Editorial: No way to treat a scientist

There was a grim irony in Industrial Research's announcement that it was to close its research sites in the country's two main industrial centres and make about 20 scientists redundant. The state-owned institute's decision was made public on the same day that the speech from the throne declared that "science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity". The contrariness did not end there. A day later, the chief executive of Agresearch warned of a looming shortfall in scientific brainpower.

How, given the acknowledged importance of research in the development of a knowledge economy, could it have come to this? The Public Service Association was in no doubt. This, it said, was the outcome of the Government's flawed competitive funding system administered through the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

That, however, was far too simplistic. Whatever the weaknesses of the system, it has wrought welcome change. The need to earn a return on taxpayer funding has meant that research is no longer prone to be prolonged and too peripheral to market demand and usefulness. The level of investment remains too low, and there is too much fragmentation, but cost-effectiveness is a plus.

Industrial Research's woes do, however, highlight the way in which the system can encourage an undue emphasis on commercialisation. And the way that can entail a cost to core purpose. In the institute's case, the pursuit of commercial profit has prompted a disconnection from New Zealand manufacturing, the very beast it was designed to support and service.

Industrial Research's financial woes, including a $5 million loss for the latest year, appear to stem mainly from a subsidiary that makes drugs for overseas pharmaceutical companies. The weight given to gaining a commercial advantage from its research, rather than leaving that to industry, has rendered it hostage to volatility. Now, to avoid a repeat financial performance, it is having to take drastic measures.

Even the response, however, reinforces the impression of a company disconnected from local manufacturing. The research facilities chosen for closure are those in Auckland and Christchurch. Industrial Research will centralise its activities on Wellington, while maintaining only commercial offices in the two main industrial centres.

The Wellington site may be convenient for impressing politicians, who, in turn, want to show their backing for a knowledge economy. But its location is unlikely to impress the leaders of industry. Or to suggest to them that the institute is intent on becoming an integral part of this country's industrial set-up.

That, in turn, raises questions about the Industrial Research board. Its members have too few manufacturing links. That shortcoming may well have been a catalyst for misdirected endeavour, the outcome of which has been a serious blow not only to the redundant scientists but to the scientific community. It raises questions of job security, even in a country supposedly intent on finding its place in the knowledge economy sun.

The anomalies inherent in Industrial Research's plight are obvious. They can hardly have escaped the Government. If its commitment to science and innovation is real, and if manufacturing is to have research backing, it must act to ensure this is an aberration. Crown research institutes must be left in no doubt about their priorities and practices. And scientists must be treated as the most important link in the knowledge economy chain. If not, that chain will go nowhere.