The government has announced the largest reforms to NZ’s science sector in over three decades.
The seven Crown Research Institutes will be replaced by three Public Research Organisations (PROs) focusing on bio-economy, earth sciences, and health and forensic sciences, while an advanced technology PRO will focus on the likes of artificial intelligence, quantum and synthetic biology technologies. Callaghan Innovation is to be disestablished, with its key functions moved to other parts of the system.
A new Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council will provide strategic direction and identify economic opportunities, while a new agency, Invest New Zealand, will focus on foreign direct investment. The announcement also includes development of a national policy for managing Intellectual Property (IP).
The first report from the Science System Advisory Group (SSAG) has also now been made publicly available.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Media statement from Science New Zealand:
The Crown Research Institutes are very supportive of the government’s science system reforms. The current structure was designed 30 years ago and has served the country well in providing science that has set the foundation for much of New Zealand’s recent economic success, but it was time for change.
Science New Zealand was actively engaged in the work of the Science System Advisory Group, led by distinguished Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. It is gratifying to see decisions coming from that work, to give our scientists, technicians and support staff certainty that their work is valued.
Done well, these changes have the potential to enhance the system to drive New Zealand’s economic prosperity, and ensure precious funding is prioritised for work that will have an impact. It should also enable rapidly advancing tech innovations to drive the country’s future industries.
Chair of Science New Zealand, Dr Sue Bidrose says that “it was time for change in our sector, to better support and grow the critical science New Zealand needs for our next 30 years. Making these changes will enable greater collaboration between our science people, and that deliver great science for our industries and for the public good. We are delighted that the Crown Research Institutes that make up Science New Zealand will be integral to the transition process this year.”
Deputy Chair of Science New Zealand, Chelydra Percy, added that “we are working collaboratively with the government to create a science system that is fit for delivering new and impactful science for the next 30 years. Public good science really matters, as does science that supports the delivery of economic growth in an environmentally sustainable manner.”
Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President, New Zealand Association of Scientists, comments:
“The long-awaited release of the report on the future of our research system is now out, with an initial set of announcements related mainly to economic growth. Despite the report’s clear focus on getting the future “architecture” of our failing system right, the announcement doesn’t fully address the “lack of strategic oversight” and “lack of flexibility to address priorities” that drive the advice to Cabinet. These perspectives of the status quo are damning and NZAS agrees. However, the proposals to reform the oversight of science within a more focused ministry do not appear to have been taken up, or will require a long uncertain process.
“The steps taken from SSAG report appear at best to be SSAG-lite and an announcement about future announcements.
“The report by the SSAG, chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, correctly identifies we need to get the architecture right. We do run the risk that the reform stalls at the architecture of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
“Building better public research organisations that act in the public good rather than competing with each other is fundamentally good, and these can generally be applauded. The new institutions can better develop industrial strategies and missions that serve our nation and our sectors. But big questions remain.
“Is the only goal to continue to drain economic gain from the pool of knowledge developed over decades, without continuing to invest in either foundations or the pipes, composed of scientists and their careers through which knowledge flows?
“I’m concerned the unexplained delays reflect ongoing neglect of the research system. This approach will continue encouraging scientists to depart the nation and our children to avoid science careers. We can do better.
“Most concerningly, comparing the announcement and a first scan of the report raises concerns about the ongoing illusion that the pool of knowledge generated by science can be drained to fuel economic growth. Or as the report puts it (line 211), “The naive idea persists in the New Zealand ecosystem that exploitation of IP is how PRO’s and universities could generate significant income – this is just not the case globally.”
“We need to build rebuild foundations and connective infrastructure (essentially pipes). Even for the primary sector, it is unclear how improving vehicles for foreign investment will help. Why, when we invest so much less than peer nations, would foreign investors want to partner with us?
“Where will the funding to support research on hazards, climate change and health come from in the future?
