Richard Easther: Auckland University physics professor on the potential impact of the Government's proposed changes to the science sector

Published Jan 25, 2025, 10:20 PM

The Government's proposed changes to the science sector have raised a few eyebrows among the nation's scientific community.

The Government aims to merge seven Crown Research Institutes into three public research organisations - and creating another focused on AI. 

It's also closing Callaghan Innovation, impacting about 355 staff. 

Auckland University professor Richard Easther says this is a significant upheaval - and it raises plenty of questions.

"The challenge here, I think, is that they want to bring out major changes in the way these organisations are structured. But that's going to cost money and there's no clarity about where the money to do this is going to come from."

LISTEN ABOVE

You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin from News Talks EDB.

So this week we had major changes to the science sector announced by the government, one of the hopes being the reforms will boost the economic performance of the industry. There has however, been concerned in science circles with the announcement bringing no additional funding, including funding to implement the plane the planned changes. So will the changes boost economic performance and can the science sector function and implement these changes on current funding. To discuss this, I'm joined by the Auckland University professor Richard Ester. He's with me now. Good morning, Richard, thank you for your time.

And good morning.

So tell me will these reforms help to boost the economic performance of the sector.

They might think it's probably there, Huns and I think it's good to take a step back and say that, you know, everybody who works in science, I think believes that what they do should you contribute to the well being of society. And obviously that you know that's bordered in the economy itself, but there is a shared goal, you know, making a positive contributions. I think the problem here is that it is quite a big up people, not for science necessarily as a whole immediately, although there are more things coming, but in particular focuses on the shape of the Crown Research Institutes. And the thing that strikes me looking at this is that, you know, everyone thinks, oh, you know, science should contribute to the economy. But the Crown Research Institute were formally at DSIR, you know, which all the people might remember from when they were kids, and that was broken up to form the CRIS and the attire was founded in nineteen twenty six to boost the economy. So it's science isn't boosting the economy. It's not because we don't want it to do that. It's because we haven't figured out how to make that work. So the devil is very much in details. And so the challenge here, I think is that they want to bring about major changes in the way these organizations are structured, but that's going to cost money and there's no there's no clarity about where the money to do that it's going to come from.

Is the economic performance of science harder to determine than other sectors?

It is?

I mean, I think, particularly in New Zealand, I think the government of successive governments have taken a very narrow view of what counts's economic performance. Oh, you know, we fund this and we get that, whereas a lot of times if you look at really big success stories and science, you know, we funded one thing, we got another thing, and that leads to something else, and that leads to something else, and it's you know, it's two or three, something else is down the line that is actually the thing that makes a huge difference. So a case and points in New Zealand is, you know, one of our biggest science stories right now is that there are people in upper huts who are trying to build a nuclear fusion reaction, like a working nuclear fusion reactor, which is an awesome story and something that we also should feel proud that we're able to do in New Zealand. But the special source that goes into that is actually sort of magnet technology that was started here in the nineteen nineties, and so it turns out we're particularly good at making a particular kind of magnet. And then people who found that that in the nineteen nineties were certainly not thinking about, you know, nuclear fusion in the twenty twenties. And I think that that long an unexpected way that science can love a value. There's something that something that is frequently left out.

So research it can take a lot of time in some cases, and the benefit isn't always immediate.

So yeah, and the bigger the benefit and the more profound the change, often the longer it's going to take.

Have this government and previous governments given the sect or what it needs when it comes to funding. Is science valued enough in New Zealand?

I mean, I think there's a kind of New Yark reaction here, which is, you know, an any people working in pretty much any job, including I'm sure news would say, oh, yes, you know, we would do more with you, would do better worth more resource. I think, so I want to avoid simply simply saying that. On the other hand, if you look at the way that science is funded in New Zealand by buying industry and by government, we're definitely at a very low end the total economy, you know, relatives to the countries that we would like to compare ourselves to, you know, say Finland or a Singapore or someone like that. So I think I think it is true that science has has been doing a lot with less in New Zealand and so it's hard to necessarily see how you'll get more productivity without without more inputance.

But that was my experience. So can we do more with less?

I think, I think there are questions. I mean one of the biggest things for me gets back to the short termism of a lot of government thinking around science, and that is that you know, if we if we are resource constrained, then the most important thing is that we make good decisions about where to spend our resource. And so the reform that we're announced recently, you know, part of a much bigger package of reform DAN has been put together by the Science Sector Advisory Group, and so they're talking, for instance, about having a Ministry of Science which is separate from IMBIG, which is you know, which was swallowed up by MB when it was set up. And I think that, for instance, would be critical. I think MB doesn't necessarily make good decisions about the way that resources are allocated, and in some cases it's made I think, very poor decisions. And I think if there was more collaborations between ministry officials in a new ministry and expertise in the science sector, I think that would lead to better outcomes and would be probably closer to what we see in countries than do do this this more successfully?

So is that what's kind of needed for this particular restructured to work, because we've we've restructured and changed the sector before. But you know, we've got to learn from from that process, don't we I went right, and what you know, how it improved things and how things sort of didn't.

Improve and looking and I think looking at other places that are doing a better job, I think I think would be critical. And I think I think part of it is just as a often a lack of trust between government and the science sector, so they turn everything into a into a competition, and we spent a lot of time from meeting with each other sometimes rather than getting things done, which is not always productive.

Richard, there's a lot of talk about what the Science System Advisory Group report called exploitable research. But will we still be focusing as well on stewardship research and policy focused research and knowledge knowledge generating research.

I think it's I mean, I think the exploitable research is often very short term, but I mean, you know, if you have someone who comes up, you know with a better brig of kiwi fruit for instance, I mean that is undoubtedly something that that there you know, that topic sector science is working on. You know how you said that relative to somebody who does a better job of understanding this quackris And both of those things are critical to the economy. But one of them is, you know, buying insurance in some sense, and the other one is making a positive investment. And so I think it is it is it is dangerous to be chasing those short term wins. And the other question is is the shorter term becomes the more you would expect industry to be investing in that. You know, so there's a very clear return and you know the risk is accessible. Then that is you know that that is an area where you would expect the private sector to be come investing with government, whereas in many cases government will be expected to invest in things where you can't immediately identify where the benefit it's going to be.

Right, Well, what's how science been like compared to other countries?

Low And there's a very nice thing to download the report. There's a graph therest most of the countries to the left of us, and you know, and then they're categorizing both private sector and public sector investment in science. The countries of the sort of the wrong side of us on both of those numbers, and generally places that we wouldn't want to emulate.

Richard, I've heard from a few people in science who've made the comment over the last year that they didn't feel that Judith Collins had a huge amount of enthusiasm for science. How do you feel about Shane Retti?

I think that's a complex question, and firstly the to the I mean, Collins is enormously enthusiastic. I sung at times it was clear that she wasn't you know, that that she'd spoken to someone who told us something and she'd been enthusiastic about it, but she didn't she doesn't know. She's also has you know, portfolios that bring her legal experience to bear, and it's clear there that she has, you know, a greater depth of knowledge and experience. So I think she was definitely enthusiastic, but I didn't always see the sort of deep judgment that I might have wanted. I mean, really has a background in science, you know, or the broadly speaking as a medical professional. You know, he's spent time and then the elite institutions overseas that that generally do science in a positive way, so we would be hoping.

I think Richard really appreciate your time this morning. Thank you so much. That was Augland University Professor Richard Easter.

There.

For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen Lived News Talks that'd be from nine am Sunday, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.