The Government's proposed changes to the science sector have raised a few eyebrows among the nation's scientific community.
The Government aims to merge seven Crown Research Institutes into three public research organisations - and creating another focused on AI.
It's also closing Callaghan Innovation, impacting about 355 staff.
Auckland University professor Richard Easther says this is a significant upheaval - and it raises plenty of questions.
"The challenge here, I think, is that they want to bring out major changes in the way these organisations are structured. But that's going to cost money and there's no clarity about where the money to do this is going to come from."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So this week we had major changes to the science
sector announced by the government, one of the hopes being
the reforms will boost the economic performance of the industry.
There has however, been concerned in science circles with the
announcement bringing no additional funding, including funding to implement the
plane the planned changes. So will the changes boost economic
performance and can the science sector function and implement these
(00:36):
changes on current funding. To discuss this, I'm joined by
the Auckland University professor Richard Ester. He's with me now.
Good morning, Richard, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
And good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So tell me will these reforms help to boost the
economic performance of the sector.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
They might think it's probably there, Huns and I think
it's good to take a step back and say that,
you know, everybody who works in science, I think believes
that what they do should you contribute to the well
being of society. And obviously that you know that's bordered
in the economy itself, but there is a shared goal,
(01:11):
you know, making a positive contributions. I think the problem
here is that it is quite a big up people,
not for science necessarily as a whole immediately, although there
are more things coming, but in particular focuses on the
shape of the Crown Research Institutes. And the thing that
strikes me looking at this is that, you know, everyone thinks, oh,
you know, science should contribute to the economy. But the
(01:32):
Crown Research Institute were formally at DSIR, you know, which
all the people might remember from when they were kids,
and that was broken up to form the CRIS and
the attire was founded in nineteen twenty six to boost
the economy. So it's science isn't boosting the economy. It's
not because we don't want it to do that. It's
because we haven't figured out how to make that work.
So the devil is very much in details. And so
(01:53):
the challenge here, I think is that they want to
bring about major changes in the way these organizations are structured,
but that's going to cost money and there's no there's
no clarity about where the money to do that it's
going to come from.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Is the economic performance of science harder to determine than
other sectors?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It is?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
I mean, I think, particularly in New Zealand, I think
the government of successive governments have taken a very narrow
view of what counts's economic performance. Oh, you know, we
fund this and we get that, whereas a lot of
times if you look at really big success stories and science,
you know, we funded one thing, we got another thing,
and that leads to something else, and that leads to
something else, and it's you know, it's two or three,
(02:33):
something else is down the line that is actually the
thing that makes a huge difference. So a case and
points in New Zealand is, you know, one of our
biggest science stories right now is that there are people
in upper huts who are trying to build a nuclear
fusion reaction, like a working nuclear fusion reactor, which is
an awesome story and something that we also should feel
proud that we're able to do in New Zealand. But
(02:54):
the special source that goes into that is actually sort
of magnet technology that was started here in the nineteen nineties,
and so it turns out we're particularly good at making
a particular kind of magnet. And then people who found
that that in the nineteen nineties were certainly not thinking about,
you know, nuclear fusion in the twenty twenties. And I
think that that long an unexpected way that science can
(03:17):
love a value. There's something that something that is frequently
left out.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
So research it can take a lot of time in
some cases, and the benefit isn't always immediate.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So yeah, and the bigger the benefit and the more
profound the change, often the longer it's going to take.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Have this government and previous governments given the sect or
what it needs when it comes to funding. Is science
valued enough in New Zealand?
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I mean, I think there's a kind of New Yark
reaction here, which is, you know, an any people working
in pretty much any job, including I'm sure news would say, oh, yes,
you know, we would do more with you, would do
better worth more resource. I think, so I want to
avoid simply simply saying that. On the other hand, if
you look at the way that science is funded in
New Zealand by buying industry and by government, we're definitely
(04:04):
at a very low end the total economy, you know,
relatives to the countries that we would like to compare
ourselves to, you know, say Finland or a Singapore or
someone like that. So I think I think it is
true that science has has been doing a lot with
less in New Zealand and so it's hard to necessarily
see how you'll get more productivity without without more inputance.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
But that was my experience. So can we do more
with less?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
I think, I think there are questions. I mean one
of the biggest things for me gets back to the
short termism of a lot of government thinking around science,
and that is that you know, if we if we
are resource constrained, then the most important thing is that
we make good decisions about where to spend our resource.
And so the reform that we're announced recently, you know,
(04:54):
part of a much bigger package of reform DAN has
been put together by the Science Sector Advisory Group, and
so they're talking, for instance, about having a Ministry of
Science which is separate from IMBIG, which is you know,
which was swallowed up by MB when it was set up.
