Does long-term vision have a future?

OVER THE FENCE - BY JON MORGAN

OPINION: Changes to the way science research is funded are in the wind. It seems the broom the Government is sweeping through Wellington bureaucracy is taking a turn through the corridors of the science agencies.

And not before time, many scientists are saying.

So far, the broom's bristles are only being lightly felt. The principal funding agency, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, which allocates $500 million a year, has set up an advisory committee of scientists to look at simplifying the system.

It is a system long-criticised for its competitive nature that sets scientist against scientist in a battle for limited funds. Agriculture is the country's biggest science investment and there is a big chance that we are missing out many worthwhile projects that could enhance our prosperity. So the critics say.

Aggravating this is the Government's requirement that Crown research institutes make a profit. Their focus is on short-term research and on running their own consultancies so they can return a dividend. Their boards are stuffed with accountants and business managers from which have come recent merger proposals - of HortResearch with Crop and Food Research, now complete, and of AgResearch with Lincoln University, still in the pipeline.

The long-term research that has the potential to produce the biggest rewards has suffered. There's some still going on, most notably the animal methane project, but the money is hard to come by.

To me this is the biggest tragedy of the competitive model. Long- term - say 15-20 years - research can begin quite speculatively and a certain amount of faith in our science ability is needed. But without it we wouldn't have many of the science results that has made the New Zealand agriculture and horticulture industries the world leaders - and money-makers - they are.

New sweet and crunchy apples, high-performing grasses and clovers and fertile sheep have all taken many years to develop.

The AR1 endophyte ryegrass is a prime example. It was 15 years before the right disease-resistant variety could be isolated and another five years before it was commercially released. The saving in having staggers-free animals is put at well over $100 million and the extra production - an incidental discovery not anticipated at the outset - has added tens of millions to the country's earnings.

Today, it is doubtful whether approval for that project would make it through the funding system. Even if it did, the scientists administering it would have to take time away from their research to write progress reports every few months.

This is the sort of bureaucracy the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology committee is looking closely at.

There's concern that senior scientists are spending too much time writing bids for work they will never get to do. Some proposals don't get past a first screening by their employer before going before the foundation or other agencies. They have a one-in- 10 chance of being successful, according to the Institute of Agriculture and Horticultural Science Institute president John Lancashire.

Mr Lancashire, a member of the foundation committee, is scathing in his criticism.

"Even in the most competitive country on Earth, the United States, the success rate is 20-25 per cent. That a silly little country like New Zealand is putting its scientists through this is beyond belief."

Perhaps surprisingly, he does not think this is contributing to a brain drain of scientists. About half the scientists who leave come back and their replacements are overseas-educated people who bring valuable expertise with them. "Rather than a brain drain I'm much more concerned with brain waste. Peoples' brains are not being used to do science but to cope with a very bureaucratic funding system."

He says the system is stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. It has also created too much competition between the Government science agencies and private science companies. However, he doesn't think a complete overhaul is needed.

"I think most scientists would say competition for funding is not a bad thing. It's just the lengths that they have to go to. There's a general acceptance that there should be more long-term funding and that it should be negotiated rather than competitively funded."

That would leave the private sector to do the short-term science. "That's the role they want. If you had a true partnership, the Government would fund the long-term stuff and the private the short- term. I think that's a good model."

- © Fairfax NZ News