where the
research groups themselves will respond in different ways to identifying crucial questions
and valuable lines of research, the opposite may be the case.
b. the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
We do need to increase funding to new and emerging researchers wherever they are
located. However, equally critically, funds need to be accessible to researchers who are
currently in the ‘dead zone’ (both new and non-new and emerging people) who have missed
the ‘Fast Start’ cut off for young and emerging Marsden’s, but are not well established
enough or confident enough to success in application to a Full Marsden, and who have no
other source of funding that they can apply to and succeed in to build reputation. These
researchers often become disengaged, disconnected, disillusioned and represent a
significant loss in public value from their training.
c. the sector-based nature of funding tools
Not always useful as we need mechanisms to encourage cross-sectoral collaborations
d. the length of funding allocation
Short term funding has many perverse outcomes as the overheads of establishing projects,
employing staff, reinventing multiple wheels are not cost effective – 3- 5 year terms mitigate
the worst of these effects
e. the form and processes of peer review
Has already been commented on above
f. the relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for
impact, past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research
team. 1. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of
MBIE sector-specific research funds?
This question is unclear
22. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes?
Should these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
How the science contributes to social development and human betterment – even in an
abstract sense – might be better able to be profiled. This is an area where it would be of
value to commission some investigative social science to identify the ways in which social
scientists are already influencing the assessment of science quality (see, for example, work
being undertaken in Dairy NZ, and MPI). The European SRC has already developed indicators
for impact spanning concepts, capability, and practices. For example:
17
Fund research capable of assessing the existing conceptual resources available across
organizations for responding to the science topic/issue/problem and for knowing when the
issues/problem/topic is no longer a priority and being able to identify gaps.
Fund research to identify the capabilities in NZ to work with the area of knowledge, and the
capacities of organizations to respond.
Use research tools to identify new or renewed practices for groups and individuals that can
change how science is assessed.
23. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research
funding investments?
Governments come and go and priorities change. The need for the knowledge – rather than
the policy response per se – should be the driver.
24. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms
available?
As discussed, the demand and value of social sciences and humanities are under-represented
in the range of funding mechanisms available.
25. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of
MBIE’s research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or
useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
eSocSci would argue that making publicity about research findings, processes and outcomes
publically available on web sites such as SciBlogs or eSocSci should be part of monitoring.
26.What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments
in R&D, where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of
relevance to industry, social and environmental needs?
Example-led education. Increase the awareness of the excellent work a number of industries
and enterprises make through their co-investments in R&D that has relevance for economy,
society and environment. There are excellent examples. Reduce the separation of roles
between researcher and industry, and increase the levels of contact between them, both
routine and strategic. This does not translate or reduce simply to more meetings, but ought
to be based on building co-production of knowledge strategies and practices into bids. Also
provide clear incentives through the taxation system for the private sector to co-invest in
research.
27. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research
in MBIE funds?
The obvious one is the reduction of funding allocations for other MBIE-funded research. This
would not be a major problem if other research funds, or new allocative mechanisms were
18
available to support research that is not industry-led. It is often unclear as to how well
prepared industry is to lead research, and to whom the benefits from public investment will
flow, in the short or longer terms. The implication might be that resources are directed by
agents who have little commitment to nation, region or community.
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how
might they be overcome?
Leveraging private investment should definitely be a heavily-weighted goal for investment by
MBIE in industry-led research. However, in some types and areas of research, including the
“blue skies” research supported by the Marsden Fund there should not be an expectation of
private investment, at least not in the short to medium term. Building a culture of private
investment in research and education institutions, such as that which exists in the United
States and, to a lesser degree in the UK and Europe, requires a very significant shift in the
culture of “giving”. That shift needs to come first.
28.What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
There is considerable up-take of research outcomes by key stakeholders already in New
Zealand. A condition of funding for several major allocative mechanisms has been “pathways
to implementation” for many years now (earlier it was “stakeholder engagement”). There
should also be acknowledgement that uptake of research outcomes can take many years – a
breakthrough in medical science, for example, will not be translated into significant public
use until exhaustive trials have been completed. One as yet untried strategy is to make
funders responsible for ensuring that researcher-user linkages are built and maintained
through the research process, and that research is presented to users.
29.Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the
structure of MBIE’s sector- specific research funds?
We have covered the major problem social scientists find with the structure of MBIE’s
sector-specific research funds in our responses to earlier questions. There is a bigger
discussion to be had some of the more fundamental structural issues around science funding
that have not even been raised. For example, when Minister Joyce talks Christchurch having
the potential to be a “''social science laboratory'' like no other” 15. He is right, but it is not
just Christchurch that could become such a laboratory. We do not yet understand how
concentrations of smart peoples in cities might shape the trajectories along which science
investment could be made in the future. Nor do we fully appreciate the interactions of
cultural, economic, social and environmental concerns on science questions. Social science is
needed to determine these things, and other larger questions about what really constitutes
the landscapes of change the current system is embedded in.
15
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9480888/Christchurch-to-be-worlds-first-Sensing-City
19
This submission has been prepared by A/Prof Robin Peace, Director eSocSci, Massey
University on behalf of eSocSci with direct input from the academic members of the eSocSci
Advisory Group and endorsement from other eSocSci members and supporters as listed:
1. Professor Richard Bedford, FRSNZ, senior advisor eSocSci, AUT
2. Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley FRSNZ, senior advisor eSocSci, Massey University
3. Professor Richard Le Heron, FRSNZ, senior advisor eSocSci, University of Auckland,
4. Professor Charles Crothers, senior advisor eSocSci, Auckland University of Technology
5. Tagaloatele Professor Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop, Auckland University of Technology
6. Professor Harvey Perkins, University of Auckland
7. Professor Robert Hannah, FSA FRSNZ, University of Waikato, FSA FRSNZ
8. Professor Catharine Coleborne, University of Waikato
9. Professor Robyn Longhurst, University of Waikato
10. Professor Lynda Johnston, University of Waikato
11. Professor David Johnston, GNS/Massey University
12. Professor Kerry Chamberlain, Massey University
13. Associate Professor Richard Shaw, Massey University
14. Associate Professor Jenny Bryant-Tokalau, University of Otago
15. Associate Professor Jacqueline Leckie, University of Otago
16. Associate Professor, Priya Kurian, University of Waikato
17. Associate Professor, Craig Hight, University of Waikato
18. Associate Professor, Lex Chalmers, University of Waikato
19. Dr Avril Bell, University of Auckland
20. Dr Nicolas Lewis, University of Auckland
21. Dr Robert Webb, University of Auckland
22. Dr Alison Greenaway, Landcare CRI, Auckland
23. Dr Timote Vaioleti, University of Waikato
24. Dr Tahu Kukutai, University of Waikato
25. Dr Patrick Barrett, University of Waikato
26. Sandy Morrison, senior lecturer, University of Waikato
27. Dr Allanah Ryan, Masey University
28. Dr Aisling Gallagher, Massey University
29. Dr Russell Prince, Massey University
30. Dr Denise Blake, Massey University
31. Dr Amanda Wolf, Victoria University of Wellington
32. Dr Elizabeth Eppel, Victoria University of Wellington
33. Dr Chamsy el-Ojeili, Victoria University of Wellington
34. Gradon Diprose Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Open Polytechnic
35. Dr Ruth McManus, University of Canterbury
36. Dr Will Allen, Learning for Sustainablity Net, Christchurch
37. Dr Suzanne Vallance, Lincoln University
38. Dr Karen Nairn, University of Otago
39. Dr Sophie Bond, University of Otago
40. Dr Angelique Praat, eSocSci Secretariat, Massey University
41. Melanie Milicich, eSocSci Secretariat, University of Auckland
42. Claire Baker, eSocSci Secretariat, Massey University
20
Individual Submission on NSSI
Prof Richard Le Heron FRSNZ
School of Environment
University of Auckland
22 August 2014
Introduction and key points
MIBE has an enormous responsibility in NZ with its oversight of science investment. Part of
its responsible stewardship is the preparation of the draft NSSI for critical and constructive
review. The feedback questionnaire is helpful in that it encourages a focus on outlook,
direction and structure in relation to the science system.
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission as a geographer and inter-disciplinary
researcher who has in recent years had unique vantage points inside the current trajectories
of NZ science investment and also has been in review processes for disciplines in other
countries. My comments spring from these vantage points where I have seen social science
and humanities researchers actively mobilising themselves into historically new supportive
engagements within NZs emerging science system.
Unsurprisingly these new mobilisations are not acknowledged in the NSSI. Recognising this
growing reservoir of capability opens new options for:
•
how the NSSI can do additional work for NZ by clearly identifying a more full
complement of ‘scientists’ and engaging the latent potential associated with the
existing system structure (as distinct from allocations) in the form of generating and
mobilising social science and humanities insights and capabilities
•
a redefinition of the nature of the work prioritised in a NSSI framework by
acknowledging the ability of the social sciences and humanities to deal with
surprises and to initiate transformative shifts in the science agenda, and
attention to the new functionalities that could be inspired, such as:
o fostering the development of interdisciplinary work,
o new forms of collaboration,
o the co-production of knowledge,
o recognising the urban as a milieu where innovative knowledge production
can be fostered
o identifying new public good possibilities in different contexts,
o revealing more fully the ‘who benefits, who loses, where, under what terms
and with what cumulative consequences’
•
1
o and reframing apparently obvious problems.
My multiple positionings of late as a geographer, inter-disciplinary researcher and
committed science infrastructure and institution builder include: as a researcher (Marsden
funded Biological Economies project, MIBI funded Marine Futures project, the thematic
research initiative at the University of Auckland on Transforming Cities, Blue Economy
Collaboration between Ludwig-Maximilian-Universitat Munich and University of Auckland);
Royal Society of New Zealand roles as Vice President (Humanities and Social Science)
including membership of the Fellowship selection panel and Rutherford Discovery social
science panel; and a theme leader in the Oceanic Sciences CoRE bid, a co-theme leader in
the Sustainable Seas NSC and a named theme contributor in the Land and Water NSC).
I reach a number of conclusions from these vantage points that raise questions about (1) the
adequacy of the NSSI outlook, direction and functional arrangements and (2) provide ‘alerts’
to and ‘recommendations’ relating to the encouraging, even exciting, developments I have
seen in NZ’s wider research landscape.
My concerns about the draft NSSI cover the following:
•
The NSSI goals are inappropriate for the most likely conditions of the next decade;
many branches of science, social science and the humanities have foregrounded the
importance of being both prepared to deal with surprises and to initiate
transformative shifts in science agenda and are actively researching these areas.
Recognising the potential for surprise and emphasising transformative shifts focuses
attention on the type of information required to inform policy for new directions.
•
There is something of an emerging consensus that both planetary ecosystems and
sustainable development must be addressed in the age of the Anthropocene; these
are matters that are leading to new kinds of collaborations amongst hitherto unlikely
collaborators across many disciplines. NZ needs to bring together a wide
complement of researchers to help clarify directions in this context.
The proposed NSSI investment priorities are not targeted towards a moving future
and to making different futures in a moving context; they are unbalanced by virtue
of their economic bias and emphasis on only economic performance narrowly
conceived. A first step to address this is to direct the framing of research to place
economic processes in wider ecological and societal settings and not accept the
prevailing view that trade-offs are all that are needed.
The NSSI is detached from context in at least three disturbing ways:
(1) there is no sense of the nature, organisation and geographic reach of enterprise
formations (including the universities and CRIs) in which the science system is
embedded. The forward looking issue is really that the NSSI completely misses the
wider geo-economic context in which it is set and therefore does not consider the
nature of connections and relationships with the major entities it is working with or
the ongoing changes that have and will continue to characterise key organisations
like the universities, CRIs and companies. While it made sense to speak of ‘NZ
companies’ up until the opening of the NZ economy in the 1980s because their
•
•
2
•
•
•
•
owners were mostly locals and returns from public investment could be assumed as
staying in NZ, the reality now is that most companies are globally connected and for
the larger entities they are branch plants, work to goals that are set outside NZ, and
often have senior management teams who can draw on internal company resources
in ways that are poorly understood in NZ and may work to local disadvantage. An
immediate priority is to launch trajectory- and territorially-based monitoring that is
led by social scientists other than economists who have no tradition of this kind of
geographical political economy.
(2) the science system is abstracted from NZ territory and its infrastructural,
institutional and legal foundations, rigidities and potentialities; were these aspects
made visible through research, the already existing restraints on the retention of
value in NZ or for NZers would be apparent
(3) and there is no attentiveness to the urban as a milieu where innovative
knowledge production might be enacted. Current research on sustainable cities in NZ
for example could be melded with the innovative steams of research found in the
Transforming Cities programme.
These are enormous gaps in outlook that will have future implications unless
addressed.
The science system portrayed in the NSSI rests on the idea of some ‘science system
whole’ that hangs together somehow in a stable way when it is better thought of as
assemblage that has many potentially supportive dimensions that are emerging or
could emerge in various ways. This conception of emergence and trajectories (ideas
central to many field of the sciences and social sciences) changes the emphasis to
continuing transitions and not on trying to perfect and stabilise the unattainable. The
assumption that the current science system model is the only way forward closes off
the examination of other possibilities and as the feedback questionnaire shows it
directs attention to looking inside the system rather than conceiving of and exploring
other options.
The case of the primary industries is illustrative of this point. The naming as an
objective the researching of different production systems and ways of creating value
would be a welcomed, indeed essential part, of a ten year science plan that seeks to
be transformative. Such research directions would open up the real worlds of landuse competition, investment, and shifting global demand, and allow for investors to
consider different futures.
The unnecessary economic and innovation bias squeezes out other investment
priorities that have the potential to couple into a re-imagined economy structured to
different goals. A way forward is to invest in social sciences and humanities research
that is aimed at showing the range of ‘economies’ (e.g. literature based examples
include ‘community economies’, diverse economies’, foundational economy’, family
enterprise’, ‘tourism economies’, tradable (commodity) export economies’, ‘technoscience complexes’) that actually make up the ‘unimagined economy’ of NZ. Again,
for rapid strategic gains this initiative should in the first instance have only a small
input from economists to avoid hijacking the idea of alternative possibilities.
3
•
There is latent potential associated with the existing system structure (as distinct
from allocations) in the form of harnessing the substantial social science and
humanities insights and capabilities that are already available but are rarely
acknowledged as present
My list of ‘alerts’ and ‘recommended actions’ of relevance to the draft NSSI process
includes:
•
Input by social scientists and humanities scholars in preliminary stages of research
design rather than at later stages once agendas have been set does lead to
constructive reshaping of the research agenda. This practice however is still not
widespread and needs to be formally mandated.
•
Simplified statements of political economy, such as brief summaries of SPEC (social,
political, economic, political and cultural influences) are digestible to audiences who
would ordinarily dismiss considering contextual influences. This means a new
generation of political economy/political ecology projects aimed at delineating and
clarifying science investment options would significantly add to decision-making
quality.
•
Discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of alternative methodologies by
social science and humanities researchers is gaining increasing robustness and as this
has emerged the promissory claims of many science projects are being deeply
questioned. Demonstrating methodological rigour should be requested in all science
applications
•
The broadening experiences of interactions amongst those from diverse disciplinary
backgrounds from the CoRE and NSC processes is gradually (albeit unevenly) shifting
from adversarial standoffs towards dialogue, sharing of understandings and
negotiated bases for moving forward. More generally a maturity of attitude towards
engaging is appearing in some quarters suggesting long standing inhibitions,
antagonisms and sectional behaviours are receding. This social capital is a precondition to effective engagement. Courses dealing with constructive engagement
across disciplines would accelerate and deepen the trend and enhance the
development of synergies.
