I posted this on Red Alert. Go to Red Alert to see the comments and post a comment if you wish to.
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!
1 Response
Despite the obvious potential for self interest, I’d like to make some contribution. The funding system as it is engenders a “best national (or international) team” approach by supporting the team/s that go closest to achieving this ideal. By way of evidence is the 35% (on average) of FRST revenue received by CRIs, that goes straight back out the door as subcontracts. The reality is that Universities and other research providers cannot put together the large trans-disciplinary teams required to address many of the major challenges confronting NZ because they either do not have the appropriate incentives in place to encourage team play as opposed to individual performance, or the scale within teams to contain the skills necessary. In either case, Universities or other non-CRI research providers conain pieces of the solution rather than an alternative solution per se.
The taskforce report implictly acknowledges this fact and goes a long way to articulating checks and balances that will reinforce CRIs as the princpal focus for solutions to critical, science-based challenges, and the key role that Universities and other non-CRI providers will play in addressing these. The current funding arrangements perpetuate the ongoing conest and division between these potential collaborators.
Posted on March 11th, 2010 at 2:27 am
Add A Comment