Retorts

Policies Defended

The article [The Din of Inequity, October 1992] links separate points in ways that create a misleading impression. To say that there was "dismay and dissension over the way in which the priority system was handled" is a matter of opinion, and one that is not shared by everyone. But to immediately follow that with "when, in May, the panel published its 135-page discussion paper...over 300 submissions were received" invites the conclusion that the submissions were all negative. In fact, many were positive or mixed in their response.

You have recycled some parallels between the priority-setting framework and process and planning in the Soviet Union and Albania. This tired line does not stand up to even half-serious scrutiny. I do not think that Josef Stalin or Enver Hoxha made policy by initiating a widespread consultation of sectors, establishing an independent committee, holding an open public forum in the government centre, issuing a discussion paper, receiving sumbmissions and releasing a final report. This was, however, the approach taken to setting long-term priorities for the [Public Good Science Fund].

And to those of your readers who think this process was all window-dressing, I would encourage them to think again. Although many of the key strategic directions remained robust from the time they were published in the Public Discussion Paper, the [Science and Technology Expert Panel] made substantial changes in its original position, based on public responses it received.

Your article misinterprets another STEP position, and serves only to reinforce a widespread and ill-founded prejudice that the Panel's recommendations have signalled a switch away from supporting fundamental research. The Panel did not "suggest limitations in research activities where exploitation is uncertain". This is perhaps a confusion of the Panel's views on the support of research in sectors whose prospects are uncertain.

Your article seems to suggest that scientists should simply be given the money to carry out the research that they consider important, perhaps with regard to the national interest -- perhaps not. This approach is not tenable, particularly in an environment where every other sector is being called on to be more accountable for the way in which the taxpayers' dollar is spent. Interestingly enough, it is not a position taken by most of the scientists I or my staff meet and talk with.

It has been acknowledged by both the Minister and MORST that there were shortcomings in [the last] process, particularly caused by time constraints due to the establishment of the Crown Research Institutes. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the outcomes of the process would have been much different had it taken place over a longer time. In any case, there would have been real difficulty in maintaining interest during many more months than the eight taken [last] year.

There has also been substantial comment on the suitablity of the 40-category framework as the basis for allocating science funding. Some of the comments have validity, although they could probably be made about any classification system. However, some form of framework is needed for allocating funds and translating government's strategic intentions into quantitative guidelines. The 40-category socio-economic classification will be reviewed...in time to provide input to the development of the next priority setting round to take place in 1995.

For all the real and perceived problems created by the timescale and science category framework, there has been widespread acceptance of the STEP's (now the Government's) strategic directions for the PGSF. There has not been such widespread approval of the funding consequences of those directions. Taken together, these reactions suggest that the strategies are sound.

As for the STEP itself, a deliberate decision was taken by the Government to appoint an independent panel. The Panel was appointed only after very considerable thought was given to its composition, and to achieve a good balance of differing perspectives and backgrounds. Key elements of the priority-setting framework, in particular the 40-output class classification, were made known from the very first meeting of the group. There was no compulsion for any member who disagreed strongly with the process to remain involved.

It is true that there were vigorous debates and disagreements within the Panel, as would be expected in dealing with such an issue of the scope faced by STEP. While some members may disagree with the collective conclusions, most are prepared to stand four-square behind the STEP's final recommendations.

Scientists and science managers can plan in confidence, knowing that the overall level of the PGSF will not be reduced, and that any increase in public good science funding will be applied to reinforce the clear directions now mapped out.

Basil Walker,
Chief Executive, MORST