Feature

The Din of Inequity?

Few people, it seems, are happy with the process or the results of STEP's determination of science priorities.

By Vicki Hyde, NZSM

In seven short months, the 15 members of the Science and Technology Expert Panel (STEP) have discussed and developed major recommendations concerning the priorities that are to govern New Zealand public-funded research over the next five years.

The process has not been without controversy, both within the panel membership and without. The panel was faced with what some felt was an artificial need for speed in making their recommendations. They were given a set of definitions and structures which constrained how they approached the problems involved. Having only their expenses covered and not the considerable amount of time involved didn't help either.

One panel member expressed dissatisfaction with the extremely difficult undertaking, calling it a "bloody awful" experience and indicating grave misgivings with the procedure as a whole.

Outside the panel, there was dismay and dissension over the way in which the priority selection was handled. In May, the panel published its 135-page discussion paper containing its initial recommendations, and received over 300 submissions from a broad range of scientific organisations, professional groups, universities, companies and individual researchers.

The panel's convenor, Basil Walker of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, acknowledged that the time pressure "strained the ability of the participants in the science system to produce information and for consultation to be as wide as we would have liked".

The New Zealand Association of Scientists noted that the rush had no justification, particularly given the major risk of error in pushing such an important project through.

Despite the on-going debate, science minister Simon Upton says that "the government is now considering the panel's report with a view to setting a long-term priorities statement to guide allocation of the public good science fund (PGSF)".

Is 5 Years Long Term?

The usage of three-year and five-year periods as "long term" for science priorities has not been widely welcomed. Panel members say that the definition of five years as "long term" was something which they were given at the start of their deliberation, and did not appear to be negotiable.

The government had decided on the five-year scheme at the end of last year, and indicated that the five-year priorities exercise would be repeated at three year intervals. The panel's report noted that annual updates may continue to be necessary.

Such an approach, according to the panel's final report, allows for "the long-term nature of science, while providing for the flexibility needed for adjustments to be made as circumstances change".

"Priority setting on this scale has not been attempted before in New Zealand, and has few counterparts elsewhere on a national scale," says Walker.

Professor Geoff Austin, of Auckland University, believes he has seen a similar exercise, finding it "very reminiscent of the infamous Soviet 5-year plans." Professor Peter Bergquist, the university's deputy vice-chancellor, considers it "more suited to a small Eastern-bloc country like Albania than a vigorous democracy" using "rigid and backward-looking output classes".

"I fear that their intellectual limitations will constrain research until at least the end of the century," he told Auckland science graduands.

Researchers are concerned that fewer graduates will be taking up science careers in New Zealand. They say that limited funding timeframes makes it less likely that postgraduates will be able to undertake research necessary for qualifications.

"How can you take on a postgrad with a three-year project when you only have a year's worth of funding?" asks one researcher exasperatedly.

Put Out by Outputs

The output classes, developed by MORST in 1990, provided a real headache for the STEP panel. Forty separate areas have been put into place as a basis for sorting out funding applications. They cover a broad range of subjects, such as sheep production (Output Class 1), materials and industrial processing (Output Class 16), urban and rural planning (Output Class 24), and fundamental knowledge (Output Class 36).

Trying to juggle funding for outputs as diverse as geological structures and dairy processing has been likened to comparing chalk and cheese. MORST priorities and funding manager Mike Doig told the recent AIC conference on research and technology that the allocation of resources has been "an interesting and challenging problem", noting the disparate fields involved.

One panel member said that they were told that some form of framework was needed for accounting purposes, but added that the 40 outputs made it virtually impossible to work with. The panelist went on to compare the output system with 19th-century reductionism that has long been abandoned outside the bureaucratic arena.

"It is a framework designed by economists for economists," charges Dr John Peet, a Canterbury University engineering lecturer and panel member. "It has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific research."

The complexity of the output structure saw the panel initially group the 40 different areas into eight aggregates, later extending this to 15, to make the decision-making process more manageable. They recommended flexibility of funding within the aggregates, but not across them.

