I would like to introduce myself to members as the new President of NZIAHS. I feel highly privileged to be given this opportunity and will do my very best to work with the membership to advance the cause of agricultural and horticultural science in New Zealand.
So where to start? In this issue, following on the back of the recent Science Funding Forum at Lincoln University, I am going to bring up some of the key issues as I see them. I will start by asking a simple question: outside of the small, hard-working and often maligned science community, does anyone else in New Zealand actually now care about science? I suspect that most of us know the answer. I will accordingly be quite blunt in what I am about to say.
I believe that if we continue down the sorry pathway we are following as a country, we will be a third-world nation in no time. We could focus on such things as GDP growth (or lack thereof), low productivity, an investment culture that rewards those who buy rental properties as opposed to those who invest in R&D for their businesses, a poor savings record and spiralling debt (both public and private). But for the sake of not turning this into a book, I will focus on science and science-funding. In this respect, we fail on all fronts.
Let’s start with where young New Zealand scientists come from. Primary school interest in science is not just waning, but is dropping precipitously, and this is well documented. At secondary school, science is still taught, but the six science subjects are diluted by 28 others. And let’s be blunt: science is hard, so we know it isn’t going to be first choice for students. At the tertiary level, in the polytechnics, PTE’s and wananga, science is on the back foot and at the university level, science degree output is minor relative to the arts and liberal studies. Graduates in agriculture, forestry, horticulture and viticulture comprised 0.42% of our bachelor degree output in 2007 and there is no indication that things are improving. If this malaise in science education continues, we are in trouble, there is no doubting that.
How do we address this problem? Rather than following the woolly-headed free-market ideology that student-choice should direct education funding (the bums on seats approach), I suggest we get smarter and start to strategically invest in our future. If primary production is the basis of our economic well-being as a country (and that doesn’t seem to be in dispute), then our education system should be charged foremost with producing qualified people that serve the interests of the primary production sector.
However, to be fair to the young, why would you contemplate science as a career? If you are talented enough to get through the hard subjects at school and complete another minimum seven years of tertiary education, you might be lucky enough to pick up a post-doctoral position. Your starting salary will be at most $60,000 a year, admittedly better than the $51,000 starting salary for a police constable (and no I wouldn’t want that job). But that constable may not be much older than 18. You will likely be 25. What’s more, and again only if you are lucky, that post-doc may be for three years. That isn’t job security and job options at the end are very, very limited. Little wonder young scientists leave New Zealand.
Let’s find the source of the problem, though. Put simply, it is that we have under-funded science for years. With the much-lauded PGP in place, funding may approach 1.3% of GDP. Compare this with the USA’s 3% of GDP and Australia’s 2.1%. Bluntly, our funding commitment to science is appallingly low and has been for years, despite various changes of government. It is rumoured that the research, science and technology portfolio is considered an “easy ride” for a Minister, and I would suggest that previous Ministers have treated it as such. Take note Dr Mapp, you have an opportunity to turn things around that wasn’t taken by your predecessors.
In saying this, I am sure the Government’s response will be that the private sector in New Zealand is also a poor investor in RS&T (as if two wrongs make a right), witnessed recently by the failed wool-levy vote at Meat & Wool New Zealand. But let’s be blunt: if government isn’t prepared to back RS&T seriously in New Zealand, and show leadership, why should the private sector follow suit?
The argument may also be sustained that we cannot afford more RS&T because the public purse is empty. This is tosh, as we spend proportionately more of GDP on health and education than Australia, but nearly half as little on science. Australia is indeed the lucky country if you are a scientist!
So what came out of the forum? It was pleasing to see a realisation from Treasury that RS&T is an investment, although I detected that their thinking was very short-term. It may well be that increased spending in RS&T takes 20-30 years to create a “profit”, although Treasury’s own research would suggest that that profit is good when it comes. Picking winners is hard and it is a concern to me now that so many of those who manage and direct our country’s RS&T are business-people, lawyers and accountants by training, no doubt useful skills for making the books balance at year-end, but of how much value in ascertaining whether what is desirable (and I am sure we all have opinions on that), is actually achievable and over what time frame?
This brings me to my final gripe for this newsletter – the 9% annual return on equity expected from our CRIs. The arguments put forward to sustain this were weak. To argue that this ensures good financial management in CRIs is flawed, when so much of their income is fixed over a longer term by way of contract to FRST and others. Furthermore, the contracted income from FRST is not inflation-adjusted, so CRIs with a large proportion of FRST income will “automatically step backwards” annually. It could also be argued that if CRIs start to build this 9% into their contracting costs (and that would be smart) then it will in some cases be transferred directly to the private sector, a further disincentive to do research I would guess.
Finally, the argument that the 9% return will be re-invested is clearly nonsense. Where is the money being re-invested? An increase in funding to the CRIs each year? I think not!
I have only scratched the surface here and I see many challenges ahead!

Jon Hickford
President