Jacqueline Rowarth: Research cash helps everyone

COMMENT

More money for research in the Budget is good news for the whole country. Quite simply, research results in dollar benefits for everyone. It won't happen overnight, but it does happen.

Returns of $2.50 to $14 per dollar invested for research projects established in the late 1990s by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology have already been shown.

The long-term benefits will be even greater, as the AgResearch subsidiary AgVax shows. AgVax started from a turnover of $680,000 in 1992 and today is a $10 million company scheduled to be $13 million by the end of the year.

This is a phenomenal rate of growth and AgVax regularly appears in the Unlimited list of stellar companies.

The growth is attributable not only to excellent science but also to excellent commercial leadership.

The research that led to the commercial success began in the 70s. Toxovax reached proof of concept in 1976 but didn't start to make money until 1992. Androvax, three years behind in development, started to make money in 1994.

These lead times are not unusual and are well documented in research and development economics literature, which puts the time from science discovery in biology to a commercial result at eight to 15 years.

There may be discoveries that can make money within five years, but they are few and far between - and risky.

The best way to ensure good returns on investment is to invest in excellent research, and the Budget increases allow more of that excellent research to be done.

The increases in research funds aren't yet of the same order as those announced by the Australian Government - an A$5.3 billion ($5.81 billion) extension to the country's ability programme was announced last month.

Nor are we yet at the point where our research investment as a proportion of GDP matches the OECD average - because GDP keeps increasing, mostly because of agriculture's good performance.

Productivity growth in agriculture is assessed at 3 per cent a year, far exceeding growth in the manufacturing sector, currently zero. We are, however, moving in the right direction.

And of perhaps most importance, the Budget increased the amount of funding in areas from which it is difficult to make money directly, but which underpin our commercial activities (sustainable soil research and biosecurity, for instance).

It also increased funding for "core capability", the ministry term for people.

For those inside the research sector, the move away from a funding system based on 100 per cent contestability gives hope that a career in research will become an attractive option.

Although a canvas cover story last month listed scientist second in the top 10 dream jobs for twentysomethings, more than 80 per cent of graduates in that age group chose to study anything but science.

The OECD Science and Technology Statistical Compendium (2004) reveals that New Zealand has less than 20 per cent of graduates in science and engineering, compared with the average for Nordic countries, Britain and the EU of around 30 per cent.

The Nordic countries already have about twice the working population of researchers that we have.

New Zealand, at 6 per 10,000 working population, is similar to Britain and the EU but those countries are encouraging students to enrol in science and engineering.

New Zealand must do the same.

Science, particularly in the areas connected with primary resources, is our hope for economic development.

The Government has recognised this with the Budget investment. Now it is up to us to ensure that the next generation of students makes good career choices.

Students make their decision based on what is valued by society and we can help them achieve their dream job by valuing research, and encouraging them into areas where they can make a difference.

* Jacqueline Rowarth is director, research, at Unitec.