No science hubs for South

ANYONE who has spent time tinkering around with old or rusty clocks knows not to push them too hard.

Great care is needed when winding the mechanism, touching the mainspring or goading the hands into the right position.

There’s a sense, from the speed at which successive governments have been moving, that enticing our public science sector to head in the right direction has required similar caution and deftness of touch.

While there is general understanding and acceptance of the need for New Zealand to buck its ideas up if it truly wants to be an international force in science, change has been very slow to come.

For decades, there has been an emperor’s new clothes mindset that our traditional ‘‘numbereight wire’’ approach and ability to innovate as necessary will always make us a global force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t and it won’t. Investment in research, science and innovation as a percentage of gross domestic product has traditionally been at paltry levels here when assessed against some of the nations we like to compare ourselves with.

This month’s Budget reaffirmed the commitment the Government made several years ago to increase science spending by 2028 to 2% of GDP from where it has been languishing around or below 1.5%.

For a country which prides itself on innovation, it’s worth looking at how this compares.

Over about the same time period, the OECD average investment has been about 2.7% of GDP. Finland has had research and development spending of about 3% of GDP, the United States of around 3.5% and Israel of 5.5% or so.

Interestingly, Budget commentators here noted that while the Government said last week it still has 2% in its sights, it appears to have dropped the ‘‘by 2028’’ bit.

Despite that, the Budget had some good news for science and for scientists and researchers working at universities and Crown Research Institutes. And it was an especially good one for scientists in the Wellington region.

The Government has announced $400 million to establish three new research hubs in the capital, which will focus on climate change and disaster resilience, health and pandemic readiness, and technology and innovation. Building and renovation work for the hubs will begin once business cases have been finalised, with $51 million allocated for their first four years of operations.

Cashstrapped Victoria University of Wellington is involved in all three hubs and will welcome the investment, as will the similarly financially challenged University of Otago, which will be a major player in the health and pandemic research hub.

Further good news for universities came with the 5% rise in funding from next year which should help save some academics’ jobs at least, though many in the sector say this increase is nowhere near enough given two decades of little or no investment and current inflation rates.

There are also concerns that the $400 million might be better spent on researchers rather than on funding ‘‘research outcomes’’ and on buildings and equipment. MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology codirector Professor Nicola Gaston says for too many decades governments have been putting ‘‘the cart before the horse’’ when it comes to science priorities.

Wellington of course has some natural advantages for becoming

New Zealand’s science city. Many CRIs are based here, as is Parliament and the government sector, and it is relatively central in terms of location.

However, for southerners the Government’s vision here is disappointing. Why couldn’t at least one hub have been located in the South Island, which has three universities with significant specialisations in medicine and health, engineering and science, and agriculture?

The country is on the cusp of major science reform, as envisioned in last year’s white paper Te Ara Paerangi.

While encouraging, the Budget disbursements are still not enough to do what is fundamentally needed in the sector.

It is difficult to tell if they bode well for the flagged changes ahead to research priorities and subsequent CRI restructuring.

The question remains: Is there enough willpower and political courage to push ahead with the reforms and attain, and surpass, the 2% of GDP investment target?