Editorial: How good are science reforms?

In theory the idea of merging the ag related science institutes into one conglomerate has merit. Will this avoid duplication? – one hopes so. Will the money given to the new PRO be better spent and will it result in reduced overheads? – again in theory yes or is that a maybe?

There are some good aspects to the reforms including removing the ban on gene technology and setting up an organisation to get more investment into the science sector.

While the narrative around the announcement has a good feel about it, its actions not words that will determine success and we have yet to be told what this restructuring will cost. We have also got to get proof that the system will be streamlined so that scientists don’t spend days writing up bids for money for their projects. The present system according to many scientists’ reeks of unnecessary bureaucratic complexity. Many CRI’s have whole departments dedicated to dealing with bids for what sometimes is for small sums of money.

So why wasn’t MBIE, the science funder reviewed at the same time?

Science is the key to the success of our primary sector and it’s adoption by farmers, growers and supporting industries. That can only happen when the science is communicated well and made relevant to them. Back in the 1970’s and 80’s NZ this was very good at this, but over time the close connection between farmers and industry and scientists has somewhat faded.

The late Professor Alan MacDiarmid, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry, once told me that there was no point in doing science unless it is communicated properly. Will these reforms deliver that – who knows?

Peter Burke is the founder and life member of Science Communicators Association of NZ and has worked as a journalist in the primary and science sectors for more than 50 years