New Zealand's research, science and technology priorities: feedback document

Download Attachment:

Introduction

The New Zealand’s research, science and technology priorities feedback document became public on 22 October 2009. The Chief Executive of MoRST sent electronic copies directly to 148 key stakeholders and the document was made available on the MoRST web site, together with an invitation to submit comment by 18 November 2009. Following its release, senior MoRST officials responded to requests from a number of stakeholders to attend meetings at which they would discuss the document; and MoRST held a number of in-house workshops at the request of individual agencies and groups such as ScienceNZ. In addition, MoRST arranged a workshop to discuss the implications of the proposals in the document for Vision Matauranga. These activities were to provide context that those participating would use in preparing their written feedback. MoRST received 140 written submissions in response to the feedback document. Submissions were from CRIs, universities, other research organisations, government bodies, peak bodies, business and private individuals.

This paper provides a high level description of the feedback received.

General Comments

In general the feedback was very supportive of the proposed direction and approach; and of the clarity of the new structure and its increased simplicity and transparency. The strategic principles for publicly funded science also received favourable comment. The RSNZ described the document as ‘ground breaking’ in its separation of straightforward political decisions on the broad allocation of public resources to specific research and development activities, from more specific resourcing issues around Crown Research Institutes. Private sector and other submissions provided very strong support for the prominence the paper gives to economic drivers for research investment. In general the consensus was that the proposal presents a major improvement over the current structure.

A common theme through most submissions was the wish to engage with government as the priority setting process continues. In particular, respondents wish to provide advice on matters such as the funding allocation between the identified domains, tools and platforms.

This document summarises areas of disagreement and suggestions made for improvement. In many areas, different stakeholders themselves disagreed about the most appropriate course of action.

Comments outside the paper's Terms of Reference

Many submissions identified issues that went beyond those raised by the feedback document. Some of these comments were more appropriate to the work of the CRI taskforce and of the work being done on business support. Copies of such submissions were sent to the MoRST officials dealing with these matters.

Among the broader issues that submissions identified were:

  • The risk of change when there is no increase in the overall level of funding for RS&T.
  • A lack of detail, evidence and analysis, made it difficult to provide informed comment.
  • The document lacked vision and described the status quo.
  • The focus of the document was too narrow, given that investment decisions should take into account more than Vote RS&T funding and reflect an innovation system perspective.
  • There is a need to put a greater emphasis on impact and commercialisation; or conversely, there is a need to recognise more the significance of basic research and to fund scientists, rather than outcomes.
  • The need to decrease contestability to increase efficiency; or the importance of contestability in ensuring we fund only the best.

Comments on the Vote Restructure

General

Some respondents noted that the proposed structure does not itself provide a change in direction – not realising that its purpose is to act as a tool government can use to change direction, rather than to signal such direction.

The Foundation Board suggested reducing the number of domains under the new structure, especially those proposed in the high technology industries and environment outcome areas.

One area of concern was that the boundaries set up between different outcome areas might hinder cross boundary research, which is often transformational.

There were also concerns that the signalled approach appeared to be short term – aiming at extracting commercial impact from existing research rather than investing in research that will develop the as yet unthought-of opportunities.

Many respondents had problems with the economic / public good outcome dichotomy, noting that research in the public good areas can have important economic and even commercial outcomes.

Particular issues related to the interdependencies of the biological economy and environment outcome areas; and to a lesser extent the biological economy and high technology industries outcome areas.

Some submissions suggested that the outcome areas, in mapping existing activity, had missed important emerging issues - such as clean technology, transport and services.

Submissions strongly supported the separation of tools (funding mechanisms) from outcomes, although there were suggestions to decrease the number of tools and to create new ones.

Vision Mautauranga and Maori Knowledge and Development

The proposed changes to Maori Knowledge and Development were of particular concern with a widespread view that there is a need to maintain MKDOC as an explicit outcome, while recognising the need to embed VM considerations through all outcome areas.

High technology industries

Concerns related to: the name (which excludes much of the NZ manufacturing sector), with suggestions for a change to High value manufacturing; whether the Agri-technologies domain might better fit (along with its funding) in the biological economy outcome sector; the need for additional domains, including photonics and computer science; and the likelihood of investments made in this area having significant economic outcomes when compared to investments made in other areas.