•
The intensity of the CoRE and NSC processes where diverse engagement has had
some success has led to continuing and new engagement outside the CoRE/NSC
frameworks.
•
Knowledge generating processes are increasingly being referred to in terms of
processes of co-learning and co-production (though it is too early to suggest clear
cultures of practice) and new tools and models of approach are being trialled. A
strategic system wide intervention would be to fund workshops in this area over
several years.
4
•
The constraints on knowledge production that typically accompany stakeholder or
representative discussions have been formally identified by a number of research
groups (e.g. Biological Economies and Marine Futures) and a new generation of
Enactive Capability approaches are being tested and are available for up-scaled
application. This is a decidedly unique capability in world terms and one that could
give an international edge to how science is done in NZ.
•
The historical unwillingness of most economists to understand economy as a series
of projects that are constantly being made has meant serious challenges to orthodox
thinking have not materialised. What work is occurring is coming from other social
science quarters. Recent research underway in the Marsden Biological Economies
project (a mature research group of cross-university and cross-disciplinary
collaborators) is using thought experiments involving geographic rent to
reconceptualise economy in terms of temporary territorial assemblages of value
consisting of material, institutional, legal, discursive and technological practices and
actors. The utility of the lens in the NZ context is that it enables a new conceptual
grip to be added to understandings of how new value relations can be enacted.
•
Lines of engagement between CRI and university researchers are both intensifying
and involving new combinations of researchers. This said, up scaling and broadening
of this should be further incentivised.
•
Novel and innovative pilot studies of public engagement are becoming more the
norm than the exception in cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional projects, point
to a move beyond just participation to grounded bottom up dialogue. Landcare
Research has social scientist have been path breaking in this regard and their pilot
work should be signalled in RfPs.
•
While longitudinal studies across many fields are prominent in other countries NZ
has a paucity of such studies, despite growing evidence that such studies (e.g.
ARGOS) can become platforms that extend their reach beyond their original
purposes. The urgent step is standing back and asking what kinds of longitudinal
studies would benefit NZ over the next decade of transition. Running a competition
that was not health/medical slanted but more broad gauge would elicit options and
permit identification of relevant longitudinal projects.
•
The mid-2000s BRCSS (Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences) project
had a powerful impact on a generation of younger social scientists because of a
widening of funding for postgraduate research and exposed mid-career and senior
social scientists to the new challenges of cross-disciplinary engagements. BRCSS also
recognised and afforded opportunities to Maori, Pasifika and new migrant
communities to develop original and productive capability building paths. Much of
the vitality, enthusiasm and creative engagement of the BRCSS experiment was
made possible by the inter-institutional Access Grid network. This many-to-many
platform enabled widely distributed researchers in the social sciences to collaborate
5
frequently and with relative ease. eSocSci has continued this trajectory of capability
building amongst established researchers, fostering cultures of collaboration and
articulating for the first time in NZ forward and outward looking social science
informed recommendations about science investment priorities.
•
The Humanities have never had a BRCSS type opportunity. Were a new generation
infrastructure of video conferencing with superior performance put in place there
would be considerable scope to fund experimental dialogue amongst disciplines
spanning the sciences, humanities and social sciences which could feed into a
revitalising and more inclusive science system. This would be a cost effective science
infrastructure strategy.
6
066 Unitec Research Office and
Postgraduate Centre
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
The Statement provides an overview of Government’s investment in science. We are
interested in your reactions to the comparative scale of various funds, their purposes, and
their current or potential relationship with one another.
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of
Government’s wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science?
In particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more contestable
funds? If not, what should it be and why?
It is impossible to objectively answer this question in the general across all Govt investment
at once, with current knowledge base and the information provided in this documentation.
Approaching the issue of Science Investment this way (and in all the subsequent categories
with this sort of question) suggests the labels we give to things or categories we put them in
are the most important things. If the Government is genuinely an INVESTOR then
outcomes and performance must come first.
What we need to understand is how the various funds are performing as investments for NZ
Inc, then assess if and how that needs to change. This must be considered a more specific
level i.e. individual funds, or outcome areas or sectors.
A top down re-distribution of funds based on the labels assigned to science investment can
only be highly subjective. There is much more benefit in bottom up approach where any
such decisions are made according to, or at least informed by success and performance
within each of the funds that currently exist, or some other unit of analysis like sectors or
outcome areas.
So the macro picture of the ideal balance should be generated via cumulative effects of
more specific decisions, where this question might be able to be answered with more
empirical basis and can be focussed outcomes not apriori assumptions about categories of
funding.
Such an approach is much more consistent with the goal of ‘evaluating and quantifying the
value of Govt investment in science’ (p16) than NZ’s traditional approach, which has
essentially been a contest of opinions (often with vested interest) based on anecdotal
evidence and untested assumptions.
This logic applies to almost all of the questions about balance throughout the consultation.
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
See the answer to 1a above. The best strategy for NZ is to allow performance to dictate this
balance, within a considered strategic management of the system. The government also has
to decide what outcomes/solutions/impacts is wanted for different sectors and then review
which organisations are best place to deliver those solutions.
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and industry-led
funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
Again see the answer to 1a above. Best to review at more specific levels (e.g. within funds)
and the answer is the aggregate of these more specific reviews. The definitions for these on
page 12 are also quite limiting. Industry-led implies that industry cannot play a critical role in
investigator-led and mission-led research. Similarly, investigator-led research can deliver
solutions in a very short time frame, depending on the questions being asked. Defining
research in these ways, and distributing research funding solely based on this, may not be
delivering the best value to Government when it comes to investment in research.
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in
science that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are
parts that are under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the
system that are less important, that could be scaled back over time?
Probably the balance is OK, but in the absence of any evidence that is just an opinion.
On the face of it, it does seem like ‘mission focussed’ social and economic policy related research is
significantly under-emphasised. It is virtually zero compared to other areas of science and compared
the scale of Government spend on decision and budget that could be informed by this work. While
there is significant departmental expenditure via GETS this is often very short term, small scale and
focussed on individual programme evaluations.
There is at least an argument for increased emphasis on both of these areas, or perhaps externalising
some internal spend, because the current level is so very low.
A more generalised piece of feedback is an observation that there could me more thought around
articulating science graduates into the private sector for some kind of “education finishing” which
brings them into a specific industry context.
The proposal to develop ICT Graduate Schools in three main New Zealand centres may be an example
of this, which could be transferred to other science areas.
The media reports a considerable push to get more children interested in science at an early age and
TEO’s produce plenty of high quality graduates. Yet vocational guidance councillors in High Schools
are telling senior students not to study pure sciences because there are no jobs. Students are being
encouraged to opt for service science areas such as the veterinary occupation as opposed to research
science. The lack of R&D personnel in business (as shown on page 24) could be restricting career
paths for these graduates.
The solution must lie in some kind of instrument, which facilitates the uptake of research science
graduates into industry. Perhaps the ICT Grad School model is the answer and could be rolled out into
other areas of science?
3. How well to do the individual parts of Governments overall investment system
perform, both individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve
their performance? If so, how?
Firstly; Govt should have processes in place to measure this – do we actually know what
‘good performance’ is for the system overall? Or for the individual parts?
Suggestions for improving the settings
1. Define core business and measure organisations against this. Then we would all know
how to answer this question.
2. Stop rapid, fundamental change and allow the organisations to get good at doing their
core business. Rather than desperately trying to implement the latest initiative.
3. Move more to a performance based approach (using evaluation rather than contests or
reviews) to identify, reward and sustain good performance by teams, organisations, within
schemes and sectors.
4. Consider system compliance. E.g. the CORE process, NSC are likely to take a number of
years before the amounts invested by the system in terms of time are recouped by the
amount invested. That has a direct impact on ability to do the day to day work of research
and commercialisation
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
Again impossible to answer this question at a general level. We would argue strongly it
needs to be considered from a perspective of outcome domains or sectors. What does it
even mean to try to answer this for all sectors, across all of NZ, at once? Requires firstly
robust evidence gathering against individual funds or outcomes areas and we just don’t have
this. It also requires a systematic assessment of the areas of the system(s) different
institutions are delivering value; are all insitutions only engaging with one part of the sector;
are some industries under or over represented; are the right organisations or industries
benefiting from government investment?
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Firstly; do it! Can’t see any evidence of any meaningful monitoring and evaluation activity at
all for a number of years.
Secondly; make it a priority to become good at this. Arguably recognising ‘what works’ is
going to be a much better way of Government creating long term value from its science
investment consultations, expert groups etc, than any of the money spent on reviews,
consultations (like this one), workshops, policy development etc. So, Government should rebalance staff to include much greater internal monitoring and evaluation capability and much
less strategy capability. And then focus on being good at this, which might include
recognising what can’t be sensibly evaluated. There are many examples globally of
significant efforts being undertaken to do this well – NZ is a laggard.
NOTE: the recent tender for the International Fund is an example of how not to do this. You
can’t credibly evaluate a complex programme which has operated for 10 years through a
couple of months retrospective work, let alone for a very small budget. This is a waste of
resources.
Thirdly; be systematic. This has three components;
1. There should be a programme of evaluation which over time builds up a knowledge base,
upon which future funding decisions can draw.
2. Monitoring and evaluation should be built into thinking about operation and strategy. This
could (in time) lead to massive improvements in cost and quality of evaluation. Particularly ,
starting the baseline data collection and evaluation design alongside making investments will
make for much better information and would cost a lot less over the long term.
For example – if company financials of those getting money from TechNZ/Callaghan had
been properly collected in a database and administered over time, NZ Inc would now have a
powerful database that would have cost almost nothing.
3. Use pilots and trials to test new ideas and fill gaps in knowledge (e.\g using ‘experimental’
design (see for example
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62529/TLA1906126.pdf )
The list of indicators on p29 is inadequate without serious work being done to identify the
causality and impact of Govt science investment. We argue strongly this needs to be
accompanied by a second level of indicators at sector or fund level.
Some of the indicators seem meaningless or subjective – e.g. ‘consistency of focus with
Govt investment’? The question needs to be asked – are these indicators useful for
strategic decision making?
It also suggests a lack of knowledge of a range of useful measures – for example; income
sources for Government research organisations (identifying value of research and consulting
contracts from private sector and international sources) would be a great metric for
quantifying the scale of engagement but is entirely absent.
Also is bench marking our universities against international quality ratings, or our research
against world rankings, really delivering the outcomes needed for New Zealand? Can we
measure our institutions against a set of indicators that more directly benefits New Zealand,
and have the global rankings become a result of meeting these indicators, rather than them
being the driving force.
6. Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that
are particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
It is interesting to that there is virtually zero mention of good process; we would have thought
this was mission critical. If nothing else, if the Govt can be seen as making quality, fair
decisions, then that is getting the knitting right.
Similarly very little mention of compliance –processes like National science challenges,
Centres of Research Excellence, have a massive impact on ability of the system to deliver
for NZ.
7. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and
processes, and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical
problems either in the science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes
could be made to ensure those problems are being addressed?
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together?
Could they be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have
enough investment mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too
many, which could be combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
The processes and procedures are highly different across different funding mechanisms;
new application platforms are being built by individual funds, independent of the system as
a whole. So a key to getting the mechanisms to work together is recognising where there
are significant similarities and streamlining engagement mechanisms.
9. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation?
How well do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or
new mechanisms could advance this goal?
10. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of
investment in science?
It is interesting (and concerning) to note how little concern there is about process. Without
good processes all the strategy/balance etc questions above are a little superfluous.
There needs to be a goal of efficient and effective investment process.
Process should be fit for purpose: very large, long term investments should have very
stringent assessments, whereas smaller funds should have shorter time frames and less
resource. It is hard to imagine up to $15m being spent by any other Govt agency with as little
due diligence as our major science investments via MBIE.
Processes should be designed to deliver what the investment seeks – i.e. if the focus is
research excellence, then there should be confidence that the process is rewarding research
excellence. If the process seeks new ideas, the process should be designed to deliver
these. There is currently, apparently, no view or even intent to review this process
effectiveness.
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science
investment. These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your
feedback might consider the following questions.
QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGES IN DIRECTION PROPOSED IN THIS STATEMENT:
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the
relevance and impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example,
should investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms,
have a sound pathway to impact and application, even if long term?
These are again questions that can’t be answered in general, nor should they be answered
in that way. Needs to be addressed at a more specific level.
There should always be a space for research that is about advancing knowledge for its own
sake. In such cases we shouldn’t require ‘pathway’ type cases - there is always the
possibility to speculate on potential uses but the value of that is minimal if not zero (and
often these very tenuous arguments frustrate reviewers). An extreme example of this would
be fundamental particle physics – we can see the questions are important but it is impossible
to sensibly guess at what uses such knowledge might lead to into 20 years time.
Generally this ‘knowledge-led’ research would be investigator led research – but not all (or
even most) investigator-led research needs to be like this.
One would assume that all mission or industry led research should have a sound pathway;
though for much the focus should be more about the quality of relationships not the specifics
of the business plan.
Again however it is impossible to sensibly answer this question in the general and in a
vaccum of robust evidence about what is going on.
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
Depends on the policy case and good evidence to support such orientation.
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in our
science investments?
We are not against the move per se (and indeed it might well be the right thing) what we
caution against is making such a decision when a evidence base is lacking, or any
meaningful debate about this. Do we know how our current set up is working? Do we know
how specific initiatives and funds are contributing? If not, how do we know are investment
Government money in the best way to contribute to innovation and growth? How do we
credibly take this question on?
For example; one question that needs to be addressed is whether our current policy settings
are subsidising private sector business as usual and actually having little marginal impact
(which previous MED evaluation using tax data has suggested). If that is the case, we
should be thinking differently about how we invest to incentivise the private sector. Until we
know about issues such as this, we shouldn’t be tipping significantly more Govt money into
firms.
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
This question assumes that a stronger business orientation requires a strategic reallocation. That is not necessarily the case; what if you just funded companies based on
business excellence or export potential not ‘sector’? Again, would need some evidence
about what difference Govt investment makes and how before identifying these.
13. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
Collaboration should feature when it needs to; that will be defined by outcomes desired or
approaches required.
We should undertake evaluations to understand systematically what we can learn from
approaches to date.
The question of appropriate balance again can’t be answered in the generic – it probably
looks very different by sector (e.g, in the Kiwifruit sector vs the ICT sector) and by fund (e.g.
in Marsden vs PGP).
14. How might the current set-up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
15. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science
investments? What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
Again a need for evaluation.
16. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of
change?
Yes – much more emphasis on performance and outcomes over ‘structure’ and ‘opinion’
based re-jigging of funds/structures.
Also, much greater emphasis on quality of process (with quality including being fit for
purpose)
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
We must spend adequate time and resources of adequate quality to understand this. We
are simply not doing this and therefore there is no real evidence base on which to take this
on. Again, it probably looks very different – e.g. in the Kiwifruit vs in ICT vs health.
18. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
19. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH
FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so that it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s
science needs into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to
deliver on the NSSI objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification
of, sector-specific funds are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
›› consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that
we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
›› increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
›› increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
›› implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
YOUR FEEDBACK ON THESE MATTERS MIGHT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
20. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
a. the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds and
the complexity of funds
The number and multiplicity of funds is a secondary issue. It does not apriori make for better
outcomes or more flexibility by lumping things together or breaking them apart. We need to
focus on being clear, consistent and accurate, and most especially on understanding what’s
working and why. The system MUST have some complexity because we are talking
investment that covers all of human scientific and technical endeavour.
