Comments on: Will the CRI Taskforce mean better science?

By: CRI Taskfore = Better Science? | David Shearer - Labour MP for Mt Albert

CRI Taskfore = Better Science? | David Shearer - Labour MP for Mt Albert — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:41:51 +0000

[...] posted this on Red Alert. Go to Red Alert to see the comments and post a comment if you wish [...]

By: Lucy Stewart

Lucy Stewart — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:23:49 +0000

Lengthening the funding period is definitely the way to go – one-year grants, which are the majority of them, are just nuts in terms of job stability and getting people focused on doing science.

The thing is, though, that science funding comes from a lot of different places (e.g. Marsden Fund, various medical research funds, Lotteries Commission) which are not necessarily government-controlled. So specifying that CRIs will get long-term funding does not necessarily mean that those other funding pools will change their grant lengths or amounts, or that they will be less available to non-CRI scientists – although this would depend greatly on the balance of independent vs. government-controlled grants, which I’m not too sure about. It really depends on the specifics of where the money is coming from and going.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:56:15 +0000

You could ask Peter Gluckman for some ideas.

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:30:28 +0000

Does more science mean that NIWA gives up its flash corporate offices in the most expensive part of Viaduct Harbour in Auckland. Surely the city fringe or even a suburban location could provide better value for the tax payers money.
This location and expensive fit smacks of ego for the top management.

This applies generally the the core public service, a good building doesnt mean the most expensive location

By: Spud

Spud — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:30:15 +0000

“But couldn’t those two requirements not be met simply by lengthening the funding period? That would also enable more strategic science.” – Agreed.