Brett Leyton, a HortResearch board member, suggests that identifying broad areas of desired research is a far more effective and efficient approach than getting stuck into inappropriate detail. A recent workshop on priority setting strongly supported this, charging that the complexity of the bureaucratically inspired system is causing more harm than good.

Austin notes that a similar set of "strategic grants" were applied to university research in Canada, resulting in less published research, fewer patents and a reduced number of commercially significant outcomes for the money spent than under the traditional peer-reviewed system.

The panel felt constrained to suggest limitations on research activities where exploitation is uncertain, given the low level of public science funding. Instead, they want to see more emphasis on improving performance where structures and strategies for development, production and marketing are already in place.

"New Zealand must selectively support science in those areas which are of critical importance, and where research results can most readily be exploited," the panel's report says.

"The history of science leads me to believe that the establishment of the optimum strategic plan is an impossible task," Austin says. He cites the totally unpredictable development of ceramic high-temperature superconductors.

"It is very unlikely any committee of politicians, or any committee of distinguished scientists politicians might choose to appoint, is going to be able to predict with any degree of skill where scientific discoveries are going to be made," Austin maintains.

He suggests that the strategic framework and output class structure should be dropped in favour of encouraging original creative scientific research, a strategy he says yields the best value for money for government-funded science.

Bergquist supports the creation of a strong scientific community through long-term funding for top research groups as assessed by peer review. He also warns that apparently irrelevant science may ultimately have far greater significance for technology and commercialisation than mediocre research in the most relevant perceived outcome areas.

What Gets Priority?

"A national science agenda cannot favour all scientific opportunities," the panel's discussion paper notes.

Owen Jennings of Federated Farmers called the discussion paper the work of "bearded, balding, woolly-woofters wearing horn-rimmed glasses", in response to a recommended drop in farm production research.

Many areas are already lobbying for a reassessment of the priorities. Some areas have greater advantage, being more organised for such lobbying attempts. Jim Kerr of HortResearch acknowledges that his institute expects strong support from big producer boards in pushing for more funding in their output areas.

The institutes involved in fundamental research are not so fortunate. Managers and scientists from the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, Landcare Research and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences are all concerned that their projects are vulnerable to economically driven imperatives.

National databases and scientific collections do not have any immediately obvious economic benefit, and researchers are concerned that their up-keep and accessibility will suffer. The panel said that it was necessary to "place lower emphasis on maintaining general information bases in the natural sciences in the face of short-term funding restrictions, so that research directly related to economic performance can be enhanced".

Researchers say that the danger in the leave-it-till-later approach is that the facilities and the people to operate them may no longer be there.

The panel's suggestion that the country should accept greater risks -- such as from incomplete knowledge of hazards from natural phenomena -- for short-term economic gain has also raised eyebrows.

Climate change research can involve intergenerational research, according to meteorologist Dr Jim Salinger, who warns that decision makers should be aware of the dangers of not supporting long-term research. Austin sees the idea as an extraordinary statement which suggests that "we are to build hydro dams with much reduced safety margins from flood failure provided there is even some small profit to be made".

The panel did show some flexibility in responding to such concerns. Initially, funding for Antarctic research came in for drastic cuts of 36%, but this was scaled back to 6% when strong submissions were made that such cuts would jeopardise the continuation of the programme as a whole.

Proposed funding for the social science outputs has benefited most greatly. The panel noted that "the importance of social science has been seriously underestimated, especially its contribution to better economic performance". Consequently they recommended a 179% increase in funding, to just over $4 million. Four output classes are in this aggregate, including political and economic relationships and relationships and well-being.

Ideally, the panel would like to see an increase in science funding of a minimum of 5% per annum over the next five years, and they have prepared recommendations dealing with that scenario.

"[The panel] feels that this higher scenario is absolutely essential if New Zealand is to achieve an internationally competitive industry while ensuring the continuation of important information-based research and retention of essential scientific skills," it said.

The report added that the panel was convinced from submissions received that substantial research, contributing to economic growth and better social and environmental conditions, would go unfunded if there was no increase.

On this point, there appears to be no argument.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.