NZSM Online

Get TurboNote+ desktop sticky notes

Interclue makes your browsing smarter, faster, more informative

SciTech Daily Review

Webcentre Ltd: Web solutions, Smart software, Quality graphics

Viewpoint

Hindsight 2010

Dr Martin Kennedy

There is a great deal of fuss these days, in scientific circles, concerning the way New Zealand science ought to look in the year 2010. As part of this process, called Foresight, we are all encouraged by the powers that be to imagine scenarios that we wish to come true, and then we can figure out just how to get there.

Sadly, like many of my colleagues, I have difficulty with this process because of some immediate issues that loom larger than anything we may imagine 12 years hence. Like the annual issue of whether there will be a job next year. Like the enormous disincentives offered bright students who may be interested in science, such as a huge debt and an insecure career with only moderate remuneration. Like the embarrassingly low science investment this country makes in contrast to other OECD nations.

Look beyond these negatives and "develop a desirable future" we're told by those science administrators with the least to lose from the continual restructuring that seems to propel any self-respecting bureaucracy. But somehow, Foresight brings out the pessimist in me. So, I'd like to present my scenario for 2010. It's not at all what I want, and I doubt you'd want it too. But we seem to have set sail for this very destination, and I think the rudder may be stuck on course. I call my scenario Hindsight 2010. It looks like this:

The increasing cost of tertiary education and poor career prospects started driving students away from science in the last years of the 1990s. There was little new blood entering the scientific sector, and the good graduates we produced were rapidly snapped up by more astute nations. The academic community agitated about these problems almost continually from the mid 1990s, but it wasn't until 2004 that the politicians really took notice.

In 2004, we started losing markets for our major export items. First, EC imports of New Zealand butter declined. The French had developed dairy herds that produced improved "specialty butters" with better nutritional qualities. This signalled a global trend, in which not only dairy but also meat, wool and other markets were increasingly captured by sophisticated products that were better and cheaper than ours.

By the end of 2008, our agricultural industries were heading for disaster and there was massive unemployment. All our major markets were captured by countries that had maintained a high level of investment in science and technology. Offshore genetically altered sheep, cattle and crops were the agricultural harbingers of our nation's doom. We simply didn't know how to compete. By 2010, our economy had collapsed and we were entirely dependent on Australian aid.

Sadly, our decline wasn't restricted to the agricultural sector. We learnt that not just the wealth of a nation but the health of its people is intimately linked to technological innovation. The collapse of our economy ended the era of effective public health care.

Without the money to buy innovative medical technology, our health service became increasingly dysfunctional. While the rest of the globe enjoyed the enormous benefits of preventative medicine churned out by the genomics revolution, our nation got sicker and sicker.

But it's not all bad. We can console ourselves with the knowledge that everything we grow and eat is clean, green and genetically unmodified. That is, those of us who can still afford to eat.

Is this New Zealand the way you want it in 2010? I think not. In hindsight, the message is clear. Increased investment in science and technology is not merely an option, it's our lifeline.

Dr Martin Kennedy works in the Cytogenetics and Molecular Oncology Unit, Christchurch School of Medicine.