“And equally importantly, why is conservation not packaged with earth sciences so the environment is considered as whole? Will there be mobility for research on conservation or land systems from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research into the earth sciences PRO? Will there be mobility for marine farming or fisheries research in NIWA into the bio-economy PRO?
“Forming sensible Public Research Organisations will help define the industrial strategies needed in some areas, whereas the approach to hazards, climate change and conservation will continue to struggle.
“Perhaps most importantly, what role and connectivity can be expected with universities? The announcements provide no comment that I can see. That’s particularly concerning given a history of successful research in technology within or moved into universities and excluded from the now defunct Callaghan Innovation.
“Many of the largest questions remain about “strategic oversight”: will the current oversight buried deep with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment be remodelled over time by the Advisory Council being set up, as the SSAG report recommends? Until these questions and others are answered, today’s announcement provides a few answers and at least as much uncertainty as hope.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Michael Baker, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, comments:
“I am pleased to see that this reform includes retention of a public research organisation (PRO) with a focus on health (Health and Forensic Science Services).
“Based on the limited information released so far, it is not clear whether its role will be very different to the current crown research institute (CRI) Environmental Science and Research (ESR) that it replaces. Retaining this focused role indicates good support for the critical role that science plays in protecting health and the quality of our environment.
“This role was well demonstrated by New Zealand’s highly effective response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The importance of building and maintaining public health science capabilities and capacity was strongly supported by the recently released Royal Commission of Inquiry Report into our Covid-19 response.
“It is also important to remember that improving health, wellbeing, and equity has economic value. Interventions like vaccination and outbreak prevention and control are highly cost effective. These activities need to be supported with a well-resourced science strategy, institutions, workforce, and infrastructure.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Kyle Higham, Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, comments:
“The recommendations of the SSAG report and the associated announcement on reforms to the science system, and my response to them, can be split into two parts: those that the government acknowledges and plans to implement in upcoming reforms, and those that are not acknowledged at all.
“The proposed reforms, to the government’s credit, implicitly acknowledge that the science system changes since the late 1980s have not worked for New Zealand. Moving CRIs away from a commercial model toward a single agency aligns with evidence on maximizing societal benefits from public research. Similarly, re-establishing a dedicated science ministry is a sensible move; folding the Ministry of Science and Innovation into MBIE always seemed questionable given science’s unique role in the economy.
“However, in my view, the proposed reforms overly focus on productivity. While science, innovation, and productivity are linked, these connections are complex, long-term, and hard to measure.
“Excessive management undermines science’s purpose—strategic goals should focus on the long term, with autonomy for researchers to ensure public funding delivers maximum impact. As such, short-termism remains a key concern and is currently exacerbated by over-reliance on industry funding. Now, the government is suggesting that these new public research organisations be “more dynamic and responsive to government priorities,” which appears to be at odds with the renewed focused on long-term strategic goals. Further, while the commercialization of science, and subsequent economic impact, is important, achieving it takes decades and sustained support. How will this be managed and measured? Are these long lags between investment and outcome politically viable?
“Similarly, careful consideration is needed for how a Prime Minister’s Science, Technology, and Innovation Advisory Council is convened. Long-term science strategy should not be subject to political whims or dominated by hand-picked advisors. While input from business leaders is valuable to align science with industry needs, there is a risk of vested interests reinforcing reliance on established industries, limiting innovation and economic diversification.
“Of potentially greater concern is the lack of acknowledgement of the most obvious constraint on the performance of New Zealand’s science system: resourcing. What we really need is more researchers, and more resources for those researchers, in conjunction with the freedom to pursue high-potential projects that drive economic impact. While the Prime Minister cited Denmark as a model for scientific success in his state of the nation address, New Zealand’s public research spending is about half that of Denmark (as a percentage of GDP). Chronic under-investment is a key bottleneck that the proposed changes fail to address, and which the authors of the SSAG report have taken pains to emphasize. Without significant funding increases, systemic reforms are unlikely to improve outcomes nor increase returns on our current science investments.
