Anthony Scott: Penguin poo not an ignoble cause

Orgasms or seismic mitigation? While all of us in these shaky isles experience the latter, what hogs the headlines is the allocation of $38 million of Marsden Fund research money.

Put aside whether panellists deciding who should get money from the fund should receive monies - the fund's procedures have been independently evaluated and endorsed as gold standard.

What should concern us is the revelation of a chasm between researchers and the public who fund them. Ask "Why are we funding that?" and some researchers say: "Give basic research more money so that there will be fewer disappointed applicants to question the process and outcomes."

Talking past each other is not quality discussion. Recipients of taxpayer largesse should always be ready to explain what they do without being offended.

Some research shouts out for explanation, such as $465,000 to three University of Auckland academics for Acts and Identities: Towards a New Cultural History of Sex. Professor Reay (history), Associate Professor Jagose (media studies) and senior lecturer Dr Wallace (English) have a solid pedigree in sexuality related research and Marsden frees them to focus on it.

To universities, research excellence and academic freedom includes research with no utilitarian purpose, driven by curiosity. If the Reay research is paradigm-shifting, it will advance Auckland University's status, attracting more money, researchers and students.

Much received wisdom on sexuality originates from researchers, such as Kinsey. Tomorrow, it may be Reay, Jagose and Wallace.

Rather than regret the furore, let's embrace the opportunity to explain what research is done here and why.

Ironically, the debate erupted just as the Ig Nobels were announced at Harvard by real Nobel laureates. Ig Nobels recognise genuine research which first makes people laugh, then makes people think. Last year's winners included the pressures produced when penguins poo, calculations on avian defecation, The Significance of Mr Richard Buckley's Exploding Trousers, and discovering that locusts fear Darth Vader - all were the work of New Zealanders. Behind playful titles lie insights about ragwort, brain activity and penguins projectile faeces (there's our Ross Dependency to keep safe).

The prizes spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.

Not all have been amused. Britain's chief scientist said the Ig Nobels risked bringing "genuine" experiments into ridicule. On the other hand, we cannot laugh away the need for increased research. science and technology investment in New Zealand.

The answer is not to insist on more for our own research or insist that all research be obviously useful.

A cue comes from New Zealand science leaders who addressed the vexed question of where increased investment should go, without resorting to special pleading.

Last year's report from the Science Enterprises Group of the university, the Crown Research Institute and research association leaders, recommended that research. science and technology investment be allocated in five broad areas, from the immediately needed to that driven by curiosity.

This was a mature reflection on the need for a broad range of research allocated according to national needs.

Similarly, we need to deliver appropriate investment into the various types of research entity, each with its particular role in the national innovation system. New Zealanders punish defensiveness and division by withholding support. So let's use humour, imagination and candour to tell the exciting stories of what scientists do, and why. An Association of Crown Research Institutes website (www.sciencenz.org.nz) will do just this.

Back to my initial question. The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, GNS Science says the whole North Island could be taken out by a full-scale Taupo eruption, statistically overdue. So I favour hazard research - now and lots of it. But my wife prefers the Reay research.

Should it really be an either/or decision?

* Anthony Scott is executive director of the Association of Crown Research Institutes.