Unleashing Innovation: How ‘Magical’ Thinking is Transforming Science Reforms in New Zealand

New Zealand’s recent science reforms have sparked debate. Critics argue that the government’s expectations of profiting from publicly funded research are overly optimistic. The New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) claims that the government has cherry-picked from the recommendations of a review by the Science System Advisory Group.

This selective approach could shift funding from essential scientific research to management strategies aimed at unrealistic commercial returns. Such moves could worsen the “pointless competition” that currently hampers the science sector. The NZAS highlighted concerns about the fragility of the system overall.

Judith Collins, the outgoing science minister, believes that the potential for profit from public research, particularly in fields like health and volcanology, has been underestimated. She asserts that health-related research could lead to significant financial gains. However, the review argues that relying on universities and research institutions to generate substantial income through intellectual property is unrealistic.

The report points out that only a handful of institutions globally make money through this avenue, usually from a few major deals. It criticizes New Zealand’s university commercialization offices for being overly protective and lacking the necessary understanding of business and industrial needs. As a result, many promising research projects are overlooked because of their perceived limited commercial potential.

Troy Baisden, co-president of the NZAS, suggests that policymakers must be overly optimistic to expect significant revenue from research commercialization. He believes this mindset reflects outdated approaches to modern challenges.

While the government has merged some research institutes to improve coordination, many valuable suggestions from the report, such as creating a standalone science ministry and a national research council, have been ignored. The government did support the formation of a Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council. However, the members selected for this council may focus more on business and commercialization than on scientific expertise, ignoring the report’s advice.

Concerns continue about the role of the prime minister’s chief science adviser, a position currently unfilled since mid-2024. Lucy Stewart, another NZAS co-president, argues this highlights the government’s priorities, showing that scientists are valued mainly for their revenue-generating potential and not for their broader contributions.

Stewart also expressed worries about the future for displaced staff from a research organization focused on innovation, as there is no funding set aside for new initiatives or merging research institutes. This has left many scientists feeling anxious about their future in the sector.

Source link