By Richard Braddell
WELLINGTON - The apparent dismissal three weeks ago of John Manning as head of the Government's technology funding agency Technology New Zealand could be viewed as a consequence of an employee speaking out of turn.
But it could also be seen as an extreme reaction to legitimate comments about the New Zealand's research and development efforts which go right to the heart of this country's continuing ability to survive as a stand-alone entity.
Mr Manning's sin, as reported in the Business Herald last month, was to highlight the high proportion of the Government's $300 million Public Good Science Fund that is allocated to Crown Research Institutes, most of whom do research in primary industry.
By straying into what is, in effect, a policy debate, Mr Manning appears to have stepped on the toes of some of those institutes who are heavily reliant on the government for their funding.
Technology NZ, which in the current year will distribute about $20 million to technology developers in 50:50 funded arrangements, is an offshoot of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, the agency which administers the Public Good Science Fund.
The fund's money is obviously far from trivial, taking New Zealand to about third in the world in per capita Government funded research spending, although on the same basis New Zealand is well down the ranks at only 17 when it comes to the number of patents generated.
Not surprisingly, there is a groundswell of opinion that says the country could do be better if more of the money went to sunrise sectors such as the electronics industry which have largely had to rely on their own resources to fund research.
"I'm in total agreement with the reported statements Mr Manning made," said Selwyn Pallett, the Asian region director of Avnet Design Services, an electronic design company with a global turnover of $US6 billion.
Based in Auckland, Mr Pallett is one of those who blames New Zealand's concentration on primary sector research for its inexorable decline from two to 27 in global gross domestic products rankings.
"I find companies over and over again in New Zealand who five years ago were riding the crest of a wave with the right technology to meet the market on a global scale but who now are floundering because they don't have the resources to stay at the leading edge."
In a recent press release, the director of the NZ Intellectual Capital Foundation, Vivienne Feijen, echoed similar concerns. "Funding access operates in a closed-shop environment where either the crown research institutes or universities capture the bulk of funds."
Clearly, Mr Manning was not saying anything that had not been said before.
Nevertheless, he rubbed a sore with institutes who are already at risk of having their 83 per cent share of Government funding eroded in a Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) review of the Public Good Science Fund.
A resulting revised statement of funding priorities expected to gain cabinet approval in early May is likely to rejig funding onto a portfolio basis in which researchers will be part of consortiums with broader users who will manage other aspects of a development.
Instead of an average of $600,000 being allocated in around 500 science projects, the contracts would range in size between $1million and $15 million, with final fund allocation being determined within each portfolio group.
According to the chief executive of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FoRST), Dr Steve Thompson, the portfolio approach is an outcome of the Government's Forsight Project review, aimed at setting future strategies for science funding.
But if the MoRST review is making crown research institutes edgy, then Mr Manning did not help matters by also touching on the established practice of intellectual property arising from Public Good Science Fund money becoming the property of the funding recipient who also keeps the profits.
The reaction was swift and fierce. "This is completely unacceptable from a person associated with FoRST. John Manning must be personally accountable for making comments to the press which allows reporting of this nature to occur," said Dr Keith Steele, the chief executive of the largest crown research institute, AgResearch, in an e-mail to Mr Thompson.
Two days later, on March 22, Mr Steele again contacted Mr Thompson, again requesting that FoRST distance itself from Mr Manning's comments and requesting he be dealt with "appropriately".
The appropriate response, it would seem, was forthcoming that very morning. In a memo to institute chiefs, Mr Thompson said an acting director had been appointed to Technology NZ "until further notice".
"As chief executive, I must emphasise that the [Business Herald] article in no way represents foundation policy. The article implied an anti-crown research institute and anti-primary sector stance by the foundation.
"Neither view is true. The line taken in the article was neither approved by either myself or the chair."
Publicly, FoRST has variously described Mr Manning's stand-down from Technology NZ as temporary while he worked on a special project, or because he was annual leave, sick leave or most recently, simply, leave.
Mr Manning has a starkly different view.
Breaking his silence late this week to clear up misconceptions about his job status, he claims he has been home since March 23 after what his lawyer advises him was a constructive dismissal. He is taking a personal grievance proceeding.
"From my perspective, no I don't have a job," Mr Manning said.
However, Mr Manning said he was taken aback by the strength of the crown research institute's reaction to his remarks, particularly since he was saying nothing new.
"I'm absolutely surprised and cannot understand the reaction from the Crown Research Institutes about what I said because to me it's just stating the obvious and it's stating the practice that's going on at the moment."
Ironically, the remarks reported of Mr Manning were echoed in good measure a paper released by the crown research institute Industrial Research Ltd which argued that the government needed to invest more in advanced technologies, while supporting joint ventures and spin-off companies.
According to IRL, electrical and engineered products doubled their value added to the economy between 1991 and 1997, while meat and dairy processing remained almost static.
IRL's chief executive, and also a member of the FoRST board, Dr Geoff Page, declined to comment on Mr Manning, other than to suggest there was a difference between an institute discussion paper making comments and a staff member of a funding body.
But while he viewed the development of advanced technologies as the key to New Zealand's future, he saw the primary sector as a suitable springboard for their development as well.
So, too, did AgResearch's Dr Steele. Declining to discuss anything related to Mr Manning, Dr Steele warned that fashions change and the banking and finance sectors had been seen as New Zealand's future during the 80s. But where were they now?
"Higher technology industries will grow their strength on the back of existing industries," he said, adding that the country would desert the primary sector at its peril.
But while biotechnology was an obvious area for primary sector advanced technology growth, there was also scope for the development of natural health type pharmaceuticals, as there was for organically produced food exports which were now touching $20 million a year.
Dr Steele regarded the current controversy over genetically modified organisms entering the food chain as an essential debate while New Zealand was positioning itself to take advantage of such technologies.
"The key thing is that we have to be careful not to dismiss our inherent strengths," he said.
Will the sun rise again for 'under-funded' new tech?
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.