Science in New Zealand is about to undergo its biggest shake-up in 30 years. But will reform ease the tension between public demands and commercial returns? By Paul Gorman
It was a controversial decision by those holding the purse strings at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. In a special funding round, the Health Research Council announced grants worth $3.8 million for 13 Covid studies. Among them were two university-based trials that included genomic sequencing of the virus.
Genomic sequencing, as we all now know, is vital to understanding how a virus such as Covid is spreading. But according to those behind another study, New Zealand missed a chance to invest in more expensive equipment that held much more potential to quickly generate national-level data.
Instead, the HRC's biggest bet, totalling $1.36m, was placed on a trifecta of trials using hydroxychloroquine, a drug used for malaria and some autoimmune conditions that was later famously championed by Donald Trump when he was US president. Within months, hopes for hydroxychloroquine faded and the three New Zealand trials were modified.
Was it a spectacular blunder? Some Kiwi scientists see it that way, and claim the research funding lottery is just one of the handbrakes holding back New Zealand's progress on many fronts.
As it happened, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) and the University of Otago eventually succeeded in winning a $600,000 grant from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for their own genomic-sequencing study. But the HRC setback meant they weren't able to get cracking on virus sequencing until about six months after the March 2020 lockdown. It went on to become a crucial tool in our Covid response.
Another high-profile example of the challenges that Kiwi scientists face is the kauri dieback debate. Last August, a Massey University study into the origins of the deadly disease provoked a Facebook backlash from a government-funded agency. It publicly questioned the study's robustness and the scientists' "speculative discussion". The authors of the study remain aggrieved.
The challenges facing our science sector are multiple. Agencies and scientists are competing, sometimes aggressively, for the same pots of money. The winners take all and the losers emigrate. Young scientists are frustrated about the hurdles they face, and researchers are afraid to speak publicly about their work in case they upset their commercial backers.
Meanwhile, the management and boards of Crown research institutes (CRIs) are paranoid about negative media coverage and extremely risk averse because they worry about losing funding if they back the wrong horse.
How could a sector that provides such hope for New Zealand's future be in such a parlous state?
As it is doing in health, housing, broadcasting and many other sectors, the Government is seizing the opportunity to use its majority to push through major reforms. As in those other sectors, there is highly likely to be some rationalisation. But the process has only just started.
It began last October, when the Minister for Research, Science and Innovation, Megan Woods, kicked off the sector's biggest shake-up in three decades. Launching the long-awaited green paper, Te Ara Paerangi – Future Pathways, Woods said the CRIs created in 1992 were now showing their age. "Like so many other products of the 1990s – grunge for instance – some aspects of it don't work as well today as they possibly could," she quipped.
Submissions on the green paper closed on March 16, and it's probably fair to say that many in the sector will have agreed with her assessment that science in New Zealand is these days characterised by a "significant amount of fragmentation and unproductive competition".
According to Steve Thompson, the former chief executive of the Royal Society Te Apārangi and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, it's time for a "complete system rethink". For almost 30 years, New Zealand had a goal that public investment in research and development (R&D) should reach 0.8 per cent of GDP, he says. Spending has failed to move much above 0.5 per cent.
CRIs have responded as best they can, says Thompson, and initiatives such as the national science challenges have been bolted on. "But new client groups are emerging and New Zealand needs to support them as well. Therein lies a problem – CRIs have no remit to 'pivot' to new areas. If institutes were allowed to continue forever, we might still have an Institute for Axe-Grinding."
Pioneering genomics researcher and former New Zealand Association of Scientists councillor Rob Elshire says reforms are crucial to fix both current problems and ones never dealt with by the 1992 reforms.
Concerns about complacency and a "she'll be right" attitude date back to the mid-80s, Elshire says. "It is not only still true, but the necessary changes are more profound, and the need for them is immediate."
Although there is wide agreement over the problems, there is likely to be less unanimity over the solutions. Thompson takes issue with the leading nature of the "how to" questions posed in Te Ara Paerangi. It's an attempt, he says, to blinker our thinking. "Blinkers can be quite useful for keeping skittish horses in line, but also prevent them from seeing disasters or opportunities off to one side."
Elshire says leaving universities out of the green paper is at odds with indications he had from Woods' office in early 2020 that they would be included. "How can we possibly have a fit-for-purpose renewal of our research system if we leave out such a significant portion from the review?"
One of the best ways to maximise public benefit from the investment of public money in research is to make the research available at no cost to everyone, Elshire says.
"That way promotes collaboration rather than exclusion, sharing rather than selfishness, innovation rather than received wisdom. The New Zealand research system policies and settings do just the opposite. Competition above all else is not in the public interest. It can, and too often does, create perverse incentives that encourage the kind of bad behaviour we see all too frequently in our system."
The initial failure to fund genomic sequencing equipment is a case in point, says Elshire. He believes the government simply assumed important work such as genomics or modelling would go ahead without direct funding, given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic. "There was no apparent cohesive strategy of investment."
Megan Woods is reluctant to get too specific about what a better science system might look like. She will only say the problems are not limited to particular institutions. "Some of these problems are not new and approaches to fixing these in the past have been Band-Aids that in some cases have increased complexity," she told the Listener.