It is indicative of the historical nature of debate in NZ that this sort of question features in a
strategic document. If we were a business, the first questions we would ask would be about
where we want to go and how we are performing in getting there. The decision about
number of pots and what they are labelled has to come from that, not prior to.
c. the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
Impossible to answer – should be the subject of an evaluation, or one part of an evaluation
of a sector or fund. There are too many subjective points to consider; for example there
might be a case that emerging researchers find it hard. But in a system where there isn’t
enough for everyone, we need to balance that against high performing mid-career and
senior scientists being encouraged.
d. the sector-based nature of funding tools
See above – needs evaluation and evidence.
e. the length of funding allocation
Again – needs evaluation to answer. And is probably sector / fund specific (e.g. different for
environment than for ICT).
f.
the form and processes of peer review
Suggest this needs a proper evaluation. The current peer review system is relatively
standard practice but seems a woefully inadequate mechanism in some instances. For
example, as previously suggested, where Govt is making major (up to $15m) investments, it
seems illogical to depend on the randomness of this process, in terms of who responds and
the quality of this response. Clearly some peer reviewers take a lot of time and have a lot of
expertise, but others are simply wrong and quite damaging to the decision making process.
I’d suggest it was worth professional contracts with groups of international experts in cases
of significant investment (e.g. MBIE Enabling Technologies or very large mission/industry led
projects). An investment of $3-$5K or more would be entirely appropriate for a $15m
project.
Also MBIE should ensure Advisory Groups (i.e. those charged with scoring proposals) are
not so broad that technical expertise is limited to one or two people. That might mean
having many more Advisory Groups (HVMS is the most obvious example for this) but surely
an extra $10-$20K cost is justified when spending $50m+? For example in HRC process
there seems much more expertise relevant to proposals across the group and ability to
consider peer reviews and responses.
f. the relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact, past
performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
Again this must be fund specific.
21. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
22. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
23. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
24. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
25. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
Do it! There are few if any good examples of science investment evaluation having ever
been being done in NZ. Small case study approaches, or fast ‘tick the box’ exercises are
waste of time.
26. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
Govt encouragement for industry is arguably misguided – in particular focus on cash cofunding reflects a mindset that industry / research organisation relationships is similar to
early stage technology investments. In particular, the view that ‘skin in the game’ (i.e. cash
co-funding) is the ultimate indicator of commitment is quite simply wrong and potentially
counter productive to the goal.
International evidence is clear that the most important thing in successful research / industry
engagement is quality of relationship; and time (not cash) is the best metric of that.
So one very simple thing that could be done to encourage greater co-investment would be to
recognise (and prioritise) staff time not cash.
27. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our science
investments? Why or why not?
Only if time is counted. Otherwise No because it represents a mistaken assumption about
what makes these activities successful.
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might they be
overcome?
The key barrier is the reality of our economic structure – we have smaller firms and
industries that aren’t R&D intensive. Initiatives to substantially change private investment
need to recognise our firms need to be better than the same types of companies
internationally; that is a substantial structural challenge not a cultural/behavioural one.
The key barrier is getting relationships between researchers and companies. This can only
be addressed by time spent working together. So – put much more focus on time rather
than cash in co-funding support.
28. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Incentivise and support quality relationships
29. Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of
MBIE’s sector specific research funds?
Take a 10 year horizon, with a defined programme of evaluation leading to the next 10 years
structure.
Define the rules and then get out of the way; the people involved will manage the complexity
if the system can have some constancy.
One thing I would say is that the National Science Challenges are extremely problematic as
a direction setting mechanism for NZ Inc. In some areas (e.g. around HVMS) this essentially
boiled down to a process where individual researchers agreed priorities with no meaningful
industry input. This seems directly counter to what Govt and Industry want and would be a
significant concern if NSC was (as seems indicated) to become a more important way of
investing science dollars in the future.
August 22, 2014
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand,
Associate Professor Andrew Shelling
Associate Dean (Research)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz
Facsimile: 64 9 373 7677
Hon Steven Joyce
Minister of Science and Innovation
PO Box 5488, Wellington 6145
New Zealand
Dear Minister
Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
Submission from the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University, prepared by
Associate Professor Andrew Shelling, Associate Dean (Research).
The Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences is the largest biomedical research facility in New
Zealand, with a proud history of attracting and growing pre-eminent researchers, talented
students and generating high levels of research funding. The Faculty has many world class
researchers and research groups, along with several world-leading Research Centres
including the Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre and the Centre for Brain Research.
Research strengths include cancer, neuroscience, cardiovascular biology, immunology,
developmental biology, reproductive biology, ophthalmology, audiology, population health,
clinical medicine, bioengineering and biomedical imaging.
Our Faculty is the largest contributor to research income in the University of Auckland. In
2013, the Faculty was awarded $34.2 million of external research funds, while the total
research revenue from all contracts and grants was $71.2 million). Approximately $37
million of our research income is from Uniservices, and a significant amount of Uniservices
income is from international contracts. Overall our total research income represents
approximately 33% of the research income for the University of Auckland. The Health
Research Council was the largest component of our external research funding, and
responsible for over half of our research income from research grants.
Annual Research Income of FMHS (excluding Uniservices)
2011
2012
Health Research Council
22,194,155 22,571,527
FoRST / MSI / MBIE
3,706,599 3,251,012
Royal Society of New Zealand
2,415,985 1,965,622
Auckland Medical Research
Foundation
2,102,381 2,512,661
Cancer Society of New Zealand
1,385,020 1,044,504
All Other
3,164,935 5,739,855
34,969,075 37,085,183
2013
20,794,103
1,930,442
1,466,538
2,296,856
648,312
7,052,845
34,189,097
This would place the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences as one of New Zealand’s most
active research organisations, exceeding some of the Crown Research Institutes, therefore we
consider that we have an important voice in this discussion. Research income is a significant
source of overall income for the Faculty, and we are dependent on stable and consistently
administered research funding, to remain as one of the world’s leading medical schools. The
University is rated in the world’s top 50 Universities in the areas of Clinical, Pre-clinical and
Health. Therefore we have considerable interest in the future plans for the Government’s
science investment and wish to provide some feedback for consideration.
As Associate Dean (Research) for the Faculty and Medical and Health Sciences, I welcome
this opportunity to provide some comments on the draft National Statement of Science
Investment proposal. To make this submission, I have canvassed opinion from within the
Faculty and provide my own thoughts about many of the topics raised. My submission has
the support of the Dean (Professor John Fraser) and Deputy Dean (Professor Ian Reid).
Several members of my Faculty will also be making their own separate submissions. In
addition, I, and several other members of the Senior Management Team of the Faculty, have
also had input into the University of Auckland Leadership Team submission that you will
also receive. I have therefore chosen to provide this separate submission, in which I highlight
some issues that are specifically relevant to our Faculty. To do this, I have focussed on just
the items contained in the draft Statement’s objectives, given that a comprehensive response
is also being presented by the University of Auckland Leadership Team.
Kind Regards
Associate Professor Andrew Shelling
(Associate Dean (Research))
Proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
We unreservedly support this key objective. We would like to see an increase in the
investment of excellent, investigator-led research.
We are aware that good research takes time to produce the maximum impact and excellence.
We are concerned that the overall focus of the new strategy is to further favour funding of
short-term outcomes and/or mission driven research, with less support for the unique place
that serendipity plays in leading transformative discoveries. We consider that to produce
research excellence, we need to avoid such a strong focus on short-term economic outcomes.
While this is clearly an important responsibility of a national funding envelop, we believe
that the proposed strategy does not present the correct balance. Investigator-led research
funded by HRC and Marsden will receive very little or no incremental strengthening, and
thus effective shrinkage over time. Moreover, much of the HRC funding is planned to align
with the National Science Challenges. If this is a deliberate strategy, then we strongly oppose
it, since the National Science health challenges do not have widespread support from the
health research community. There is a clear need to focus on research excellence and impact
as the primary measure of the worth of research funding, rather than to “have clear relevance
to the most pressing… needs” particularly when the most pressing needs vary depending on
which group considers it pressing. The risk with this “needs based” funding strategy is best
highlighted by the UK government’s underfunding of “low need” areas in the 1980s, leaving
it highly exposed when Mad Cow Disease was discovered. Some of the most significant
achievements in medical research internationally have been the result of long term
fundamental research. To focus on the most pressing needs of society is a good aspiration,
but truly excellent research with the most impact, is the result of an investment in long term
fundamental research. The idea of focusing heavily on “user-led” or “industry-led” research
invariably leads to short-term outcomes, and poorer long-term return on the original
investment.
What is glaringly absent from the proposed strategy is any consideration for creating a
realistic career pathway for New Zealand scientists, particularly for those in the early career
stages when they are at their most skilled, energetic and innovative. New Zealand has a poor
record of support for returning postdoctoral scientists, fresh from overseas training. In
Australia, the NHMRC alone supports over 800 career fellows, whose attentions are entirely
research focused. This we believe is the single most important reason why Australia ranks in
the top 3-4 countries in the world for medical and health science advances. Sadly, many
Australian scientists are New Zealand graduates who came to the conclusion early on in their
career that the “first step on the science ladder” did not exist in New Zealand. Postdoctoral
fellows form the engine room of science and until we address the paucity of these invaluable
elements in science, New Zealand will struggle. Many of this country’s top scientists owe
their success to the early career funding support they received in the form of dedicated
fellowships.
The current research environment does not cater well for career development of our scientists
as they strive to produce high quality research, and the proposed science investment plan
does not address this issue clearly. It is widely acknowledged that in New Zealand we are
lacking good career development of our early career scientists, especially at the post-doctoral
fellow level, which should be the backbone of our research productivity. We have been very
successful over several years to increase the number of post-graduate and doctoral students
graduating from our institutions, however, there hasn’t been the subsequent development on
post-doctoral fellowships in New Zealand
In the past, there were a limited number of Marsden post-doctoral fellowships that were
available, but they have been stopped. There are only a few post-doctoral fellowships
currently available, the Royal Society Discovery Fellowship and the HRC’s Hercus
Fellowship. Most similar countries to New Zealand have considerably more opportunity for
this important career stage. While providing Post-Doctoral Fellowships might be considered
to be the responsibility of the Universities, the limited amount of fully funded public-good
research funding limits investment in career development at all levels. We do have Marsden
Fast Start and HRC New Investigator grants that are intended for new investigators, however,
these grants cannot support the full salary of a fulltime research fellow. We have few longterm externally funded research fellows within our Faculty, as it is too risky in our current
environment to rely on competing for sufficient research funds to support a long-term
research career. Some of our early career researchers are either discouraged from continuing
in research, move overseas, or look for teaching based positions.
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for
the benefit of New Zealand
We agree with this proposal, that research in New Zealand should be focused on high
potential for impact, but consider that this will best be achieved by the pursuit of
research excellence.
We would like to see an increased investment in investigator-led competitive funding to
provide a balanced portfolio of research funding. We suggest that this would provide the
highest potential for impact for the benefit of New Zealand. We consider that most funding
should be focused on investigator-led competitive funding, such as the existing funders:
HRC, Marsden and MBIE funding. These funds enjoy a transparent process of funding
allocation, and have mechanisms to ensure that only the best contestable research is funded,
along with a robust peer-review process. These are our traditional sources, and have served
New Zealand very well, but have been consistently underfunded. These can be balanced with
investing in a limited amount of “mission-led” or “safe pair of hands” funding, such as we
currently see in the CoRE’s and National Sciences Challenges.
There is real concern about the risks associated with increasing fragmentation of science
funding, and the subsequent need to establish more governance and expensive administrative
mechanisms. The National Science Challenges are a good example of an entirely new
funding scheme being established under new governance and administrative structures. This
is expensive and a poor use of resources. The National Science Challenges were initially
welcomed as a laudable approach to specifically addressing some of New Zealand problems.
However, they have now become a cause for concern, since it became apparent that the
intention is to redirect existing funding (like HRC) to support what are transiently and hastily
self-assembled single research bids, representing a fraction of this countries science capacity.
The National Science Challenges expect scientists that have typically not worked together, to
re-focus their attention on poorly articulated goals and objectives. The risk of the National
Science Challenge approach is that they will thinly spread funding, across business-as-usual
research, that has simply been retrofitted into the challenge model. Assessment of
excellence, international competitiveness and critical evaluation, do not appear to matter as
much as fit. The National Science Challenges leave most scientists in New Zealand
wondering if and how they fit in, and disappointingly most have realised that they do not.
Therefore, a comment that is often made is that some of the new mission-led research funding
such as the National Science Challenges are is too highly targeted, fragmenting and confusing
to access, and does not have strong continuing peer review and quality control. We also
consider that the indication that HRC funding will closely align with National Sciences
Challenges is of grave concern, particularly to those health scientists that do not easily fit into
a challenge, since there is a developing belief that the objectives of the Health Challenges
have not always been well devised and articulated to the research community.
We consider that the balance should be in favour of investigator-led, openly competitive
funding, as this is widely recognised as the best driver of transformational research activities.
While we recognise that investigator-led competitive funding involves a large amount of
investment of time (from both successful and unsuccessful applicants), if adequately funded,
they are seen to be the best mechanism to ensure that research excellence with the most
impact is funded and maintained. We currently lack sufficient government investment for
these funds to have much widespread and international impact.
Another comment that is often made is that the current National Science Challenges don’t
have enough funding to cover health priority areas adequately, and HRC should continue to
be the main driver for funding of health priority areas. The current proposal is to allocate
some HRC funding through the National Science Challenges. This provides a major risk that
HRC funding is diluted even further, and weakens an established area of research strength.
Furthermore, we suggest that the existing, well-established and rigorous peer review systems
of funders like the HRC and Marsden is a substantial strength, and could be used to improve
clarity of access for new mission-led funding and provide ongoing quality control of the
highest standard.
It is our overall position, that if we want to focus on developing science with the highest
potential for impact for the benefit of New Zealand, that rather than developing new funding
streams, it makes more sense to invest more heavily in our existing successful ones.
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
We strongly support this objective, and consider that it should be a Government
priority to dramatically increase investment in medical research, considering that there
hasn’t been a real increase in investment in this area in recent years.
The public-good research funding environment has been essentially capped in recent years,
and the strategy outlined in the Science Investment draft document shows that this will be the
case for the foreseeable future. By maintaining the level of HRC funding for the next 10
years is an effective reduction of funding, which is very disappointing to our Faculty, and all
health/medical researchers. That means for a Faculty like ours, which is largely based on the
investment in people and technology, that we face a progressive decline in effective research
funding for the next 10 years. Given that we haven’t seen a significant increase in research
funding for many years, the success rates for all of our public-good research funding (HRC,
Marsden and MBIE) are very low compared to most of our international equivalents, and
much lower than similar national funders in Australia. The current plan to maintain existing
funding levels is effectively a reduction in available funding, and Government should be
looking to significantly increase the investment in research funding. This is particularly
important in 2014 and the near future, given the significant medical challenges we face, with
an increasingly aging population, and rising obesity and associated diseases. At this very
moment in New Zealand, we need to be dramatically increasing funding for medical research,
not the current plan to leave it to decline. The question is slightly misleading, as we are not
seeing in this investment plan to “continue increasing investment over time”, by failing to
increase research funding we are talking about an effective decline.
