KEY POINTS:
New Zealand's top researchers have just been granted $44 million via the Marsden Fund. This comes on top of the Government's largest research investment round in four years - $628 million over the next six years. At any time, some 1.17 per cent of the nation's GDP is being spent on R&D, primarily in Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), universities and businesses.
These are significant investments, carrying hopes of not just improving but transforming this country's economic and social wealth. Here the rhetoric of commitment to improve our standings in the ranks of developed countries comes face to face with resource.
Yet I suspect that there will be greater analysis of the Portuguese rugby team than of the nation's science investment.
The key word is analysis.
Science is increasingly well served by our print and broadcast media, reflecting and stimulating reader appetite.
Much, however, is driven by institutions proudly marketing the success of "their" scientists. There has been little about the overall impact of the investment upon New Zealand or, indeed, why we as a nation invest in research, science and technology.
That silence disturbs me. Where are the "Goldilocks" questions that we ask about major spending on areas that we really care about: "Is this too much, too little, about right?"
The Goldilocks questions address the context; the big-picture issues about what and why we are investing. In short, what do we hope to achieve for society by investing in science?
People argue furiously over things that really matter to them. In health spending, the number of major joint operations and cataract procedures became a specific election pledge.
Our social currency is the "hip equivalent". We crisply dissect any spending proposal with: "How many hip operations would that buy?"
Rarely do we hear: "How will this proposal enable New Zealand to afford more hip operations?"
That is the discussion the science community should be prompting with the public.
We should be asking if so many economies have successfully turned to science investment to build a better future for themselves, why then does New Zealand feel it can regain a spot in the top half of the OECD by doing so much less?
New Zealand's research, science and technology investment is about half the OECD average and in the lower third of that group's economies.
As the recent OECD review on New Zealand's innovation policy notes: "The most important economic challenge is to raise income per capita sustainably by boosting productivity growth." That is a research, science and technology challenge.
What happens if we ask those Goldilocks questions? They show the record investment just announced is not additional money as might be thought from media reports. Existing contracts had expired and, so, in CRIs, whose viability depends upon winning contracts, the ability to pay salaries of many staff was also about to expire.
No doubt there would be mutterings of "too little" investment if scientists were to be laid off. Does silence, on the other hand, indicate that the investment is "just right"? Just how far up could it have been edged, before the public said too much and why?
Contrast the likely responses to announcements increasing science activity or hip operations. The latter would see well-informed public debate about distribution of need and resources, time periods to implement, comparisons with overseas and so on. Few would question affordability.
On the other hand, a transformational boost to science research is likely to trigger a "please explain" note from the electorate.
The public are soaking up science as entertainment stories rather than as activities vital to their wealth and welfare. The crossover is just not there, no matter how many column inches the hard working publicists produce.
That is bad news for the OECD review. Being analytical rather than anecdotal, its stark warning that we need to innovate or be left behind has gone largely unheard by the public.
However, there is room for optimism. The experience of nations from Asia to Europe is that the public can see value in prioritising science research investment, given appropriate political, business and science leadership.
That New Zealand is coming from behind simply means that we have more examples of success in front of us.
Inviting scrutiny may concern those who know that research can be uncertain, changeable and even threatening to the status quo of society, and so just want to get about it quietly. Some may even recoil from the rude demand to show value or see it as an opportunity to point the finger at past, present or future governments, or at business.
Defensive, parochial and blame throwing behaviour will cement science as a marginal activity, rather than something core to our society's future. We should have the confidence to engage with the public with at least the same passion and professionalism as is put into road safety or retirement saving campaigns.
Take heart from California. Its citizens voted on how much if anything the state should spend on stem cell research. Almost 60 per cent voted to spend US$3 billion ($4.25 billion) over 10 years.
Stem cell research is as divisive there as genetic modification was here. But they held public discussions in which researchers had to project the possibilities of their research, defend their delivery on past promises and explain how this work fitted into the spectrum of value for their community.
All accepted that science is a route to achieve the big aims of better health and a better society. They also understood that this was risky - rich with potential but with no guarantee of particular outcomes.
Perhaps this is easier for a nation which literally took ambition to the moon and beyond. The outcome of that tremendous commitment was a cascade of knowledge, technology and human capability to power the United States' economy and to build a confident society. It became self-reinforcing.
Our challenge is to make clear that connection in our own society, by complementing good reporting with great analysis.
* Anthony Scott is the executive director of the Association of Crown Research Institutes. This article first appeared in the New Zealand Education Review.