And I think that, for instance, would be critical. I
think MB doesn't necessarily make good decisions about the way
(05:14):
that resources are allocated, and in some cases it's made
I think, very poor decisions. And I think if there
was more collaborations between ministry officials in a new ministry
and expertise in the science sector, I think that would
lead to better outcomes and would be probably closer to
what we see in countries than do do this this
more successfully?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
So is that what's kind of needed for this particular
restructured to work, because we've we've restructured and changed the
sector before. But you know, we've got to learn from
from that process, don't we I went right, and what
you know, how it improved things and how things sort
of didn't.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Improve and looking and I think looking at other places
that are doing a better job, I think I think
would be critical. And I think I think part of
it is just as a often a lack of trust
between government and the science sector, so they turn everything
into a into a competition, and we spent a lot
of time from meeting with each other sometimes rather than
getting things done, which is not always productive.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Richard, there's a lot of talk about what the Science
System Advisory Group report called exploitable research. But will we
still be focusing as well on stewardship research and policy
focused research and knowledge knowledge generating research.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I think it's I mean, I think the exploitable research
is often very short term, but I mean, you know,
if you have someone who comes up, you know with
a better brig of kiwi fruit for instance, I mean
that is undoubtedly something that that there you know, that
topic sector science is working on. You know how you
said that relative to somebody who does a better job
(06:49):
of understanding this quackris And both of those things are
critical to the economy. But one of them is, you know,
buying insurance in some sense, and the other one is
making a positive investment. And so I think it is
it is it is dangerous to be chasing those short
term wins. And the other question is is the shorter
term becomes the more you would expect industry to be
investing in that. You know, so there's a very clear
(07:10):
return and you know the risk is accessible. Then that
is you know that that is an area where you
would expect the private sector to be come investing with government,
whereas in many cases government will be expected to invest
in things where you can't immediately identify where the benefit
it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Right, Well, what's how science been like compared to other countries?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Low And there's a very nice thing to download the report.
There's a graph therest most of the countries to the
left of us, and you know, and then they're categorizing
both private sector and public sector investment in science. The
countries of the sort of the wrong side of us
on both of those numbers, and generally places that we
(07:51):
wouldn't want to emulate.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Richard, I've heard from a few people in science who've
made the comment over the last year that they didn't
feel that Judith Collins had a huge amount of enthusiasm
for science. How do you feel about Shane Retti?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I think that's a complex question, and firstly the to
the I mean, Collins is enormously enthusiastic. I sung at
times it was clear that she wasn't you know, that
that she'd spoken to someone who told us something and
she'd been enthusiastic about it, but she didn't she doesn't know.
She's also has you know, portfolios that bring her legal
experience to bear, and it's clear there that she has,
you know, a greater depth of knowledge and experience. So
(08:26):
I think she was definitely enthusiastic, but I didn't always
see the sort of deep judgment that I might have wanted.
I mean, really has a background in science, you know,
or the broadly speaking as a medical professional. You know,
he's spent time and then the elite institutions overseas that
that generally do science in a positive way, so we
(08:48):
would be hoping.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
I think Richard really appreciate your time this morning. Thank
you so much. That was Augland University Professor Richard Easter.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
There.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
Lived News Talks that'd be from nine am Sunday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So this week we had major changes to the science
sector announced by the government, one of the hopes being
the reforms will boost the economic performance of the industry.
There has however, been concerned in science circles with the
announcement bringing no additional funding, including funding to implement the
plane the planned changes. So will the changes boost economic
performance and can the science sector function and implement these
(00:36):
changes on current funding. To discuss this, I'm joined by
the Auckland University professor Richard Ester. He's with me now.
Good morning, Richard, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
And good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So tell me will these reforms help to boost the
economic performance of the sector.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
They might think it's probably there, Huns and I think
it's good to take a step back and say that,
you know, everybody who works in science, I think believes
that what they do should you contribute to the well
being of society. And obviously that you know that's bordered
in the economy itself, but there is a shared goal,
(01:11):
you know, making a positive contributions. I think the problem
here is that it is quite a big up people,
not for science necessarily as a whole immediately, although there
are more things coming, but in particular focuses on the
shape of the Crown Research Institutes. And the thing that
strikes me looking at this is that, you know, everyone thinks, oh,
you know, science should contribute to the economy. But the
(01:32):
Crown Research Institute were formally at DSIR, you know, which
all the people might remember from when they were kids,
and that was broken up to form the CRIS and
the attire was founded in nineteen twenty six to boost
the economy. So it's science isn't boosting the economy. It's
not because we don't want it to do that. It's
because we haven't figured out how to make that work.
So the devil is very much in details. And so
(01:53):
the challenge here, I think is that they want to
bring about major changes in the way these organizations are structured,
but that's going to cost money and there's no there's
no clarity about where the money to do that it's
going to come from.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Is the economic performance of science harder to determine than
other sectors?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It is?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
I mean, I think, particularly in New Zealand, I think
the government of successive governments have taken a very narrow
view of what counts's economic performance. Oh, you know, we
fund this and we get that, whereas a lot of
times if you look at really big success stories and science,
you know, we funded one thing, we got another thing,
and that leads to something else, and that leads to
something else, and it's you know, it's two or three,
(02:33):
something else is down the line that is actually the
thing that makes a huge difference. So a case and
points in New Zealand is, you know, one of our
biggest science stories right now is that there are people
in upper huts who are trying to build a nuclear
fusion reaction, like a working nuclear fusion reactor, which is
an awesome story and something that we also should feel
proud that we're able to do in New Zealand. But
(02:54):
the special source that goes into that is actually sort
of magnet technology that was started here in the nineteen nineties,
and so it turns out we're particularly good at making
a particular kind of magnet. And then people who found
that that in the nineteen nineties were certainly not thinking about,
you know, nuclear fusion in the twenty twenties. And I
think that that long an unexpected way that science can
(03:17):
love a value. There's something that something that is frequently
left out.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
So research it can take a lot of time in
some cases, and the benefit isn't always immediate.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So yeah, and the bigger the benefit and the more
profound the change, often the longer it's going to take.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Have this government and previous governments given the sect or
what it needs when it comes to funding. Is science
valued enough in New Zealand?