It's clear there will be changes to the CRIs. Woods says she knows about CRIs from the inside, having worked at Crop and Food (later Plant and Food) as a business manager.
"The fact I asked for there to be a review of CRIs shows these are areas I'm actively thinking about and actively considering."
According to Woods, CRIs represent the "thinking and commercial disciplines" of the early 1990s. "Our aspirations, economic drivers and social make-up have shifted a lot since. It is important we keep an open mind around the shape of our institutions."
Speaking of open minds, Woods says she "absolutely believes" in academic freedom and academics being the critics and conscience of society. She recognises, she says, that CRI scientists are currently more constrained in what they can say because of commercial contracts.
"As we go into a post-truth world, where reckons and misinformation become the norm in public discourse, actually having our academics in a variety of fields empowered to be a critic and conscience becomes even more important. And that is something I am very passionate about."
The green paper is also an opportunity to better tackle future challenges, including mitigating climate change, improving health and alleviating the housing crisis, she says. "My aim is to ensure our research, science and innovation system is in the best shape to support New Zealand's future wellbeing, and it is important we take time to get it right."
Changes are likely to take many years to implement. But one thing that is likely to remain a constant is MBIE's oversight of the sector. "It is the most significant funder of public research in New Zealand. It monitors the performance of many of our institutions and the overall system, and acts as steward of the system through the policies and directions it sets. I don't foresee any changes to MBIE's role," she says.
Although Woods wants a "more adaptable and resilient" and better-connected sector, she also praises the system for serving New Zealand "exceptionally well", especially during the Covid pandemic. As an example, she cites the Covid-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund, which backed initiatives such as wastewater testing and epidemic modelling work.
But what about that initial decision to reject funding for genomic sequencing equipment? Both Health Minister Andrew Little and the Ministry of Health say it is inappropriate for them to get involved with decisions made by organisations with discretionary funding powers. The HRC says it does not comment on proposals declined funding.
National's economic development, science and innovation spokeswoman, Judith Collins, is not so coy. According to her, the funding round appeared to be "something of a lolly scramble". "Research funding is always going to be hotly contested and limited. It should not be wasted on baseless theories," she says.
Collins is looking forward to getting her teeth stuck into the science sector. She describes the green paper as having been "a long time coming".
"We need to have consensus around research and science that means scientists and others involved in the sector are not worrying which government is coming in and what's going to happen. I don't want to make it political, but there's been a lack of emphasis on science, and other countries have well and truly passed us by."
Professor Shaun Hendy is director of Te Pūnaha Matatini, one of 10 Centres of Research Excellence in New Zealand. Based at the University of Auckland, it has received significant public funding for Covid modelling. He is also a board member of the Government's innovation agency, Callaghan Innovation, so is well versed in the current system.
He agrees "it took a while" for the Ministry of Health to realise the importance of genomic sequencing. He credits two early-career scientists, Joep de Ligt and Jemma Geoghegan, "who just kept pushing and pushing", for the University of Otago-ESR trial proceeding and making a huge difference to minimise the wider impact of the pandemic. "If there's a lesson, it's to not leave those conversations until a pandemic. Unfortunately right now, I don't know if our system is well set up to do that."
Although competition is part of science, Hendy says the current system in New Zealand goes too far. "If I don't get my grant at a university, I have to do more teaching next year. But if a CRI scientist doesn't get their grant, they can be down the road. So, the drivers of patch protection in CRIs are perfectly understandable."
Early-career researchers, and Māori and Pasifika researchers, are particularly disillusioned, says Hendy. He also believes vice-chancellors and CRI chief executives have been too focused on institutional competition and "not enough on how can we improve the system".
The NZ Association of Scientists shares Hendy's concerns. Former president Nicola Gaston, of the University of Auckland, believes the green paper hits a lot of the right notes, focusing on understanding institutions, how they work together and adapt to changes, and what that might mean for their workforce.
The emphasis on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and on equity is long overdue, Gaston says. "The future of the CRI system, and how it connects with universities, is going to be what the success of these changes is ultimately judged on.
"There's a massive tension between the CRIs' individual independence and their ability to support an 'NZ Inc' approach. I'm not quite going to advocate that we bring back the DSIR, but I do think that the ability for internal restructure within a single organisation might be part of the answer."
Association co-presidents Lucy Stewart and Troy Baisden are impressed the Government has initiated reform without knowing where it will lead.
"It is a bold move politically," Baisden says. "It is also the right move, because so much needs to be fixed. The reform will have succeeded only if institutions are better funded and more stable as a result of being better trusted and able to lead prioritisation."
Fixing workforce problems is another key issue, says Stewart. "With early-career researchers … there is a deep amount of stress and unhappiness. Almost nobody feels supported by the system or [that] they can look forward to a stable career in research, and this goes doubly for Māori early-career researchers."
In fact, it is difficult to find anyone who believes the CRIs are working as they should, she says. “Their twin mandates to be commercially profitable and safeguard science for the public good have not proven to be compatible.”
