Retorts

Threat to Pure Science

Scientists say that research funding criteria emphasise short-term, get-rich-quick economic gain at the expense of research that could benefit the country in the future. Government guidelines require projects to be tactically relevant, with an identifiable end-user.

This requires scientists to know what their research will discover before they start it, which encourages mediocrity. However, as Estelle Sarney commented in the New Zealand Herald [October 31, 1996], "many of the greatest scientific advances have been achieved through pure serendipity during long-term research".

Scientists have given the commercial model of crown research institutes their best effort but have not been able to make it work, said one scientist whose job is on the chopping block.

"I think that we have given it a very good try," says geologist Hamish Campbell, who has been with GNS and the DSIR for 18 years.

He and 21 others would not be facing dismissal if the institute had won the big contracts that it had chased. "We have been on the brink of several multi-million dollar jobs that have failed." These included a contract to map Tanzania, which the institute lost to Sweden because it lacked experience in mapping Africa; a seismic hazard assessment of potential dam sites in South East Asia and a seismic monitoring system for Thailand because the quotes were too high.

He and other scientists had "whole-heartedly embraced" the commercial imperative, which they had regarded as a bold experiment, Dr Campbell says. "We have made great efforts to secure contracts, but the response has been limited. We have had to put a lot of money up front to extend ourselves, but the returns so far have not covered expenses."

A forgotten warning: Lord Rutherford said of bureaucrats and scientists that it is essential for men of science to take an interest in the administration of their own affairs or else the professional (un)civil servant will step in, and then the Lord help you.

Versatile ComputeResearch, Auckland