Reaction to the CRI Taskforce appears generally positive, especially amongst those working in CRIs. There is, however, quiet disquiet amongst some in non-CRI research institutions and of course universities. I’m less interested in institutions, but more interested in what is best for NZ science and NZ itself.
The first major recommendation – relaxing the stipulation that CRIs make a profit – seems sensible. CRIs should be creating value for NZ, not for themselves. They should wash their own faces, be self sustaining. But CRI scientists doing research offshore to enable that CRI make a profit is of no value to NZ.
But the other major recommendation – to grant CRIs more long term funding – raises important questions if the overall aim is to fund excellent science and NZ’s best scientists. It is accepted that science needs long term time horizons and scientists shouldn’t spend their lives filling out funding application forms. But couldn’t those two requirements not be met simply by lengthening the funding period? That would also enable more strategic science.
The CRI Taskforce recommendation essentially means shifting funding from a contestable pool into the CRIs with the aim that this increased share will lead to better science with all the spinoffs around innovation that we anticipate. We’re not sure yet what indicators will be used to measure that excellence within the CRIs, that will come later.
The opportunity cost is that this funding will not be available to scientists not part of the CRI system. Some scientists will not receive funding though their work might be better. My question is whether this move, therefore, lifts science excellence.
Of course the easy answer is more money for everyone, but that’s not the question, nor from the sound of it is new money a very likely prospect. It will provide job security and institutional stability for CRIs – a legitimate issue – and perhaps too what the Taskforce was thinking.
This is not to take a CRI side or a university one. Both have outstanding scientists. (I’ve noticed a tendency to type-cast as a supporter of one or the other). My motivation is to see the best science done for the greatest benefit of NZ. I’m at a loss to see how that necessarily follows from this part of the CRI Taskforce.
But maybe I’m missing something here, I’m happy to stand corrected – please fill me in!
“But couldn’t those two requirements not be met simply by lengthening the funding period? That would also enable more strategic science.” – Agreed.
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
You could ask Peter Gluckman for some ideas.
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.
[...] posted this on Red Alert. Go to Red Alert to see the comments and post a comment if you wish [...]