We are very concerned that the recent announcement that, from January 2015, the Australian
Government will establish a Medical Research Future Fund that will grow to $20 billion, the
largest of its kind in the world, and how this is going to impact on our medical research
community. Many of us collaborate closely with our Australian colleagues, we have similar
skills and backgrounds, and it is already widely anticipated that many of our top medical
researchers will be attracted across the Tasman to where there will be a rich source of
medical research funding. I strongly suggest that without some increase in investment in
targeted funding into medical research, such as the HRC, we are going to face a significant
shortfall in our workforce in this area in the next few years.
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
No particular comment.
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
While we recognise the increasing importance of industry linked research, we are not
strongly supportive of industry leading the decision making around the distribution of
research funding.
Industry-led research tends to be short-term and fickle, and is not the best focus for really
important long-term research outcomes and health benefits for New Zealand. Industry does
not always know what is the best research to invest in, and does not always have an interest
in all areas of research such as important public health issues, social research, or fundamental
biomedical research, which underpins a lot of transformative and translational research that
our Faculty is based on.
We don’t have many truly large internationally-linked industries in New Zealand, apart from
Fonterra, and perhaps there isn’t as much of a pipeline for commercial orientated research
investment as the Government is expecting, and is seen in larger countries. The Faculty has
been working hard to engage in more commercial research through significant numbers of
research contracts won by Uniservices, and increased applications to MBIE in recent years.
However, we are also concerned that commercially driven research doesn’t always lead to
investment in career development of our researchers, instead the focus is on established,
senior researchers who are already highly productive.
We also consider that many aspects of our current basic research has had several positive
economic outcomes, even without a direct link with industry. For example, much of our
public health research has led to improved health outcomes, and health savings. Not all
investigator-led research is blue sky research, much of it is translational and transformative
medical research, that has had a direct impact in improving health and changing the way that
medicine is performed in New Zealand.
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
We strongly support this objective, and through Te Kupenga Hauora Māori which
coordinates teaching and research in Māori health across the Faculty of Medical and Health
Sciences and externally. The mission statements for Te Kupenga Hauora Māori include
ensuring the best possible standards of health for Māori and Pacific people, particularly
through teaching, research, advocacy and work-force development, and to establish and
produce results from research which are relevant to the needs of Māori and Pacific
communities and therefore to the nation. We continue to work hard in this area.
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of
our science system to benefit New Zealand.
Given the effective reduction of public good funding currently available to our researchers in
New Zealand, we have naturally looked to build international relationships. We have been
successful to date, in 2013, we were awarded $1.8 million dollars in International public good
research funding, but much of our Uniservices income (approximately $37 million) is from
international contracts. We are working hard to increase that, however, we need core
domestic funding to ensure that remain internationally competitive.
073 – Dr Kim O’Sullivan
22 August
Submission via email
To Whom it May Concern
I would like to make a specific comment on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment,
in response to question 24. Are there any gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding
mechanisms available?
On page 69 the Draft NSSI notes that: "There is no consistent data on postdoctoral numbers in
New Zealand although it is possible to point to an increase in the number of doctoral graduates in
New Zealand."
The NSSI goes on to note that there are five Post-Doctoral positions available per annum through
the HRC and Rutherford Foundation, as well as other opportunities through government
departments. In total this seems like a very small number of positions for the whole of New Zealand.
As a recent doctoral graduate who wishes to continue a research career, I am not aware of any such
opportunities through government departments that I would be eligible to apply for in my research
field.
It seems the funding for early career researchers (post-doctoral fellows) is largely dependent on
established researchers writing positions into their competitive research grants, and on the
Universities.
Another problem for recent doctoral graduates is that there is often little opportunity to continue in
paid research positions between submission of doctoral theses and beginning a post-doctoral
fellowship. Many of my peers have either moved overseas or chosen not to continue a research
career due to the lack of funding opportunities. Even those who have completed a post-doctoral
fellowship overseas find that there are very limited funding opportunities to early career researchers
if they are wishing to return home and continue their research careers.
I believe that greater support is required for early career researchers in order for science to thrive in
New Zealand. Compared to the opportunities available overseas, New Zealand is offering very few
options for doctoral graduates to continue a career in research.
Yours sincerely
Dr Kimberley O'Sullivan, PhD
(Post-Doctoral Fellow, Part-Time, University of Otago)
D R A F T N A T I O N A L S T A T E M E N T O F S C I E N C E I N VE S T M E N T
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an overview of the current
state of New Zealand’s public science system and a statement of Government’s investment in
science. As such, it serves as a key point of reference for looking at where we stand, compared to
where we want to be.
The Minister wants to shape the strategic direction of the science and innovation system, and is
seeking your insights and feedback on what that direction might be.
G U I D A N C E A N D I N S T R UC TI O N S
To contribute your feedback, please download this form and enter your responses under the relevant
questions. You do not need to answer all questions. You may answer as many questions as you
wish.
Please supply your name and organisation, and indicate whether you are providing feedback on
behalf of your organisation or as an individual.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
Professor Stuart McNaughton, ONZM.
Director of the Woolf Fisher Research Centre
Chief Education Scientific Advisor
Providing comments as an individual
FE E D B AC K O N O VE R AL L SC IE NC E INVE ST M E NT O U T L O O K
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of Government’s
wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
The balances may need reconfiguring when considering the role of educational science. This is because
contemporary educational research doesn’t easily fit the way in which the three basic types of science investment are
described (p.12), and applied in the funding mechanisms. The description of ‘Industry-led’ science, and of R and D
can apply to some programmes of educational research which employ ‘Design Based’ approaches, which are research
and development models drawing on what has been called ‘Performance Science’. In these approaches urgent
problems of practice are the focus of partnerships between researchers and professional educators. These methods
don’t compromise robust and rigorous science, and enable both local solving and more generalisable theoretical
principles to be addressed. There are instances throughout the document where reference to business 1might also be
extended to educational settings. This approach to educational research provides opportunities for identifying innovation (in
teaching and learning) and then taking effective innovation to scale.
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science
that are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are
under-emphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
Educational science could contribute more to the wider objectives of increasing innovation and research and
development in the schooling sector, thereby meeting Science and Society goals and the Government’s investment
for how science and innovation contribute to economic and social returns, including social, environmental and health
outcomes (Chart 9). The Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI) funding shows h o w ‘sector led funding
works well in education. However, it is a limited source (in terms of dollars) for educational research. The fund isn’t
identified specifically in the investment table (p.15) or the Ten-Year funding Profile table (p.18), illustrating a possible
under-emphasis. It might be in the GBAORD (p.22 ) which shows investment in Education R&D at 0.24%, far smaller
than other sectors. Opportunities for funding do exist eg.: Sector Specific Research Funds and within the National
Science Challenge. A more deliberate approach to linking or perhaps rationalising further funding to raise
productivity and impact in education could be through the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (possible
equivalent to the Health Research Council). Further comments in 7 below.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
If so, how?
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
See comment 22
2
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure
those problems are being addressed?
One problem in the current structure is that research which attempts to be multidisicplinary, or address
multifactorial aspects of development and learning may confront demarcations created by funding criteria and mixed
priorities. One example is the funding for the Growing Up in NZ study. This has potential to answer important
questions in education, and some funding from MOE has been accessed. But mechanisms which support coordinated
cross agency funding, which don’t add unnecessary layers of compliance are needed.
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
In addition to comments above: Educational science in large part draws on disciplines in the social sciences.
Accessing specific and dedicated funding as social science funding is critical to each of investigator/ mission / and
business led educational research. Currently, there is a degree of invisibility specifically for educational research
but more generally social science. Opportunities for funding within the current portfolio do exist. Major examples
are: Sector Specific Research Funds –and within the National Science Challenge (eg A better Start). Perhaps a
more deliberate coordinated approach to linking these sources through a dedicated agency for social science
funding is needed. As noted above, the New Zealand Council for Educational Research might be able to contribute
too.
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
Three features of the educational sector suggest increased support is needed for international research which is
strategically funded. One is to enable the ‘export’ of educational practices and programmes which have developed from
fundamental research (eg Reading Recovery), which might more deliberately provide a return on investment to New
Zealand. A second is to contribute to the increasing presence and role of international students. A third is the influential
international comparisons such as the OECD programme of PISA. The first two provide indirect outcomes of an
international strategy. In terms of the third, basic as well as more applied questions relating to international
comparisons can only be answered with cross country research teams. The existing mechanisms may have limited
effectiveness to support longer term research programmes, which educational examples suggest have 3-5 year cycles.
Specific contestable funding is one mechanism, but locating international collaboration within longer term research
programmes also is needed. Funding of doctoral and postdoctoral positions from collaborating countries is important to
achieving this (and thereby contributing to the first two features).
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
3
G E N E R A L F E E D B AC K O N T H E D I R E C T I O N
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and
impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
Across the range of scientific endeavors, educational research which aims to make a difference to developmental
patterns and effectiveness of teaching and learning has to have a focus on impact. This is achieved through several
mechanisms. Some of these are better methodological choices (eg more robust measures of impact). Others are in the
partnership processes with professionals and the iterative testing required to demonstrate impact. There should be
graduated criteria for demonstrating potential impact across the three categories, with the most rigorous criteria
adopted in the business-led (which in an educational context, means sector / school led research). But a corollary is that
criteria related to contribution to knowledge and theory building be present in a graduated form across these too, with
industry-led being required to demonstrate contributions. This is certainly possible (and has been demonstrated) in
educational research. See also comment 22
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in
our science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
A greater orientation towards innovation and growth for educational science funding can be consistent with supporting both
fundamental and more applied research (see comments above). Key enabling technologies and industry sectors include what
TEC identifies as high growth / high demand industries, and specifically new digital technologies. Deliberate research of the
three types relating to how children become skilled and knowledgeable in these domains is needed for the schooling sector
to contribute to the longer term goals identified for Science and Society and the schooling sector contribution in the model of
the Government’s investment for how science and innovation contribute to economic and social returns, including social,
environmental and health outcomes (Chart 9).
4
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
See comment 26
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
See comment 26
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
5
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
See comment 10
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
See comment 8
6
FE E D B AC K ON STR U CTUR E OF MB I E SE CT OR -S PE C I FI C R E SE AR C H FU NDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs
into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI
objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds
are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
-
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that
we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
-
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
-
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
-
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
Your feedback on these matters might address the following questions:
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI,
established or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f. The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
Certainly in education, competition for research funds is appropriate for more investigator and mission led
research. But it is counterproductive to longer term programmes of research which include a more ‘business led’
function of identifying innovation and taking innovative practices to scale. In these cases amalgamation of
funding to provide some continuity and longevity over at least a 3 to 5 year cycle is needed. There are models
for this outside of education in MBIE, and the differentiation of funding types within the TLRI partly achieves this.
But the overall amount of funding is very limited. It may be that other sources of specifically educational funding
need to be amalgamated with the TLRI to achieve coherence and the capability of funding larger scale
programmes. School led funding for innovation is planned within the new government policy of Investing in
Educational Success (through a school based innovation fund but requiring external experts with whom to
partner). This is a very promising development, with the caveats noted above about length of time (to achieve
impact and test impact, and at least in part test scalability) and the overall amounts needed to systematically
identify and test innovation.
7
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
There are examples where targeting is very appropriate. Given the Better Public Service Goals are national goals,
some targeting around them by MBIE is appropriate. The targeting in Science in Society and targets relating to
science teaching and achievement that the schooling sector can contribute are very appropriate given longer
term social and economic objectives as outlined in the draft. Targeting for research relating to the success of
groups, specifically Māori and Pasifika students and students from low SES backgrounds is necessary for national
objective noted in the NSSI draft. Targeting, especially the latter equity targeting, should be part of the
demonstration of impact and of quality in the research programmes that are related to social and educational
outcomes.
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
8
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
See comment 22
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
See comment 26
26. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE
funds?
a. Should leveraging private investment be a more heavily weighted goal for our
science investments? Why or why not?
b. If so, what are the current barriers to increased private investment and how might
they be overcome?
If school based research partnerships are considered similar to industry-led research then there are lessons
from the example of the Manaiakalani digital innovation and its associated research (http://
www.manaiakalani.org). This is a public good partnership model with philanthropic and telecom industry
funding together with funding from MOE and from the University of Auckland. The barriers to that funding
are not their availability but rather having a member of the partnership take on the role of presenting to and
negotiating with potential funders. Leveraging private / philanthropic investment is recognised in the NSSI
draft, but incentivising and building on this through the infrastructure needs to be explicit in strategies such as
matching and partnership funding.
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Is there anything else we should consider about proposed changes to the structure of MBIE’s
sector specific research funds?
As noted above, contemporary research in education has developed ‘Design Based’ approaches, which are
research and development models, focused on solving urgent problems of practice involving partnerships
between researchers, professional educators and funders. Such approaches have been deliberately designed to
solve the twin problems of 'uptake' and taking educational innovations to scale. Funding these approaches and
having graduate qualifications in conducting such research are required to build national capability to conduct
research with increased impact.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. We value your contribution.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
May 2014
9
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
22 August 2014
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 5488
Wellington
[email protected]
Submission on Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014-2024
Victoria University is pleased to have the opportunity to provide a submission on the
Draft National Statement of Science Investment.
Overall Science Investment Outlook
Contestable versus non-contestable funding
While it is unlikely that a perfect funding model can ever be designed and all models may
suffer from poor implementation, contestable funding processes are likely to be superior
to non-contestable processes in most cases.
The appeal of contestable funding processes includes:
 They are transparent in that the deliberations of assessment panels are released,
and their recommendations are overviewed and moderated by an impartial
science board.
 They are independent in that the assessment panels and science board are not
also beneficiaries of the proposed investment, or if they are conflicts are declared
and managed.
 They attract the full breadth of ideas relevant to the science priorities established
by the funders, including those of new entrants and those with unconventional
ideas that may disrupt existing practices. The process allows (even promotes) a
diversity of ideas that is essential for fostering innovation.
 They encourage an investment approach focussed on research quality, relevance
and expected impact prevail.
 The process is relatively efficient in that it avoids lengthy negotiations, and the
need to engage in extensive influence and advocacy.
In contrast, non-contestable funding processes are inferior because:
 They are subject to capture by vested interest groups, particularly those scientists
and institutions that already have a high proportion of the funding in particular
areas.




Those setting the research agenda are also the beneficiaries of the investment.
Clear conflicts of interest emerge where those designing the research investment
are incentivised to protect and promote their own research interests.
They limit the diversity of ideas and discourage new entrants.
The process of engagement commonly involves high transaction costs in terms of
both time and resources.
Operating costs are increased if and layered governance and management
arrangements specific to the non-contestable fund are employed in addition to
the existing management structures of the institutions undertaking research.
The arguments in favour of non-contestable funding processes seem to focus on the
need to achieve scale, the need to promote collaboration and interdisciplinary
relationships, and the need to avoid expensive duplication.
But neither scale nor collaboration and interdisciplinary relationships are inconsistent
with contestability. Indeed contestability encourages collaboration and interdisciplinary
relationships because contestability seeks and rewards the best proposals. This requires
that the best talent be attracted to the proposal. Non-contestable funding reduces the
incentives to collaborate as doing so reduces the funds that can be captured, and
directions from the funder that there should be collaboration will not generally be an
effective substitute for incentives to do so.
Balance
The consultation chapter asks a series of questions about balance (i) between
institutional and contestable funding, (ii) amongst CRI, university, independent research
organisation (IROs) and industry funding, and (iii) amongst investigator, mission and
industry led funding.



