Is it time to put science sector under microscope?

Another week, another bunch of scientists about to lose their jobs. For a country that has always prided itself on its innovation and resourcefulness, and for its ground-breaking discoveries, we seem to be making things pretty grim for science and for the boffins in the lab.

Science is often hailed as the key to boosting New Zealand’s economic wellbeing and diversifying our economy. There have been plenty of initiatives from Government in recent years which encourage research and development efforts that will be of benefit to the commercial sector. But what is happening to our endeavours in basic, blue sky science, where discoveries are made for discovery’s sake? Have we gone too far in the opposite direction? Are we getting too applied?

The latest sad, and some would say predictable, announcement from AgResearch this week – that 83 jobs are likely to go, 33 of whom are scientists and the remainder technical support staff – also highlights the capriciousness of our science sector. It comes after job cuts at Landcare Research and illustrates the current fad for harnessing and rewarding shortterm proficiency but, on the other hand, discarding with apparent callous disregard expertise in a broad range of scientific skills and disciplines that has taken decades to develop.

As well as such a concerning loss to our core-science competencies, this kind of instability gives outsiders a bad impression. At a time when, ironically, the Government and others have been trying to inspire our young people to look at careers in science, this encourages them to look elsewhere.

So what is it about our science sector that appears not to be working? Our Crown research institutes – of which we currently have seven – occupy an uncomfortable space, straddling both ends of the science spectrum. They are expected, by statute, to carry out scientific studies for the public good but also, and overwhelmingly, undertake research in the commercial sphere that will rake in the money.

Thursday’s AgResearch announcement, which followed days of leaks and scuttlebutt, is a perfect example of how those commercial imperatives have taken over. AgResearch chairman Sam Robinson’s choice of words was particularly revealing when he discussed the balancing, other side of the equation, that 83 people might be going but 27 new positions were being created. The proposal was focused on ‘‘areas of growing customer demand’’ and was ‘‘consistent with . . . what we have identified with our customers’’.

This mirrored what Prime Minister John Key had said earlier in the week, that occasionally specific programmes did get cut and resources had to be ‘‘moved around’’ to suit.

Interestingly, no less a person than Key’s own chief science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has questioned the direction in which our science sector is moving. In March he told the New Zealand Association of Scientists conference there was ‘‘too much end-user involvement in the contestable-funding system’’, which had led to ‘‘much more short-termism’’ in some research, something other small countries had ‘‘largely managed’’ to avoid.

The association echoes those comments, with president Dr Nicola Gaston saying she is particularly troubled by the messages the knee-jerk approach sends to young New Zealanders and the continuing uncertainty for Kiwi scientists.

Funding of science is also a concern. A large increase in the size of the Government’s Crown research institute core-funding pot – from the $201 million set in 2011 – is urgently needed to keep pace with inflation.

Whatever the research whims and fancies of the commercial world at any one time, the Government has to do its utmost to ensure our core scientific competencies are maintained and nurtured, even if they are seen as old hat.

We cannot have a science structure – with all its expense and long-term investment – which to all intents and purposes seems like it is based on a model of builtin obsolescence. With the current system, it appears the Government is happy to let some of our most brilliant minds fall by the wayside because their expertise is not in fashion. It is time to review our scientific priorities.