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I mean, I think there's a kind of New Yark
reaction here, which is, you know, an any people working
in pretty much any job, including I'm sure news would say, oh, yes,
you know, we would do more with you, would do
better worth more resource. I think, so I want to
avoid simply simply saying that. On the other hand, if
you look at the way that science is funded in
New Zealand by buying industry and by government, we're definitely
(04:04):
at a very low end the total economy, you know,
relatives to the countries that we would like to compare
ourselves to, you know, say Finland or a Singapore or
someone like that. So I think I think it is
true that science has has been doing a lot with
less in New Zealand and so it's hard to necessarily
see how you'll get more productivity without without more inputance.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
But that was my experience. So can we do more
with less?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
I think, I think there are questions. I mean one
of the biggest things for me gets back to the
short termism of a lot of government thinking around science,
and that is that you know, if we if we
are resource constrained, then the most important thing is that
we make good decisions about where to spend our resource.
And so the reform that we're announced recently, you know,
(04:54):
part of a much bigger package of reform DAN has
been put together by the Science Sector Advisory Group, and
so they're talking, for instance, about having a Ministry of
Science which is separate from IMBIG, which is you know,
which was swallowed up by MB when it was set up.
And I think that, for instance, would be critical. I
think MB doesn't necessarily make good decisions about the way
(05:14):
that resources are allocated, and in some cases it's made
I think, very poor decisions. And I think if there
was more collaborations between ministry officials in a new ministry
and expertise in the science sector, I think that would
lead to better outcomes and would be probably closer to
what we see in countries than do do this this
more successfully?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
So is that what's kind of needed for this particular
restructured to work, because we've we've restructured and changed the
sector before. But you know, we've got to learn from
from that process, don't we I went right, and what
you know, how it improved things and how things sort
of didn't.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Improve and looking and I think looking at other places
that are doing a better job, I think I think
would be critical. And I think I think part of
it is just as a often a lack of trust
between government and the science sector, so they turn everything
into a into a competition, and we spent a lot
of time from meeting with each other sometimes rather than
getting things done, which is not always productive.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Richard, there's a lot of talk about what the Science
System Advisory Group report called exploitable research. But will we
still be focusing as well on stewardship research and policy
focused research and knowledge knowledge generating research.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I think it's I mean, I think the exploitable research
is often very short term, but I mean, you know,
if you have someone who comes up, you know with
a better brig of kiwi fruit for instance, I mean
that is undoubtedly something that that there you know, that
topic sector science is working on. You know how you
said that relative to somebody who does a better job
(06:49):
of understanding this quackris And both of those things are
critical to the economy. But one of them is, you know,
buying insurance in some sense, and the other one is
making a positive investment. And so I think it is
it is it is dangerous to be chasing those short
term wins. And the other question is is the shorter
term becomes the more you would expect industry to be
investing in that. You know, so there's a very clear
(07:10):
return and you know the risk is accessible. Then that
is you know that that is an area where you
would expect the private sector to be come investing with government,
whereas in many cases government will be expected to invest
in things where you can't immediately identify where the benefit
it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Right, Well, what's how science been like compared to other countries?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Low And there's a very nice thing to download the report.
There's a graph therest most of the countries to the
left of us, and you know, and then they're categorizing
both private sector and public sector investment in science. The
countries of the sort of the wrong side of us
on both of those numbers, and generally places that we
(07:51):
wouldn't want to emulate.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Richard, I've heard from a few people in science who've
made the comment over the last year that they didn't
feel that Judith Collins had a huge amount of enthusiasm
for science. How do you feel about Shane Retti?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I think that's a complex question, and firstly the to
the I mean, Collins is enormously enthusiastic. I sung at
times it was clear that she wasn't you know, that
that she'd spoken to someone who told us something and
she'd been enthusiastic about it, but she didn't she doesn't know.
She's also has you know, portfolios that bring her legal
experience to bear, and it's clear there that she has,
you know, a greater depth of knowledge and experience. So
(08:26):
I think she was definitely enthusiastic, but I didn't always
see the sort of deep judgment that I might have wanted.
I mean, really has a background in science, you know,
or the broadly speaking as a medical professional. You know,
he's spent time and then the elite institutions overseas that
that generally do science in a positive way, so we
(08:48):
would be hoping.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
I think Richard really appreciate your time this morning. Thank
you so much. That was Augland University Professor Richard Easter.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
There.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
Lived News Talks that'd be from nine am Sunday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.