Institutional and contestable: Where non-contestable funding is tied to
institutions of programmes, there is a need for regular review of performance
against the objectives funded. The level of performance required for
continuation of the funding should be high enough as to offset the loss of the
benefits associated with competitive funding.
CRI, university, IRO and industry funding: It is not clear that it is necessary to
strike a balance amongst these various funding recipients. The investment
priorities of the government together with the quality of the investment
proposals of the applicants will determine the balance of funding across these
research providers. It is not in the national interest to strike a balance of funding
across research providers unless this is tightly linked to the quality and impact of
their research.
Investigator, mission and industry led funding: Striking a balance across these
three funding dimensions is important as each addresses different aspects of the
overall research investment:
 Investigator led research will provide the platform for future mission and
industry led research but, because of its distance to market, it will not be of
interest to industry and will not be supported or funded by industry.
2
 Mission led research addresses relevance and impact thereby realising the
value of research investments.
 Industry led research sends important market signals to research providers
and opens channels for IP commercialisation but it will not encourage
disruptive technologies that will more likely be the result of investigator led
and possibly mission led research.
Evaluation
The consultation chapter talks about evaluating research providers, policy instruments
and the overall science system. The key issue to evaluate, however, is the quality or
performance of the investment in research.
Evaluating the quality of research investments has been a task that has tested the
imagination of research funders (and providers) over the past 20 years. Internationally as
well, the issue is recognised as a difficult one.
The key characteristic of research investments that differentiates them from
conventional investments (such as capital plant) is their uncertainty (what will the
research reveal) and risk (will the research succeed). A number of approaches to
evaluating research investments have been proposed over time ranging from ranking
and scoring models when risk and uncertainty are high, through option pricing and costbenefit/cashflow analysis (with or without distributed data) when risk and uncertainty
are lower.
Whatever tool is used the broad approach to evaluation is the same. It is an assessment
of the expected worthiness of a commitment of resources to a particular research
project or programme. ‘Worthiness’ is the extent to which a research project or
programme achieves the strategic goals that underpin the overall investment in
research. For private sector commercial projects ‘worthiness’ may be increased profit.
For public sector social projects it may be a percentage decline in benefit dependency. In
each case, however, a quantified return should be estimated.
The performance framework proposed in association with NSSI uses quantitative
indicators as its evaluation tool. This is a recognised methodology similar to ranking and
scoring models but is generally regarded as an unsophisticated tool that may not
necessarily provide a useful assessment of the quality of the investment in research.
International collaboration
Existing funding mechanisms in support of international collaboration seem to have
become overly complicated and diversified over time to the point that the transaction
costs for applying for funding outweigh the minimal funding provided. Increasingly
researchers are opting not to bother applying for funding.
In terms of inbound missions, follow-up and consequent realisation of collaborative
opportunities seems poor. This may be due to a disconnection between NZ researchers
and international agents who identify and organise the missions, or it may be due to a
lack of resource to comprehensively undertake follow-up.
3
Simplified and streamlined funding for pursuing international collaborations, and
improved follow-up for in-bound missions may help enhance international
collaborations. But at the same time it must recognise that good researchers already
have their own international networks and the role of centralised or institutional funding
should be to consolidate and develop these rather than creating new relationships where
none already exist.
The Direction of Science Investment
Quality, relevance and impact
These three related issues are a good high-level summary of the way to view research
investments. The issues are related in that, while impact is the ultimate goal, without
quality it will be more difficult to achieve and without relevance impact will be reduced.
For completeness output could added (quality, output, relevance, impact) and the
outcome targets (economic, social and environmental) included.
In terms of a greater focus for public research investments on business innovation and
economic growth, that is a matter of national strategic priorities for which there is
probably no right or universally agreed answer. What can be observed, however, is that
without solid national wealth creation it will not be possible to fund investment in social
and environmental areas. The case in support of an emphasis on business innovation and
economic growth is, as a result, quite compelling.
As to what enabling technologies or industry sectors should be priorities, those are
matters which should not be prescribed. Rather a competitive environment for both
enabling technologies and business ideas should be allowed to operate with successful
technologies and industries being rewarded. It would be a lucky coincidence if
technologies and sectors that were prescriptively prioritised turned out to be the most
successful choices and it would be almost certain that this would not happen consistently
over time.
Collaboration
As noted earlier, collaboration and competition are not mutually exclusive. Indeed quite
strong incentives are created under a competitive funding environment for top research
groups to collaborate in order to construct the highest quality proposal with the best
prospect of success.
While collaborations may improve the quality of research proposals they should not be
forced or mandated. If there are advantages to be had from collaborating with other
groups then it may be expected that researchers will pursue those collaborations. The
risk of forcing collaborations, particularly from a central point where information deficits
are likely, is that unproductive relationships are built and the quality of proposals
decreases.
4
CRIs, collaborations, postgraduate students, and cross institutional co-operation
Collaboration between universities and CRIs occurs, but the national interest would be
advanced if there was a much greater level of collaboration. Most CRIs dominate the
funding in their respective sector and discipline areas meaning that if they collaborate in
these areas they will inevitably lose funding. An exception is provided by the fact that
CRIs are willing to collaborate with universities to access and engage with postgraduate
students. CRIs were established as independent research institutes uncoupled from
universities and therefore without access to research students. This placed them at a
serious disadvantage as research students are integral to running an effective research
programme. Research students are highly motivated, challenging, innovative, hard
working, and economical. When coupled with experienced researchers they significantly
leverage the research capacity of research institutes and make them more productive
and frequently more innovative.
While co-operation has addressed the separation of the CRIs from postgraduate students
to some extent, these arrangements come at considerable administrative cost and raise
other issues such as blurred lines of accountability for supervision and completion. We
therefore think that it is time to look at a more integrated model. Were CRIs and
universities to become more integrated there would be a wide range of benefits for the
national research agenda and the training of research students. Greater integration
could also be expected to reduce the extent to which public research funding is spent
supporting the overhead costs of (what is by international standards) a relatively large
number of relatively small institutions in New Zealand. In addition, integration of the
CRIs might allow greater development of research specialisation across institutions: this
is difficult at present because funding for many of the areas in which specialisation might
be possible at present is locked up in CRIs dedicated to these particular areas of
research.
Internationally, the model of having independent research institutes co-located and
associated with Universities is quite common. For example, in the US, ‘National
Laboratories’ is a system of facilities and laboratories overseen by the US Department of
Energy (DOE) for the purpose of advancing science and helping promote the economic
and defense interests of the US. Most of the DOE National Laboratories are federally
funded research and development centers administered, managed, operated and staffed
by private corporations and universities under contract to DOE. There are currently 18
National Laboratories including Lawrence Livermore in California and Brookhaven in New
York.
Such international examples of independent research institutes associated with
universities may provide models for further integrating CRIs with NZ universities under a
model that would retain government ownership of the CRIs, but result in contracts with
universities to operate the CRIs in the national interest.
Structure of MBIE sector-specific research funds
Capturing economic, social and environmental outcomes
5
“Science and innovation have crucial roles in achieving high-quality economic, social and
environmental outcomes for New Zealand. New Zealand’s economic and social
wellbeing depends on the productivity and competitiveness of our economy and the
knowledge we have to make informed decisions as a society.” (NSSI, p10)
Victoria is in full support of this statement, but also recognises the critical importance of
the complex processes involved in achieving the benefits arising from science and
innovation. Increasing the extent to which government funded science generates
economic and social benefits for New Zealand will not automatically flow from greater
investment in science and the resulting increased scientific knowledge. It will require
deliberate investment in research which supports understanding and management of the
various contextual factors that influence the effective implementation of scientific
knowledge. These contextual factors (such as the economy, product markets, global
supply and distribution chains, regulatory environment, labour market conditions, social
and cultural systems and mores, workplace and consumer behaviours) are not, and
never have been, in the purview of natural sciences researchers. These are the focus of
business and social science researchers. To fully realise the economic and social benefits
of scientific research it will be necessary to also engage this group of researchers.
The need for funding for business and social science research in New Zealand is as great
as that for the natural sciences if the goal of economic and social wellbeing is to be
achieved. Social, economic, cultural, institutional and other contextual factors are
specific to New Zealand. International and comparative research is helpful but ultimately
these factors must be understood in the New Zealand context. There are very few
sources of funding for applied business and social science research in New Zealand.
Arguably what money is available is narrowly defined aimed at either a consulting model
(Callaghan) or theoretical work (PBRF and Marsden). However, there is nothing available
for sustained business and social science research of benefit to New Zealand. It is in this
realm that MBIE might consider reconfiguration of the contestable sector-specific funds.
Science versus research
The NSSI document often uses ‘science’ as a substitute for ‘research’ even to the extent
that it is in the title of the document. Science, however, is generally accepted as a
narrower term than research in that it is popularly understood to mean the natural or
physical sciences. Research, by contrast, is generally understood to have a wider
meaning embracing systematic investigation into a subject to establish new knowledge.
Given that the NSSI document addresses the full breadth funding mechanisms which
invest in research beyond just the physical sciences it may be better to use the term
research rather than science unless just the physical sciences are being referred to.
Uptake of research results
The value of research will not be realised until it is adopted by end users. While it may
seem puzzling when end users do not uptake new technologies there may be a number
of rational reasons why technology transfer is impeded:
 Implementation costs (including restructuring and risk) may exceed market benefits,
even though the latter appear high.
6














Exclusivity can be achieved and the technology sidelined, thereby saving
implementation costs while remaining relatively competitive. The short-term value
of the technology is in the option it creates.
Product demand is strong making it unnecessary to introduce innovations despite
their advantages. The risk associated with change is not justified.
Competition is naturally or structurally weak, thereby encouraging underperformance and rejection of innovations.
New Technology is not valued because the benefits are neither recognised nor
measured.
Competing technologies offer even greater benefits, or are strategically more
attractive.
Firms are focused on their current business model and making incremental
improvements to this. Disruptive technologies that will make its business model
obsolete will have to be adopted by a new player.
Complementary assets enabling the full utilisation of new technologies are absent.
In-house competencies capable of understanding and correctly applying/managing
technologies are inadequate.
Capital structure sufficient to finance the introduction of new technologies is
unavailable.
Organisational culture which embraces, rather than frustrates, new ideas dominates
the business.
Market development strategies capable of making technological innovations a
commercial reality are missing.
The early stage development of the IP may render it not market ready and requiring
further development before it can be released to market.
Attitudes to risk, how it is perceived and assessed and how it is managed, may affect
new technology uptake.
Competencies in, and the ease with which, benefits of new technologies can be
measured may influence the willingness of firms to accept new technologies.
In facilitating and encouraging uptake of new technologies consideration may need to be
given to the types of issues raised above and strategies developed to address them
before successful technology transfer will occur.
Private sector investment in research
It is widely acknowledged that innovation is a key driver of economic growth and that
research is a key source of innovation. On this basis investment by business in research
should be encouraged. One way to encourage business investment in research is for the
government to co-fund research with the business sector. This may be an effective way
to encourage business investment in research.
Funding quantum
At one extreme large, unspecified, long-term funding locks funding up and inhibits new
entrants with new ideas entering the funding system. As a result the system becomes
inflexible and unresponsive. At the other extreme small, closely prescribed and short
term funding reduces contestability, increases compliance costs, and may restrict
research programmes coming to fruition and realising an outcome. The short-term
7
investment may be wasted. A mix and balance of funding size, term and specificity may
be the best option.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Statement of Science
Investment.
If you have any queries about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Professor Neil Quigley
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
8
ROBINSON RESEARCH INSTITUTE
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Phone + 64-4- 472 1000 Web www.victoria.ac.nz/robinson
RESPONSE TO DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
21 August 2014
Scope of feedback
This feedback concentrates on one sector, High Value Manufacturing and Services (HVMS), and
primarily on Mission-led research.
General background
Despite substantial government investments in research supporting HVMS, the economic
outcomes have been underwhelming. The reasons for the disappointing results to date are
numerous. The HVMS sector: is highly disaggregated, has few large firms, lacks technical depth
and breadth, is supported by a low government investment rate and low risk private sector R&D,
and is supported by a R&D capability that lacks depth. This latter issue can be addressed by an
improvement in the mission-led investment processes employed.
Currently the mission led HVMS funds are allocated by the MBIE sector-based research
investment mechanisms and the National Science Challenges (NSC). There is no longer a CRI in
this space. Because MBIE sector-based investment is largely a project funding mechanism the
outcomes are mostly project related – the research is driven by short term easily measured
outputs. Delivering on a medium-term sector motivated strategy of substance is currently
challenging, as it requires success in multiple proposals over multiple years.
The NSC10 process as managed to date, lacks any sector input, so any existing sector strategy is
completely disconnected from the NSC10 projects. NSC10 has been run as an investigator led
process not a mission led investment mechanism.
There exists one funding mechanism which promotes research at a level higher than project
funding – Enabling Technologies. We will argue for an enhanced Enabling Technologies
mechanism with different evaluation processes to become the dominant funding mechanism for
mission led research in HVMS. We denote this new structure as ‘Capability Platforms’ to
distinguish it from existing structures.
Investing at a higher level than projects
If goals were set with sector input, and measures arranged to monitor progress, better outcomes
would be achieved. The investment needs to build Capability Platforms having specific goals. The
goals need to take into account: the presence of, or an ability to build, international quality
research teams; the strength of the firms involved including their capacity and appetite to grow
via technology uptake; quality of the partnerships between the firms and the research providers;
estimates of the size of the economic impact if successful; the resources available to exploit the
opportunity; the position of the firms in an appropriate value chain and/or ability to insert
themselves into value chains, and their ability to control parts that might be overseas; does NZ
have, or can develop, comparative advantage; end-user presence and knowledge input;
international business and R&D trends; and degree of inward investment.
Capability Platforms would be similar to Enabling Technologies programmes. The difference is
that to achieve greater impact the Platforms would also support a number of targeted type
projects addressing more specific industry needs. A Platform could have funding from $2-10m
per annum, and be reviewed every 2 years. Funding could be approved for up to 10 years subject
to review.
Recommendation

Mission-led funds should be invested primarily in Capability Platforms. A mature
Platform will have a portfolio of activities from near-term to medium/long-term and will
address the needs of a number of firms within a subsector or group of subsectors. A
platform will need to have sufficient depth and breadth to take a leadership position
with the relevant business community; it will need to undertake a range of R&D activities
and have the ability to evolve activities over time to accommodate changing needs. It will
have a core of activity which is science and technology focussed, and also supports a
number of medium term targeted projects.
These platforms should be managed by existing organisations and not through creating a parallel
governance structure. Parallel governance structures create additional friction and duplication
within the science system. They disempower and hollow-out existing management structures
with no evidence of improved performance. The close-to-market activity should be led by the
individual companies involved.
Making an investment on the basis of assessing an initial proposal will need to transition to
investing on the basis of evaluating the Platform strategy as information is gained about meeting
milestones and the evolving R&D and market environment.
Areas of research
MBIE commonly defines areas of research for the Enabling Technologies and Targeted funds such
as ‘Novel materials, manufacturing and applications’ and ‘Health and medical technologies’. We
cannot see any value in MBIE defining these areas and the rationale for their selection is opaque.
It is better left to the research providers in partnership with the sector to define the scope of a
Platform and left to the evaluation process to define where the concentration of funds should be
invested. If these areas are an attempt to limit participation in funding rounds then they are an
inappropriate mechanism for this purpose.
