Scientists and researchers throughout the agri-sector and beyond are running on empty from June 30, as funding for the National Science Challenges comes to an end with no immediate prospect of funds to take its place.
Set up a decade ago, the 11 Challenge areas have received a total of $680 million, with as much as $97m in peak years, and $64m this year.
National Science Challenge high-value nutrition director Joanne Todd said her team of researchers and scientists have undertaken to continue operating over coming months, despite having no funds allocated beyond June 2024.
“Of course this can’t last, and we do face the risk we lose talented staff, but this is the level of commitment: they have undertaken to continue with the work they have been doing,” she said.
Her unit received $80 million over the 10 years and that funding helped deliver some notable success stories from the 60 businesses it partnered with in conducting research on 137 products.
Higher profile successes included identifying the sleep-promoting qualities of Zespri kiwifruit, work with Sanford’s on greenshell mussels’ impact on joint pain, and validating Torere Macadamias’ claim of high nutrient content in its Gisborne-grown nuts.
Her unit and other science challenge groups are holding their collective breath on the outcome of a full-scale review being conducted on the future of NZ’s science funding.
The review is being chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, heading a body of nine members with their first summary due out in coming weeks.
But Todd said this leaves several months at least when no definitive funding is being provided to tide the units over until the review’s recommendations play out.
“We run the risk of losing some of our brightest scientific minds to countries with better funded research programmes,” she said.
She called for an interim lifeline of $5m annually over the next 10 years to ensure research and development could continue with the 18 institutions involved.
Lincoln University professor Jon Hickford said he fully expects that shutting up shop will be the only option for many Challenge units.
Hickford said the government has offered the sector no interim funding to carry research over until any recommendations of Sir Peter’s review are in place.
“Science Minister Judith Collins has acknowledged it is likely that some older scientists will finish their careers as a result of this, but she believes there will be plenty of young scientists ready to take their place.
“This just simply is not the case. It takes 10 years for a scientist to reach a point they are contributing. Collins had six years in opposition to come up with options.”
He said there is little in terms of tenure or remuneration to make NZ’s research sector an appealing one for young potential scientist to want to engage in.
He also pointed to the positive outcomes delivered by other Science Challenges, including Our Land and Water.
“This has had a real impact upon understanding land-based activity’s impact upon water quality. We are vastly better off thanks to OLW, particularly around phosphate.”
Professor Troy Baisden, co-president of the NZ Association of Scientists, described the Budget as “worse than a nothing-burger for science” .
Other than some funding for Geonet’s seismic hazard model there were no bailouts for areas of national importance that the Science Challenges supported.
“Given the composition of the coalition, farmers might have hoped for some new research, but I can’t spot it,” Baisden said on Budget day.
The loss of about $70m a year in funding to the Science Challenges also risks pushing NZ even further down the ranks for national science investment as a percentage of GDP.
Hickford said at 1.47% NZ already sits below the OECD average of 2% of GDP spend on science.
The loss of the $97m in National Science Challenge funding will push NZ to 1.37%, equal to Lithuania and behind Turkey.
