GIGO

Science Funding

Everybody has wish lists for Christmas or resolutions of some sort for the New Year. Odds on they're related to or restricted by a shortage in funds of some sort or other.

It's a common problem. Researchers need funds to employ a vital technician or postgraduate student, money to finance the basic tests and processes, capital to purchase or hire equipment. It's a difficult thing to encourage someone -- anyone -- to pay for much of the scientific activity in this country.

Part of the problem stems from the pragmatic desire to see quick results, a return on investment and the practical applicability of research. How on earth will studying skinks help humanity? Why should someone be paid to watch for micrometeors? Of what benefit is a better understanding of how fish hearts work?

Contrary to received wisdom, science doesn't proceed along a pathway from A to B to C, but hops, skips and sometimes somersaults its way along. Fund an esoteric branch of nuclear physics and you end up with the development of computer circuitry. Those scientists were out to count nuclear particles, not establish a billion-dollar industry and change the way the world works.

Give a mathematician the time and money to fiddle about with the inner workings of some basic mathematical equations and you end up with a new means of producing special effects for George Lucas -- as well as the idea behind this month's cover of the New Zealand Science Monthly.

Ask a scientist what they would like for Christmas and many would cheerfully welcome the time and money to potter around with a pet project. Often the amounts involved are not even particularly large -- it's the thought that counts.

Overseas, some of the larger corporations do this for their research staff. There isn't necessarily the expectation that they'll produce something the company can market in the following year, just a commitment to exploration and experimentation for its own sake. Who knows what might turn up?

Science is full of discoveries that came about as the product of serendipitous accidents combined with researchers who were able to take the time to look anew at their results. Fleming's discovery of penicillin and Plunkett's production of teflon are but two such events.

The days of the independently funded scientist are long past. Percival Lowell may have been able to indulge his passion for astronomy by tapping the family fortune to build an observatory in the desert, but not even a Rockefeller could put a Hubble telescope into orbit. The demands of much of modern science are too great for any one chequebook.

Perhaps science, like many of us at this time of year, follows the adage of Samuel Butler: All progress is based on a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.