Retorts

STEP Funding

As one of the convenors who assembled and presented information for the STEP process, I would agree with a number of the points made in Dr Walker's response [Retorts, February 1993] (which I have just seen) to the article "The Din of Inequity" [October 1992], though not with all, by any means. Some of the criticisms that I and other convenors have made have been taken on board, I believe; next time round it is to be hoped that the timeframe will be extended, and the classification system changed to acknowledge that serendipity does not thrive within somewhat inflexible boundaries.

As a concept, using an independent expert panel to listen to presentations by convenors acting as promoters and defending counsel for areas of science, and then to decide the allocations of limited funds, has merit. To some extent, it harks back to the "three wise men" principle on which science funding used to be allocated in New Zealand, and should (if the concept is to gain confidence) avoid hidden agendas by bringing all of the lobbying out into the open.

The process was not quite as independent as Dr Walker implies, since MoRST insisted on being involved in the debate to avoid outcomes it was claimed could be undesirable from a political standpoint, without publishing (at least to convenors) all of the rules that it was obviously setting. Also, rumours abound on the lobbying and in-fighting that occurred between the issue of the STEP recommendations and the publication by MoRST of Investing in Science for Our Future. The final part of the process lacked a significant degree of transparency, to adopt jargon more popular with economists than scientists.

Nonetheless, for a first attempt to introduce a rational allocation process, and signal on a long-term basis where science funding will go, MoRST deserves more credit than blame. There are serious unresolved questions--for example, with a science community as small as New Zealand's, how on earth can an expert panel be selected which is knowledgeable and up to date over the entire range of science, and whose members are disinterested in the outcome for their own future? Pick the panel, and the direction of change can be predicted. The Ministry, with its own politically-driven agenda, cannot possibly be expected to be an unbiased selector or unbiased referee able to cry "Foul!"

My major problem with the process, however, begins with Dr Walker's remark that scientists cannot be given money to carry out the research that they consider important, since they may, or may not, have regard for the national interest.

Perhaps the members of the STEP panel can judge what science is in the national interest, but should politicians and bureaucrats be able to override the panel? Or set hidden agendas that may invalidate the input by convenors and the deliberations of the panel?

Looking back at scientific achievements that have turned out to be very much in the national interest, and there are many examples, would the process that we now have in place have funded even a small proportion of the successes? Would the present process perhaps have discriminated in favour of a large proportion of the failures? We need to find out, because if the failures would have been funded in preference to the successes, we have put the wrong mechanisms in place.

P. Waring, Wainuiomata