Recommendation

MBIE should not define areas of research which limit the scope of proposals in HVMS.
2
The nature of sector input
Investment signals from the sector are critical in determining where resources are allocated. The
problem is that distinguishing high from low quality information received from manufacturers is
difficult for MBIE to determine. For example Appendix 1 contains the Research Questions that
proposals for Target Research were expected to answer in the recent “Novel materials,
manufacturing and applications” investment priority.
We understand that these questions arose from a process of industry engagement but it is
difficult to see in them any useful content. For example, let us examine the need for ‘better
sensors’. It is easy to imagine a number of manufacturers expressing a desire for better or lower
cost sensors. We have received such comments from manufacturers ourselves. These comments
then become part of the investment signals. But, to examine this in detail, sensors are an
extremely wide category of product and most are already mass produced at very low cost (often
sub dollar prices). Many already operate at close to physical limits of performance. In general a
strategy of technology development based on improving or lowering cost in an already high
performance - low cost product is unlikely to be successful. The signal for ‘better sensors’ is low
value information when stated at the general level.
The low quality investment signals from MBIE then play the role of excluding possible
programmes and projects from entering the contest to the detriment of the overall quality of
selected programmes. If MBIE desire to lower the rate of participation in funding rounds they
should find a better way to achieve this.
MBIE do not have the expertise or time available to engage in the transactional experiences with
firms which would determine high value information leading to high value development
opportunities. Determining where high value opportunities exist requires extended engagement
with firms at multiple levels of the organisation and needs to include both technical and market
experts. Meaningful investment signals are the outcome of synthesising all knowledge about
markets, industry structure and science and technology trends, both nationally and
internationally.
Recommendation

MBIE should not provide ‘investment signals’ as part of the RFP process. They should
instead allow the investment proposal from the Capability Platform to provide evidence
that they are responding to meaningful investment signals. MBIE should set out what this
evidence should look like and the grounds on which it will be evaluated.
Further details on how a process for Capability Platforms would operate are given below in
response to some of the specific questions raised in the statement of science investment.
Detailed comments to the issues raised on page 47 New Directions
1. Consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now
that we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to
long-term, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science
Challenges
Response
There is and will always be contest around the allocation of funds. The question is ‘where do you
hold that contest to achieve the best return on the investment?’ Investments in HVMS are not
3
long-term and strategic as there is no longer a CRI in the HVMS sector, and NSC10 has no
strategy informed by the medium to long term needs of the HVMS sector. For NSC10 the contest
is being held between researchers around investigator-led projects.
Recommendation

Shift the contest in mission led research investment to a contest between Capability
Platforms.
2. Increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms,
and more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding.
We will aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
Response
Agreed. Investing in Platforms as we propose, will allow for a greater degree of flexibility being
available to local managers making project level investments. They need the ability to continually
optimise choices based on the best available information.
A higher level Platform approach will reduce the costs of submitting an application but will
increase the necessity of meaningful reviews. Reviews will cost time and funds but the benefit is
that reviews provide an opportunity for learning by the Platform leaders and stakeholders. The
outcome of reviews can be an improved strategy for the Platform and ultimately better
outcomes for the HVMS sector.
The current investment criteria applied to projects are: Benefit to NZ, Path to Market, RS&T
Benefit, and Ability of the Team to Deliver. These criteria can be the basis of the review process
for Platforms.
Recommendation

A semi-public biannual review process should be implemented for Capability Platforms.
The review would include industry stakeholders. The review committee can make
recommendations on the content of the continuing research programme and the
ongoing funding level. These recommendations would be binding with MBIE Science
Board approval. Researchers from outside the Capability Platform and host institution
may attend these reviews. The goal is to promote best practice in setting and
implementing a strategy for mission led research.
Seeding new platforms
NZ also needs a contestable investment mechanism, in mission led research, for novel ideas
which may not fit an existing Platform. Investigator-led and industry-led investments also have
the potential to transition into mission-led investments, and in practice this is likely to be the
most frequent development pathway. Successful investments however need a viable avenue to
progress which can be one of: progress to a platform of its own; merge with an existing platform;
continue with private investment. The Smart Idea investment mechanism has elements of this
but lacks a mechanism for the successful ideas to progress with government support.
Recommendation

Create an investment mechanism for Smart Ideas to gain increased funding levels subject
to relevant criteria.
4
3. Increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
Response
Agreed. However, identifying HVMS sector ‘needs’ which represent high value opportunities is
not easy for the reasons touched on above. At present the number of companies in the sector
that operate on 3-5 year time-frames for their market and technology development is small. This
implies a limited choice for the initial Platforms as a key criteria is the involvement of such
companies.
4. Implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of
impact from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model
Response
Partially agreed. Only the researchers and industry have the information necessary to determine
priorities. The government in co-investing needs to broadly accept these judgements and rely
upon the proposed and achieved impact. Our recommendation of moving to a Capability
Platform rather than a project level process makes assessing impact more meaningful as impacts
at a project level are highly random.
Where we have reservations about separating the assessment of impact from research quality is
that mission led funds must support world-class research. If the research is not of international
standard then there are other funding mechanisms such as industry led funds which are more
appropriate.
5. Where possible, emphasise investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical
need.
Response
Agreed. This is particularly true given the high risks associated with medium to long term
research. Thus criteria for investment needs to include, potential for growth, the value of
outcomes and critical need as expressed by the sector and informed by international R&D and
business trends.
Further comments
We note in the project budgets that the MBIE sector-based funding will start to reduce in
FY18/19 as funds are transferred to NSC10. This would be a mistake as it will further weaken the
ability to produce outcomes of substance unless NSC10 is radically altered in how it is managed.
We also argue that our suggested approach will effectively address all the ‘objectives for
Government’s investment in science’ as listed on pages 16 and 17.
Background information on the submitters is in Appendix B&C.
Prof. R.G. Buckley
Dr. N. J. Long
Director
Senior Principal Scientist
5
Appendix A
Research Questions for 2014 Targeted Research Proposals: Novel materials, manufacturing and
applications
What new products and/or services can be created to increase the export potential for New
Zealand businesses through R&D in:
(a) sensors that will reduce costs, increase accuracy, sensitivity and repeatability, or
(b) new materials with properties of good abrasion and hardness, and which will perform well
under low temperatures and high pressure, or
(c) self-cleaning materials for food processing and agri-tech businesses, or
(d) biochemical materials, or
(e) coatings with properties such as ice repellency and conductivity (for example, for aeronautical
applications), or
(f) new materials or material technology that will decrease the cost of goods?
Source: “2014 Science Investment Round, Request for Proposals, High-Value Manufacturing and
Services Research Fund” MBIE, December 2013.
6
Appendix B
Bob Buckley – background statement
1. I have had a research career involving: a PhD (physics) Victoria University of Wellington, postdoctoral fellowship in Canada, joined DSIR in 1981 (later to become IRL followed by
Callaghan Innovation), a number of sabbaticals (e.g. Exxon R&D Co., University of
Regensburg, Imperial College), and for about the last 20 years the Group Manager of the
Superconductivity and Energy Group. Since January 2014 I’ve been the Director of the
Robinson Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington. The Institute has been
named after Dr Bill Robinson, the inventor of an earthquake protection system for buildings
now used widely around the world.
2. I’ve been involved in research in NZ and internationally, in universities, government research
laboratories and private firms.
3. Fundamental research - success in obtaining Marsden Grants; Overseeing a fundamental
research programme as part of a portfolio approach to value creation.
4. Mission-led or strategic R&D – managed NZ’s HTS programme and driven it from
fundamental discoveries in HTS to commercial outcomes in NZ
5. Significant contributions to the creation of two spin-off companies; HTS-110 Ltd and General
Cable Superconductors Ltd. (GCS)
6. The Group has supplied significant R&D and technology support to NZ firms:
a. Extensive technology transferred and technical services to HTS-110 and GCS
b. Fabrum Solutions Ltd. by working with the HTS Group is now developing components
for the international HTS power system market, the recipient of cryogenic
refrigeration technology
c. Joint technology development with QUEST (NZ) in partnership with QI2 (USA)
d. Supporting the development of a ‘smart transformer’ for ETEL/Unison
e. Technical services and knowledge transfer to companies such as Tru-Test, EHL,
numerous engineering firms
f.
Emerging partnerships with Rakon and Pultron around technology development off
the knowledge based generated to date
7. The management and oversight of significant engineering developments with international
implications e.g. cable manufacturing scale up on behalf of GCS, a HTS MRI system
demonstrated for the first time, world first HTS transformer demonstrated using cable from
GCS and in partnership with NZ manufacturers and utilities, and demonstration of a wave
energy generator with EHL (NZ) and US partners
8. Successfully attracting international R&D contracts (e.g. American Superconductor Corp.,
USAF, QI2) and inward investment (e.g. General Cable Corp.)
9. Relationship with numerous CEOs of NZ firms e.g. Scott Technology, ETEL Distribution
Transformers, Electropar, Solid Energy, EHL, and General Cable (NZ); and international
companies e.g. STI, AMSC
In effect managing the development of a Capability Platform with proven experience in
contributing step-change technology to NZ firms
7
Appendix C
Nick Long – background statement
Dr. Nick Long is a Senior Principal Scientist at the Robinson
Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand. He obtained a masters degree in Physics at Victoria
University and completed a PhD in Physics at the University
of Southern California. From 1994 -2013 he worked at
Industrial Research Ltd (IRL); his research group has
recently transferred to Victoria University forming the
Robinson Institute. His primary research has been in high
temperature superconductivity (HTS). He was a founder of
the program at IRL to develop HTS Roebel cables including
development of manufacturing and characterisation
processes. His other HTS work has focussed on enhancing
wire performance and understanding the phenomenology of critical currents. He is also
the science leader for a programme on magnetic sensors. This programme encompasses
material research and development of applications in non-destructive testing. His previous
research experience includes quantum transport phenomenon in low temperature physics
and materials research in oxygen ion conductors.
8
Draft National Statement of Science Investment
Submission from Transforming Cities: Innovations for Sustainable Futures, a
Thematic Research Initiative of the University of Auckland. 1
Transforming Cities welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft National
Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) prepared by MBIE.
Transforming Cities is a multidisciplinary community that helps connect researchers
and promote urban research within and beyond the University of Auckland. One of
three Thematic Research Initiatives at the University, Transforming Cities facilitates
and supports urban research collaborations that transcend traditional disciplinary
boundaries. Our diverse community comprises leading researchers and practitioners
from across the University’s faculties and disciplines as well as from other national
and international tertiary institutions, government agencies and industry bodies. We
are committed to high quality research that improves our understanding of the cities
and towns in which we live. This is vital given that over 50 per cent of the world’s
population is now urbanised, with the figure for New Zealand standing at 87 per
cent. It is also very important because cities and towns are the sites in which fluid
and complex social, environmental, economic and technical processes work
themselves out, and also because they are the dominant settings in and though
which people, objects, capital, technologies and ideas flow and interact globally.
They are often sites of urgent policy concern.
Given the multidisciplinary basis of the Transforming Cities research community its
members combine different perspectives and expertise to create new knowledge
and inform urban decision-making. Our close connections with policy and practice
agencies have given us a good understanding of the areas of research enquiry
central to knowledge creation for urban transformation. We therefore work on
research-informed solutions to challenges in:
•
housing
•
population
•
transport
•
climate change
•
economic development
1 The author of this submission has also had involvement with other submissions on the Draft Statement from
eSocSci and the New Zealand Geographical Society and in general terms endorses the content of those
submissions. This submission from Transforming Cities relates specifically to the importance of putting science
investment into transformative urban research in New Zealand over the next decade.
1
•
physical and social infrastructure
•
natural and built environments
•
parks and recreation
•
tourism
•
arts and culture
•
health and well-being
•
heritage
•
urban/rural boundaries
•
the rural hinterland
These areas of research and policy, common to all cities and towns globally, but
which manifest in varying configurations, provide a context for interpreting some of
the investment priorities that are going to be appropriate for New Zealand in the
changing socio-economic/socio-technical/geo-political and planetary conditions
likely over the next decade. In this regard it is clear that the STEM orientation of the
Draft Statement has some considerable relevance, but only for some of the
problems and policy concerns we are likely to encounter in our cities and towns
(e.g., those associated with elements of: housing, population, transport, climate
change, economic development, physical infrastructure, natural and built
environments, health). This orientation must be balanced with adequate resourcing
of research in the social sciences (including policy and planning) and the humanities
(and thus also incorporate concerns for the experiential aspects of dwelling in towns
and cities inherent in the urban research and policy concerns listed above) if a full
understanding of urban processes and urban life is to be achieved.
This balanced approach is particularly important in light of the relationships
established between New Zealand urban researchers in the fields outlined above
and their research colleagues overseas in such countries as the UK and the EU, USA,
Canada, Australia and parts of Asia where urban research is underpinned by STEM
and other methodologies and foci (see for example: http://liveablecities.org.uk/
and http://www.ahuri.edu.au/ which combine significant STEM and social
science/humanities approaches in their urban research). If we wish to maintain
strong collaborative links between New Zealand and overseas researchers, as
emphasised in the Draft Statement, it is essential that New Zealand Government
funding be in step with our overseas collaborators and allocated in support of
approaches and topic areas that are relevant to New Zealand and external research
communities. In this regard it would seem most important to have some focus in
the Statement of Science Investment on urban research (comprising the fields
mentioned above) as a topic for significant Government research support over the
2
next decade.
We also note the very strong economic development focus of the Draft Statement as
encapsulated in the Executive Summary which reads: "To support the development of
our economy, new expenditure will also need to be directed towards areas of future
growth and identified needs, such as ICT, health, high-value manufacturing and
processed primary products, and environmental innovation”. This emphasis on research
designed to help create new forms of economically valuable technical knowledge,
production processes and materials is important but needs to be balanced with an
emphasis on social/cultural development and the links between achievements in
economic, technical and environmental spheres with those in the social and cultural. It
is impossible to imagine progress being made in the fields of ICT, health, high-value
manufacturing, processed primary products and environmental innovation without also
attending to significant related social (including geographic and economic), cultural and
environmental questions and the mainly globalised urban contexts in which these
developments will emerge. Research of this nature is a feature of the international
urban studies literature yet no such emphasis is to be seen in the Draft Statement.
The following are our recommendations:
1. That given that scale, significance and urgency of urban policy questions in New
Zealand and overseas, urban studies, planning and policy (and the sub-fields listed
on pp. 1-2) be incorporated into any development of research domains in New
Zealand’s ‘science investment’ for the next decade.
2. That given the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of transformative urban
research such investment should include support for both STEM-related research
approaches and those characteristic of the social sciences and humanities.
Professor Harvey C Perkins
Director of Transforming Cities: Innovations for Sustainable Futures
Professor of Planning, The University of Auckland, NZ
Adjunct Professor of Human Geography, Lincoln University, NZ
Fellow and Vice President, New Zealand Geographical Society
3
Room 906, Building 804 Fisher International Building
18 Waterloo Quadrant
National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries (NICAI)
The University of Auckland – Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau
Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
w: www.transformingcities.auckland.ac.nz
4
Individual Submission to MBIE on
Draft National Statement of Science Investment
2014 – 2024
Dr Geoffrey K Chambers
School of Biological Sciences
Victoria University
PO Box 600
WELLINGTON
Date: 21-AUG-14
Status: Submission
1
Summary
With the creation of MBIE New Zealand has an excellent opportunity to address the longstanding inequalities and distortions in our national science funding system(s).