Biological economy

Matters raised included: the use of a definition which differs from that of the OECD (which includes the use of biotechnology to create health and other industry products); the strong dependency of this economic outcome on the environment public good sector; the small proportion of funding currently delivered through TechNZ; and the possibility of having tourism as an additional domain.

Energy and minerals

There was strong support for the identification of this as a separate outcome area with many respondents arguing that it should receive additional funding in any reprioritisation process. Some submissions argued the need for a greater emphasis on renewable energy and on sustainability in general.

Environment

Submissions emphasised the economic significance of environmental research and some suggested combining this area with either the biological economy or energy and minerals areas. A related proposal was to change the name of the outcome to ‘natural resources’. Proposals for additional domains included ecological services, greenhouse gas research, wetlands and ecotourism.

Health and society

Many submissions emphasised the economic significance of research in this outcome area; there was concern that human therapeutics and diagnostic work would no longer receive support; and some respondents argued that there is a need to consider platforms in this area as in others. There was some concern about the diversity of activity included within the broader area and in particular the need to recognise the significance of social science as an enabler in all other outcome areas. One submission suggested adding a new domain to cover education.

Hazards and infrastructure

Generally supported but concern that the urban development domain needs increased funding and should have an outcome focused name such as ‘successful cities and settlements’.

Top talent

Issues identified in the feedback included concerns over the name of this investment area, with its implication that top talent is not necessary or does not exist throughout the science system; and in particular, serious concerns among many groups about the combining of Marsden (which supports excellent research) with fellowships (which support excellent people). This creates the possibility of funding being directed from Marsden to fellowships, with major implications for the health of the overall system. There were also concerns that the criteria used by Marsden disadvantage basic research in fields such as engineering and other professional disciplines; and that the top talent support does not extend to commercialisation and broader innovation expertise.

International relationships

Suggestions were made that funding should be devolved to the research providers given that international cooperation is essential across all areas and that researchers already have the necessary connections, or know what they need. Other submissions pointed to the need to fund downstream interactions that go beyond research; to fund scientist participation in intergovernmental processes; and to fund participation in large-scale research.

Research infrastructure

Comments included the need for a more strategic, integrated approach to infrastructure investment which provides national access to major facilities. Some respondents suggested the need for a major review, for example of backbone funding. Others questioned whether CRI capability funding belonged here or in a separate vote; or suggested that capability funding should be available on a contestable basis to the whole RS&T system, not just CRIs. Some respondents cautioned the need to consider the implications for other science funding of major infrastructure investments; and to take care investing in core facilities for rapidly changing technologies which have a short lifespan and will not be used to full capacity. There was also a suggestion to recognise SKA as a separate domain under the infrastructure heading.

Balance of Funding

While respondents made comments on the balance of funding, many agreed that this was difficult in the absence of additional information. Some noted the risks of shifting the balance at a time when funding is static, as this will lead to a loss of capability. Others suggested the government should set investment levels based on the needs of its broader agendas, including the economic growth and environment agendas; or conduct detailed of competitive advantage before making investment decisions. Some stakeholders supported a shifting of the balance to more firm led and economic outcome research; others point to the need for more basic research to create longer-term economic development opportunities. Among the submissions, there was support for reallocating funding to or from each of the outcome areas.

Strategic Research Platforms

There was general support for strategic research platforms but some caveats. In particular, increasing funding into platforms was seen as reducing funding in the remaining, diminishing, contestable pool. There were also views that the negotiated approach to platforms might mean that they are not led by the best scientists and that to be effective it should be possible for platforms to be led by any part of the science system – including universities. There were also concerns about the administrative costs of platforms and the extent to which complex arrangements might take funds away from frontline research.

Platforms were seen as being important across all outcome areas, including health and society. Submissions also commented on the need for cross sectoral platforms and noted that it is important that decision-making processes allow for their creation.

A frequent comment was that it is not clear what the selection process will be for platforms or how they might operate in detail. Stakeholders are clearly looking for some involvement in this process and there are many comments on the need to involve end-users from the earliest stages. There was also strong support for end-users playing a central role in the governance arrangements for CRIs.

A number of submissions suggested that there is a need to support platforms which are smaller than those currently proposed and that such small platforms might be especially useful in developing capability as distinct from achieving outcomes.

While some respondents suggested rankings of proposed platforms, others pointed to the difficulty of doing this independently of other information. One suggestion was to rank platforms according to the weighting of economic benefit predicted by the OECD.

About Attachments...

Back To Top
Page updated 23 Feb 2010