Totally Underwhelming

By John Pickering 25/07/2013

What do you get when you cross dozens of New Zealand’s best scientists with a myriad of Ministry officials?  The answer is the underwhelming reports from the 10 June workshops of the National Science Challenges. If every there was need for proof that science by committee does not work, here it is.  Each report consists of a series of power point slides with dot points. About 3 slides for each challenge pertain to confirming or changing the pre-workshop goals/themes (yes there were pre-workshop meetings in May to get these together), and then about 4 or 5 slides on “Indicative research programs.”  These handful of slides were the output of on average 44 people per group consisting of scientists, industry or other “user group” representatives, and ministry representatives.  The people I know who attended a workshop were senior and very very competent people.  The problem is not the people, but the process.  I saw nothing in the reports to inspire, and nothing that couldn’t have been cobbled together by one person after receiving emails with suggestions.  Most of the “indicative research programs” were simply restatements of the obvious questions in the field.  There was no meat. There was only one concrete proposal (High Value Nutrition proposed establishing a “Biomarker Centre”).

Recall that the 10 challenges will have $133.5M to spend over 4 years, about $3.34M per challenge per year.  The June meeting, I estimate, just cost about $0.5M in salaries for the day, overheads on those salaries, travel etc.  For $0.5M we have been given about 60 power point slides most of which could have been reproduced in half an hour or so by one or two of the scientists from each group – “Mr Speaker, would the Minister of MBIE please explain why one power point slide costs $8,300?”  Indeed, I have no doubt if the $3.34M was used to support half a dozen scientists and they were told – here’s the field (name of the challenge), you have $3.34M for each of the next 4 years, do some good science for the country in this field, – then it would be done.  Furthermore, the outcome would be at least, if not more, valuable than any multitude of small projects that are likely to emerge from the June workshops (but only after much more time and $ has been spent on more meetings, development of requests for proposals and a grant funding process that will take up many more millions and waste time for 90+% of the applicants; much as what happens now with other government funding models).  The Great Science Challenge for New Zealand is not how to define the projects, but how to provide long term sustainable funds for scientists who already know the projects.

Tagged: grants, National Science Challenges

0 Responses to “Totally Underwhelming”

  • John
    I think you misunderstand how the NSCs are going to work.
    The $133M (over 4 years) is not so important; the NSC’s encompass about 75% of our public research expenditure, amounting to hundreds of millions a year. Over time, this will be targeted in the most effective way by the players in each NSC, hopefully in a collegiate manner.
    The workshops were only the first step.

    Having said all that, I am not confident the NSC model is the best way to travel. it offends against some important principles of science policy and it is too political.

  • Kemo Sabe, I don’t misunderstand. I’m aware that what you says seems to be the Govts long term goal. It has been “signaled” rather than spelt out – the process by which they may get there is far from transparent. Also, it is apparent from the documentation that the meetings were dealing with the challenges in the context of the $133M (at the beginning of each document the timeline includes this amount). Having said that, I’d be interested if any workshop participants were actually told anything different – ie were they explicitly asked to work on documents for the large majority of public research expenditure for the long term? If you know of anyone at the meetings, would you ask?

  • My reading of a couple of the reports was… ” Let’s have another meeting “. Has the appearance of shonkiness, just a lot of manoeuvres to ensure participants will trade their approvals for funds to favourite research.
    There is very little in the specifics to support innovative approaches to the main issues. Funding will go to credible researchers, rather than innovative programmes. The researchers didn’t solve similar problems previously, so why keep funding them?.

    I’d prefer clear guideline for fail-fast model that could be applied every two years. I’d even apply it to workshops, participants who can’t clearly identify future directions, and are content to publish vague minutes requesting more meetings, should be excluded after two meetings.

    I know it’s not going to happen, but these expensive, ineffective workshops are likely to simply perpetuate the status quo.