The
recommendations presented here are based on those developed by the author over several
years; e.g. as in Chambers (2006) NZ Science Review 63: 34-38.
They are primarily
intended to create a level playing field between tertiary science providers and CRIs with the
former concentrating on basic research projects and the latter on applied research and the
long term supply of data and services required by government. Callaghan Innovation is
seen as the primary agent for delivery of pre-commercialisation research for industry. These
reforms will require fundamental changes to established thinking, ingrained attitudes and
practice coupled with greater accountability regarding the way funds are used. Increased
government support is seen as essential to cover a shortfall in commercial R&D funding that
will probably never be provided directly by the private sector.
At the same time it is
recognised that minimising transaction costs is desirable to maximize return on investment
and this can be achieved by combining much of the present multiplicity of sources into a
single NZ Research Fund with well-defined categories and greater accountability.
2
The recommendations
The following ideas exclusively reflect the individual views of the author and have been
developed via almost thirty years of experience working in the NZ science sector. They
have been presented in part in previously published articles (see Chambers, 2004 and
sources therein). The core recommendations are presented below in italic font highlighting
individual research providers and funds in bold font for easy reference.
1..Combine core and discretionary CRI funding and rebalance: This function should be set
by MBIE in consultation with CEOs. Bulk funding should cover infrastructure, overheads,
salaries for all permanent full time staff plus minor running costs and direct services to
government. The discretionary funding (presently aka MBIE Sector Specific Research
Fund) should be combined with the Marsden Fund and ring fenced for applied research.
2. Scrap the National Science Challenges and combine with Marsden Fund:
the
resources transferred should be ring fenced for their original purposes and may be set at a
lower level than present.
3. Scrap the Centres of Research Excellence and/or reconfigure them for their intended
purpose: In principle, CoREs are a fine idea; to relieve our very best scientists from the
treadmill of endless rounds of grant applications and leave them free to concentrate their
attention on particular fields of strength.
In practice, they have become disseminated
networks of political in-groups not guaranteed to capture the best of the best research talent.
If CoREs are to be continued then their lead investigators should be required to declare FTE
research support in full with an upper limit (see below) and this mechanism used to limit their
participation in other schemes. This necessary as the present arrangement makes CoRE
investigators into super-predators already more capable of scoring grants and now armed
with bonus seed data from the CoRE work; i.e. we do not presently have anything like a level
playing field.
4. Reform the Marsden Fund: includes the following steps
(a) gradually increase support to move the subscription rate for 7% to 30% allowing
for the expansion of the fund by adding in resources from CRIs, National Science
Challenges and possibly also from CoREs and HRC.
(b) drop the pretence that reading a one page summary can detect excellent
proposals – either pass a lot more or abandon this step altogether always keeping in
mind transaction costs.
3
(c) make every attempt to capture economies of scale given that the fund will
increase in size via amalgamation and elimination of duplicated PBRF and TEC
support (see below).
(d) drop RSNZ as Marsden Fund manager and create a new independent National
Research Council for the expanded fund.
(e) require full FTE declarations for all investigators capped at 0.4 FTE for academics
(up to 0.6 in exceptional circumstances). Up to this level no salaries or overheads
should be charged to the fund (they are already provided by PBRF)
(f) drop the present addiction to hypothesis–driven investigations (an anachronistic
homage to Karl Popper) and admit open-ended surveys etc.
(g) allow programme style applications, rather than limiting to novel projects
(encourages continuity and excellence).
(h) use new funding to better align the fund to its original purpose – blue skies (i.e.
basic) research that supports existing applied areas in CRIs, but do not go 100% in
this direction.
5. Realign Callaghan Innovation to best suit national purposes: since this provider is doing
pre-commercialisation work for CRIs and industry, they should have formal roles in selecting
and directing programmes.
6. Abandon forever the idea that Industry might increase its contribution to our national
R&D budget: There are well known reasons why this will never happen including; economies
of scale; no adequate experience of timescale to pay-off; difficulties in capturing benefits; no
prior research culture and no technical expertise on most boards of directors and companies
that are owned overseas do their research overseas. Major players must be encouraged to
participate via tax incentives or subject to tax penalties which could provide revenue from
non-participants to resource the new fund(s)
Overall, NZ should hope to match GDP fraction with comparable OECD nations
understanding that government will need to make a small increase in contribution and the
private sector will need to make a large one (or else be subsidised by government).
7. MBIE should abandon its role in purchasing research services and allocating resources
to sectors; these will come automatically in the reformed system. They should retain their
role in ensuring that government secures the research data and monitoring it requires via
CRIs.
4
It would also be helpful if MBIE could please refrain from developing new nomenclature and
imposing this foreign culture on the science sector – e.g. terms like ‘investigator-led’ vs.
basic or perhaps blue skies research.
8. The NZ Universities (and other tertiary providers) should be called to account for funding
received: This would include
(a) demonstrating that PBRF revenue is actually spent on research
(b) not claiming staff salaries as 0.4 FTE is already funded by TEC
(c) minimize grant funded teaching replacement (0.2 FTE maximum) – distributes
funding more equitably and maintains teaching quality and stability.
Taken together the proposed changes would create a level playing field between CRI and
tertiary investigators who would send proposals to a greatly expanded form of the Marsden
Fund (reimagined as NZ Research Fund) supported by a realistic fraction of GDP provided
jointly by government and industry (one way or another) and delivering an efficient
subscription rate.
Dr Geoffrey K. Chambers
21-AUG-14
5
National Statement of Science Investments:
Submission from Massey University
Massey University welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft National Statement of
Science Investment (NSSI). This institution holds that the NSSI provides a good overview of all the
areas where the Government provides targeted investment into the New Zealand science system.
Massey has supported the development of a response by Universities New Zealand. Massey staff
have also provided additional responses which are reported here.
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science?
The Science Investment Plan provides a map for supporting research and engineering excellence
which ranges from maintaining the fundamental science architecture, capacity building and
infrastructure maintenance to actions which stimulate the coalescence of competitive critical mass
in knowledge domains of significance to New Zealand. The plan addresses the linkage and
translation of research through various routes to end users who can best use the key outcomes and
it also addresses the means by which key stakeholders can be involved in developing and advancing
the knowledge economy. The proposals also ensure that strategic partnerships and collaborations
are supported in meaningful ways.
The significance of other research categories in addition to ‘investigator-led’, ‘mission-led’ and
‘industry-led’, merits come consideration to accommodate both the stimuli of, and demand fonsr
research. ‘Education-led’ might be considered as one key dimension and the development of
processes to support citizen-led research also bear review.
The overall balance between direct funding for institutions versus more contestable funds seems
appropriate given that more overall funding is desirable and merited. A reduction in the number of
contestable funds, and attendant pooling of resources to larger more cost effective programmes
should be considered
It is our view that the draft NSSI is currently silent on a number of significant research-related
outputs and outcomes generated through the university system that play an important part in the
wider research system. The production of research capable graduates and the professional
development of new academic researchers should be captured more clearly as components of the
system.
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science
that are over‐ or under‐emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are under‐
emphasised ad need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less important,
that could be scaled back over time?
Given that CRIs account for 85-90% of the government sector’s research, the extent to which they
receive direct funding and their ability to make effective contributions through mission led research
merits further view especially give the evolution and impact of national initiatives, e.g. National
Science Challenges. Arguments can be made for a closer alignment between universities and CRIs;
this offers opportunities to increase the production of high quality relevant research while reducing
duplication of effort and infrastructure.
1 | of 3 P a g e s
The relationships which are fostered between universities and industry through internships,
placement and R & D projects merit further consideration when incentives and funding mechanisms
are considered. The PBRF does not fully address this issue, for example.
The support for early career researchers and their retention within the NZ science ecosystem needs
further consideration if nurtured talent is to be retained here in a competitive global market.
Applied Social Sciences are not well supported especially given their growing importance.
Translational research is poorly understood across the system and receives limited support.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance?
The majority of the individual components perform well but connectivity across and between
agencies is often poor and their collective tendency towards short term rather than long term
planning limits their ability to provide effective integrated strategic support.
.
The value of international partnerships needs further attention and investment. Specific need is
noted for mechanisms which facilitate group to group engagement.
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
Applied Social Sciences are not well supported especially given their growing importance.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate performance?
Current performances measures are adequate but a reduction in the number of applied measures
needs consideration.
6. To what extent does the current set of Government‐wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole?
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
Support for the classic elements of the science ecosystem are well established, clearly understood
and used to good effect by most parties. The system is largely responsive to need. The system is
however slow to adopt new ideas which tends to perpetuate support for the status quo. A greater
degree of adaptive flexibility would ensure the innovation drivers work more effectively and create
the space to explore the introduction of new elements with proven potential to add value when
integrated into the science system, e.g. Design, Translational research.
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance
and impact of research?
Yes, provided the approach is not one which favours the linear co-alignment of research outcomes
with impact. The timelines between research outcomes and outputs, and the realisation of any
economic, social and or cultural impact must also be accommodated
2 | of 3 P a g e s
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
Yes provided the resources needed to facilitate business and industry engagement are made
available and that investment addresses that need.
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
Massey Welcomes the movement towards collaborative multi party initiatives which will foster a
‘best team’ approach to problem solving. This approach demands new models of leadership and this
must be addressed if the most effective outcomes are to be realised. The balance of competitive to
collaborative is currently biased in favour of individual competitive efforts and some adjustment to
build our collaborative capacity merits further consideration.
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
Effective consistent funding models, career pathways and support for appropriate infrastructure
development .
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator‐led, mission‐led, and industry‐led
research?
No
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research‐active companies?
Foster trans group collaborations, support researcher exchanges in key sectors and extend the
network of international government support. Consider methods of support which facilitate
exchanges of personnel across agencies and business.
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sector specific
research funds?
No. Quality should always be assessed in context
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co‐investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
Co-funding models with the capacity for shared investment and shared ownership of risk.
Systems for innovation support which vary the resources needed for short term problem solving
agenda and longer term opportunity –focused development objectives.
27. What could be done to improve uptake of research outcomes with users?
Provision of more support for initiatives which link industry and researchers, especially those which
reach beyond just project funding, including exchanges/secondments Investment in the
development of translational research centres where integration of research and user needs are a
priority.
3 | of 3 P a g e s
URONZ
University Research Offices New Zealand
Dr Prue Williams
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
RE: Consultation on the Draft National Statement of Science Investment
22 August 2014
Dear Prue,
The University Research Offices of New Zealand Directors and Managers wish to thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the draft National Statement of Science Investment with the Ministry on 14
July 2014. The collated feedback from URONZ arising from follow up discussions is below.
General Comments:
1. URONZ applauds and fully supports the key priorities expressed in the draft document, in
particular the intention to hold high quality science as a key criteria and to continue to
increase investment.
2. It is notable that the consultation document and the draft performance impact framework
addresses performance specifically in science. The terms ‘science’ and ‘research’ are used
synonymously whereas the popular understanding of science is just the physical sciences
while research embraces all disciplines. As the report deals with all research funds it should
be considering research not just science. The impact of the funding relative to other areas
outside of ‘science’ should also be considered as often non-science disciplines are critical to
capture full impacts.
Specific Consultation Questions
1a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more contestable funds? If
not, what should it be and why?
While all funding processes will have their faults, contestable process are generally considered
superior to non-contestable. They are more transparent, more independent, attract a greater
diversity of ideas (including disruptive, innovative and unconventional ideas), less susceptible to
capture, less prone to exclusion of some parties and result in lower governance and management
costs. In particular, contestable funding processes provide a stronger mechanism to ensure high
quality science than non-contestable processes.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a) research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b) our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c) the science and innovation system overall?
URONZ
University Research Offices New Zealand
The performance framework proposed is a simple quantitative indicator model which is one of the
least sophisticated evaluation models available (less sophisticated than ranking and scoring models
which at least provide for weightings and comparative data). The framework is based on a model of
the innovation system which is highly arguable, the indicators resulting are therefore also arguable
and the measures are not validated against the indicators (e.g. quality of education, and science
infrastructure). As above, the proposed framework also only examines ‘science’ performance,
rather than examining indicators which more accurately reflect the wider system.
8. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they be
made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment mechanisms, or
too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be combined, changed or
removed to simplify the system?
URONZ see a disconnect in the Government’s different science mechanisms. There are clear
differences in opinion and implementation between different Government Ministries in particular.
Additionally, it is the opinion of URONZ that the current investment mechanisms are highly
fragmented, resulting in too many small funding pools whose purposes and intentions are not
always clearly differentiated. Examples of this are:
a) MBIE contestable funding: the available funding is divided across several sector specific
funds and within each into different investment mechanisms. The differences between
investment mechanisms such as Targeted Research and Enabling Technologies is not always
clear and the funding allocation to different mechanisms may not reflect and provides no
flexibility to accommodate differing numbers of high quality, fundable proposals.
b) International Relationships Fund: the fund has many small schemes, resulting in high
transaction costs with restrictive rules. There is a disconnect between mission identification
and the priorities of the research community.
c) National Science Challenges: while the intent of the Challenges is worthy, in practice, given
the number of Challenges and the relatively small amount of funding per Challenge, they
have required more effort (cost) to be part of than will be returned in new funding.
Additionally, the requirements for governance and management of each Challenge has
resulted in reduced funding available for research compared to an equivalent contestable
process.
While URONZ would welcome the simplification of the funding system, we would note that too
much change too quickly to current mechanisms should be resisted.
9. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well do
existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms could advance
this goal?
URONZ supports the need for New Zealand to be more internationally connected. As mentioned
above, the current funding mechanisms are fragmented with too many small schemes. The
URONZ
University Research Offices New Zealand
quantum of funding available in this space currently is also not consistent with effectively supporting
the achievement of key priority 7, ‘Strengthening and building international relationships to
strengthen the capacity of our science system to benefit New Zealand.’ URONZ suggest that
increased funding is provided in particular to support bilateral funding mechanisms, in combination
with flexibility in timing for allocation of the funding to better fit with international timelines.
11. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and
impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should investigator-,
mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a sound pathway to
impact and application, even if long term?
URONZ agree that funding mechanism should have a strong focus on the quality, relevance and
impact of research. This should however be considered carefully as relevant to the type of research,
for example, it would be appropriate that investigator-led research has a less clearly defined link to
impact than industry-led research. Other factors should also be considered equally with those
mentioned above, such as the ability to delivery, track record of the investigators and the likelihood
of producing new discoveries / outcomes.
12. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a) If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in our science
investments?
b) If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as priorities
for our science investments?
The Government’s research investments should demonstrate a balanced portfolio including both
early stage / investigator led / blue sky research through to direct investment into industry-led
research programmes. Such a balanced portfolio is essential to the longer term health of the NZ
research sector.
13. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science investments?
What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is the appropriate
balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
In URONZ opinion, collaboration should not be prescribed centrally. Especially under a contestable
model there are strong incentives to seek worthwhile collaborations that improve the quality of the
bid. Under the current funding arrangements, the CRIs, being sector based, don’t face good
incentives to collaborate in their ordained areas of operation.
URONZ
University Research Offices New Zealand
17. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
The measure of academic quality should be derived through a peer review process. Continuing to
ensure that this is a key part of decision making in relation to the allocation of funding will help
ensure that quality is built into funded research.
Consideration of the impact of the Science funded is difficult, especially at the individual project
level. While proposals can contain a description of how impact is expected to be generated, in
practice, after the completion of the project, it is very difficult to measure actual impact, particularly
on a relevant timescale. For example, the time to realise impact, which is many years in some cases,
may be prohibitive in a credible impact assessment process.