“Simply put, these proposed reforms are akin to trying to make more lemonade by squeezing used lemons slightly harder, rather than investing in more lemons. I hope to be proven wrong by Budget 2025.
“Finally, and most importantly, there is stark difference in the framing of the proposed reforms when compared to the SSAG report with respect to those working in the science system. In fact, the stated reforms are almost entirely focused on how the science sector (that is, scientists) can be used as a tool for economic growth. When researchers are acknowledged, it is in the context of incentives to commercialise discoveries. It does not appear that the government to intends address equity, precarity, or viability of long-term employment in the science sector, all of which would have significant impacts on the performance of the system, even when this performance is measured in purely economic terms.”
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
Professor Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments:
“Today’s announcement is long overdue and not unwelcome. My biggest concern about the planned reforms is far less the intent than the implementation.
“The mooted reforms have a chance of working and may take us in the right direction. But in order for this to be possible I see two necessary conditions: more resource for the sector to assist with the costs of implementation, and a commitment from policy makers to work with scientists in order to ensure these changes can be implemented as efficiently as possible.
“I implore this government and MBIE to understand that the real work starts now and with us.”
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
Dr Sereana Naepi, Associate Professor Sociology, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland, and Rutherford Discovery Fellow, comments:
“The Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Council presents a unique opportunity to strategically address the retention of top talent in New Zealand.
“They have the opportunity to establish a comprehensive National Early Career Researcher Plan that could tackle not only the challenges of today but also future demographic and qualification shifts, ensuring sustained excellence in our Science, Innovation, and Technology (SI&T) sector.
“Economic growth is the anchoring argument for this rethink – it is crucial to adopt a broad economic perspective. Poor social cohesion can negatively impact economic stability, which underscores the importance of addressing how the SI&T sector can adapt to increasing environmental, resource, and equity challenges while fostering societal harmony.
“The concerns raised by the SSAG (Science Sector Advisory Group) about Māori and Pacific workforce futures and demographic shifts remain largely unaddressed. This is particularly pressing in light of the Marsden Fund’s decisions, which will significantly hinder Pacific research development.
“I remain hopeful that future announcements will address these gaps and ensure more inclusive workforce planning for a resilient SI&T sector.
“There are opportunities to do this, for instance how can the public research organisations focused on Advanced Technology collaborate with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to fulfil aspirations for greater Pacific representation in the SI&T sector?”
Conflict of interest statement: “Current member of Science Board but not commenting in that capacity.”
Dr Lucy Stewart, Co-President, New Zealand Association of Scientists, comments:
“This long-delayed announcement will do little to address the concerns of researchers and scientists which were raised across 2024.
“It is entirely focused on commercialisation and commercial benefits from science and technology, announces no new funding for local research, (instead talking about ‘maximising the value’ of existing funding and attempting to attract private investment), and disestablishes the sole Government institution that was focused on advanced technology research and commercialisation in favour of setting up new institutions.
“In the Science System Advisory Group Report, four kinds of research are identified: stewardship research, policy-focused research, knowledge-generating research, and exploitable research. This announcement is entirely focused on the last item in this list.
- Where is there space in this new structure for environmental and social science research?
- Where is the support or interest in ‘public good’ research – research that provides answers that benefit our society and nation but does not necessarily (or ever) lead to the ability to make a profit, instead delivering benefits like risk reduction?
- Where is any understanding that our science system has been critically underfunded for decades?
“The message to scientists from this government is clear: they are expected to be a source of revenue rather than working for the public good, and anything they do that isn’t directly linked to economic gain is of little interest.
“It is also fairly incredible for the government to assert that we need to attract more ‘skilled individuals’ to New Zealand when we know researchers are being made redundant and leaving the country in large numbers due to this government’s actions.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Also spokesperson for the Save Science Coalition.”