When viewed at a higher level, it may be possible to assess impact, but it should be remembered
that many factors influence the impact of a piece of research beyond the completion of the funded
project. Disaggregation of the impact due to the Government funding alone may not be practically
feasible.
20. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so what direction of change is
desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
a) the multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds and the
complexity of funds
b) the accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI, established or new
entrants into the system
c) the sector-based nature of funding tools
d) the length of funding allocation
e) the form and processes of peer review
f) the relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact, past
performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
URONZ opinion is that the current sector specific research funds are in need of change, both in
terms of the number of funds, the investment mechanisms, the sector based nature of the funding
and the specified nature of the research questions are allocated to. A simplification of the process
by removing the boundaries between the existing small funds would allow greater flexibility to
answer more significant questions and to achieve greater impact, as well as to fund the most
deserving programmes. The removal of the specific research questions would allow solutions to a
wider range of problems to be realised and could potentially facilitate a step change through
enabling more innovative, better planned proposals.
21. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sector-specific
research funds?
The assessment of the academic quality of proposed research should be dealt with in the same way
across the spectrum of MBIE sector-specific research funds. This should be undertaken through a
URONZ
University Research Offices New Zealand
peer review process. Other indicators or other assessments of quality might however be
differentiated, e.g. likelihood of achieving an impact and the value of the intended impact.
23. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
As discussed above, the Government should fund a balanced portfolio of research from investigator
led to industry led. The requirements for seeking outcomes could differ across this spectrum.
27. What are the implications of increasing the proportion of industry-led research in MBIE funds?
URONZ opinion is that increasing the proportion of industry led research could, in the longer term,
be damaging to the productivity of New Zealand. Industry, by its nature, focuses most strongly on
short to medium term research outcomes. To ensure the longer term prosperity of New Zealand’s
industry, it is important that longer term, less immediately focused research (e.g. mission-led or
investigator-led) is also funded.
We thank MBIE for the opportunity to input into the consultation on the draft National Statement of
Science Investment.
URONZ will welcome and looks forward to being involved in further consultation on changes to the
MBIE contestable funding programmes.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Michael Millan
Director Research Operations, Massey University on Behalf of URONZ
100 Professor David Williams
DRAFT NATIONAL STATEMENT OF SCIENCE INVESTMENT
The draft National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI) provides an overview of the current
state of New Zealand’s public science system and a statement of Government’s investment in
science. As such, it serves as a key point of reference for looking at where we stand, compared to
where we want to be.
The Minister wants to shape the strategic direction of the science and innovation system, and is
seeking your insights and feedback on what that direction might be.
GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS
To contribute your feedback, please download this form and enter your responses under the
relevant questions. You do not need to answer all questions. You may answer as many questions as
you wish.
Please supply your name and organisation, and indicate whether you are providing feedback on
behalf of your organisation or as an individual.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
FEEDBACK ON OVERALL SCIENCE INVESTMENT OUTLOOK
Questions you might consider when providing feedback on the wider context of Government’s
wider investment in science include:
1. What is your reaction to the overall balance of Government investment in science? In
particular:
a. Do we have the right balance of direct funding for institutions versus more
contestable funds? If not, what should it be and why?
b. Do we have the right balance of funding between CRIs, universities, independent
research organisations, and industry? If not, what should that balance be and why?
c. Do we have the right balance of funding between investigator-, mission- and
industry-led funding? If not, what should that balance be and why?
a) Because we have a fully-costed, fully-funded system, the contestable funds actually include
approximately 50% of the total for institutional overheads. That is, the actual amount of direct
funding for science, that pays for ‘boots on the ground’ to do the work, is much less than appears
from the figures. The result is that the funding is significantly biased in practise towards institutional
support. The solution is not to cut overheads, but to recognise the real costs of funding the
1
institutional infrastructure required to support science and fund that separately, so that it is clear
just how many bodies doing work the system is supporting.
b) Much of the Industry in NZ is micro-enterprises. What in other systems would be ‘small and
medium enterprise’ (EU definition < 500 employees) would be large industry in NZ. These
microbusinesses are often pretty research-intensive, but it is very difficult to pay for work outside
your own organisation when your concern is survival and research providers charge the overheads
required under a fully-costed system. There is a role for Government here in subsidising
employment in these small businesses where the employment is directed at research and
development and collaboration with research providers. Moving people freely in both directions
between universities and business is the most effective way of increasing research uptake and
intensity in NZ business.
CRI core funding outside of the national science challenges, and that part of the contestable fund
that also goes to CRIs in total makes a rather large fraction of the total science budget accounted for
by work in the CRIs. Arguably, however, the real engines of innovation are young people in the
universities. Thus, it seems that the balance between true innovation and policy-driven
investigation is weighted too much towards the latter.
c) The “mission-led” category appears to dominate the funding landscape in NZ. This is work which is
one way or another strongly directed by government. In contrast, the “investigator-led” element is
rather small – according to the figures given, it is about 20% of the “mission-led” category and about
30% of the industry funding. The problem with “mission-led” research is: how and by who is the
mission defined? Another problem is that this segment of the funding landscape has become very
fragmented, into a large number of small funds, with rather prescriptive “questions” that are posed
to the research community. With many of these, it can reasonably be asked: just what is the contest
supposed to be? These funds also together tie up relatively large sums for relatively long periods so
there is no easy mechanism for stopping something that is actually going nowhere and getting some
new ideas in. I think that the “investigator-led” element should be significantly increased at the
expense of “mission-led”. That is not the same as asking for more blue-skies funding. Instead of
“targeting”, investigators should simply be asked to justify why, how and over what time scale their
proposed work would benefit NZ.
2. Are there parts of the Government’s wider objectives and system for investing in science that
are over- or under-emphasised in terms of scale or scope? If there are parts that are underemphasised and need to grow, can you identify other parts of the system that are less
important, that could be scaled back over time?
I’ve partly covered this in my response to 1(c). My more general comment is that the CRIs are
essentially national laboratories. They exist because the country feels that there are areas of science
that are so fundamental to the economy that they must have stable, long-term support. This needs
to be clearly defined: that is what the “Statement of Core Purpose” is about. The government
should fund the CRIs adequately to fulfil their core purpose. These organisations should not then bid
2
into contestable funds: the purpose of the organisation has been defined so if they feel the need to
do something else, then they have not defined the purpose correctly. On the other side of the coin,
the CRIs should also contract work out to universities where there is a short-term need, and they
should be closely associated with universities so that there is not a duplication of expertise and
effort, and needless competition.
3. How well do the different parts of Government’s overall investment system perform, both
individually and in combination? Could settings be changed to improve their performance? If
so, how?
My previous comments apply here: over-directed, over-prescriptive, over-segmented, needlessly
competitive leading to fragmented, sub-critical efforts.
The Marsden Fund operates particularly well, the CoRE idea is excellent for leveraging the best
efforts across the country around particular themes, the National Science Challenges concept is
excellent again in fostering collaboration to address big issues. Both the CoRE and NSC concepts
address the issue of getting sufficient scale to make impact. The “Smart Ideas” scheme of MBIE is
good for getting new ideas going and should be expanded. The system as a whole, though, is not
well connected. The new national network ideas being developed by Callaghan Innovation will be
important to get this connectivity across the system and are to be welcomed. There are some
specific funding elements that could be introduced to promote connectivity and translation of
projects from basic science through to commercialisation if that seems the right thing to do – thus
there should be a mechanism by which the Marsden Fund can pass over a successful project to MBIE
for continued funding if it looks like having commercial impact – a similar mechanism worked well in
the UK
4. Do we have the right mix of public research institutions in New Zealand?
I think that, for a small country, there are too many.
5. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of:
a. research institutions in the science and innovation system?
b. our policy instruments for making investments in science and innovation?
c. the science and innovation system overall?
Are there any features of our institutions, policy instruments or overall system that are
particularly relevant or useful for benchmarking or monitoring performance?
I think that this is an important point. Evaluation of performance and results has been, I think, rather
light in NZ, other than in the Marsden area where specialist research evaluators regularly monitor
3
performance and visit grant holders. There is a lot of experience in other jurisdictions around
effective methods for evaluation of the effectiveness of projects, institutions, policy instruments and
the overall system. The UK, for example, has replaced the “Research Assessment Exercise” with a
“Research Evaluation Framework” that has looked at impacts of research going back for 20yr. The
Irish have a metrics-based approach. An in-depth review of what has worked and what has not
would be the first step
6. To what extent does the current set of Government-wide investment policies and processes,
and balance of investment in different mechanisms, address critical problems either in the
science system or to New Zealand as a whole? What changes could be made to ensure those
problems are being addressed?
Policy over the last 20yr seems to have created a highly-fragmented, highly-prescriptive, overlydirected and overly-competitive system both at institution and individual level, where people seem
wary of one another and lawyers have a large role to play. Policies that promote collaboration, like
the NSCs and CoREs are to be welcomed.
7. To what extent do Government’s different science mechanisms work together? Could they
be made to work together more coherently? If so, how? Do we have enough investment
mechanisms, or too many? If too few, where are the gaps? If too many, which could be
combined, changed or removed to simplify the system?
See my comments above
8. How can New Zealand achieve more international collaboration and cooperation? How well
do existing mechanisms support this objective? What policy changes or new mechanisms
could advance this goal?
Mechanisms that promote or fund projects, and exchange of people to do projects. The
International Investment Opportunities fund did this and should be re-instated.
9. Is there anything else we should consider about Government’s overall mix of investment in
science?
4
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION
Section 1 of this Statement sets out some proposed objectives for Government’s science investment.
These are:
1. Producing excellent science of the highest quality
2. Ensuring value by focusing on relevant science with highest potential for impact for the
benefit of New Zealand
3. Committing to continue increasing investment over time
4. Increasing focus on sectors of future need or growth
5. Increasing the scale of industry-led research
6. Continuing to implement Vision Mātauranga
7. Strengthening and building international relationships to strengthen the capacity of our
science system to benefit New Zealand.
These objectives signal a new direction for Government’s science investment. Your feedback might
consider the following questions.
Questions on the changes in direction proposed in this Statement:
10. Should our funding mechanisms have a greater focus on the quality and on the relevance and
impact of research? If so, why, and how could it be achieved? For example, should
investigator-, mission- or industry-led, funded investments, across most mechanisms, have a
sound pathway to impact and application, even if long-term?
An unremitting focus on quality is essential. Poor science or indifferent science is money wasted
regardless of apparent impact.
However, investigators outside the Marsden area should be able to articulate why what they
propose is good for NZ.
11. Do you support a greater orientation of public science investments towards a stronger
contribution to business innovation and economic growth?
a. If not, towards what high-level outcomes or orientation would you direct shifts in our
science investments?
b. If yes, what, if any, key enabling technologies or industry sectors would you place as
priorities for our science investments?
A ) yes
B) I would be very wary of introducing prescription into this. One needs to allow for the unexpected
and allow the proposers to say why what they propose would be good for NZ
5
12. How should collaboration between scientists and institutions feature in our science
investments? What can we learn from the collaborative approaches taken to date? What is
the appropriate balance in the system between collaboration and competition?
“Mission-led” research in NZ needs to be collaborative to take advantage of the best talent available
in the country. We are too small to promote excessive competition in areas deemed to be
nationally important
13. How might the current set up of New Zealand’s research institutions either encourage or
discourage across-research institution collaborations, international researcher
collaborations, or user collaborations?
The current setup discourages collaboration. People’s jobs in the CRIs, and institutional
sustainability (keeping the lights on) depend on success in competitive bidding and the
overheads this brings.
14. How should knowledge users engage in improving the impact of our science investments?
What can we learn from how they have been engaging to date?
The end-users need to be truly embedded in the projects. People need to be moving between users
and institutions.
15. Is there anything else we should consider about the proposed general direction of change?
16. How can we continue to improve the quality and impact of the science we fund?
17. Should quality be assessed differently in investigator-led, mission-led, and industry-led
research? If so, how?
No. Quality is unambiguous.
18. How can we improve the international connectedness and engagement of our research
community and research-active companies?
6
FEEDBACK ON STRUCTURE OF MBIE SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESEARCH FUNDS
We want to refine the funding architecture so it is best suited to meet New Zealand’s science needs
into the future. We want to know whether funding tools are appropriate to deliver on the NSSI
objectives, and in particular whether further reforms to, and simplification of, sector-specific funds
are necessary. This draft Statement proposes work to:
-
consider the role of ‘contest’ in refreshing and supporting emerging opportunities now that
we have a significant proportion of Vote Science and Innovation funds allocated to longterm, strategic investments via CRI core funding and the National Science Challenges
-
increase flexibility and ease of operation by having fewer, larger funding mechanisms, and
more flexible use of mechanisms to adjust the degree of contestability of funding. We will
aim to reduce and minimise compliance costs in doing so
-
increase the focus of the funds on research with direct relevance to the most pressing
industry, environmental and social needs
-
implement measures to place greater emphasis on impact in assessment of applications,
new contracts and existing contracts, including potentially separating assessment of impact
from assessment of quality of science, as per the Irish model. Where possible, emphasis
should be on investment in sectors of future growth, value, and critical need.
Your feedback on these matters might address the following questions:
19. Are the current sector-specific research funds in need of change? If so, what direction of
change is desirable? Issues that you may want to consider are:
c. The multiplicity of funds and whether there is a need to reduce the number of funds
and the complexity of funds
d. The accessibility of funds to different types of researchers: university, CRI, established
or new entrants into the system
e. The sector-based nature of funding tools
f. The length of funding allocation
g. The form and processes of peer review
h. The relative significance in award assessment of relevance and potential for impact,
past performance and the quality of the research proposal and research team.
I’ve discussed this above. There are too many, too prescriptive funds. Some are so
defined that they are not really contestable. Too much money in contestable funds is
tied up for too long.
The quality of the research proposal and team should be a top-level assessment.
Unless proposals can pass a bar on this score, they should not proceed.
20. Should the assessment of quality be differentiated across the spectrum of MBIE sectorspecific research funds?
7
No. There should be no room for excuses for work of indifferent quality
21. What indicators of scientific quality should we use in our assessment processes? Should
these be the same across all MBIE sector-specific funding tools?
A good proposal has: a good question, well-posed; a clear and well-formulated route to addressing
the question; a complete knowledge of relevant literature and international work and of the relation
of the proposal to this; and a track-record of delivery. There’s no excuse for not having this, in any
sector.
22. How targeted should Government be in seeking outcomes from MBIE research funding
investments?
There should be a clear distinction between “targeted” and “contestable”. In “targeted” you want
the best team to deliver something that is important for the nation, so you want to encourage
collaboration to get the best team. “Contestable” needs to be more general, un-targeted and a true
contest where you say what you want to do and why it would be good for the country
23. Are there gaps or deficiencies in the current range of funding mechanisms available?
24. How could we improve the way we monitor and evaluate the performance of MBIE’s
research contracts? Are there any features that are particularly relevant or useful for
benchmarking or monitoring performance of contracts?
25. What are the best ways to encourage industry to make greater co-investments in R&D,
where appropriate, and ensure an appropriate focus on research of relevance to industry,
social and environmental needs?
8
This is a tricky question without a simple answer. However: Industry is about making money and
surviving, and the purse strings are held very tightly. There needs to be a compelling case for
spending anything
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. We value your contribution.
Please email your final document to [email protected] by 22 August 2014.
May 2014
9