{"id":28687,"date":"2022-12-06T21:45:00","date_gmt":"2022-12-06T22:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/?p=28687"},"modified":"2022-12-06T23:46:44","modified_gmt":"2022-12-06T23:46:44","slug":"major-makeover-for-nz-science-system-expert-reaction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/2022\/12\/06\/major-makeover-for-nz-science-system-expert-reaction\/","title":{"rendered":"Major Makeover For NZ Science System \u2013 Expert Reaction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"Science<\/a>
\nWednesday, 7 December 2022, 10:06 am<\/b>
Press Release: Science Media Centre NZ<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

The system that supports our researchers and innovators
\nis set for an overhaul, with the release of the \u201cTe Ara
\nPaerangi \u2013 Future Pathways\u201d white paper.<\/p>\n

The
\nblueprint will reshape Aotearoa\u2019s research, science and
\ninnovation landscape to better fit the future, including a
\nfunding boost and a roadmap to put the reforms in place. The
\nfuture system is tasked with giving effect to Te Tiriti o
\nWaitangi, being more adaptable and connected, and better
\nreflecting the country\u2019s unique context and diverse
\npopulation.<\/p>\n

The SMC asked experts to
\ncomment.<\/p>\n

Professor Shaun Hendy, Chief Science Officer,
\nToha Science, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cBack in late 2020, a
\njournalist from the international science magazine
\nNature<\/i> told me how incredibly impressed he was with
\nthe way we were using science in our COVID-19 response. He
\nsaid that our approach in using genomics to manage COVID
\noutbreaks sounded like \u201cscience fiction\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf
\nthe pandemic showcased the best of our RSI system, it also
\nrevealed areas of real weakness. Its complexity and lack of
\ndirection, its poor responsiveness to M\u0101ori, and the
\nprecarity of early-career researchers all had a detrimental
\nimpact on our pandemic response. This was sometimes evident
\nto the public, but more often than not gaps were papered
\nover by goodwill and number eight wire before they caused
\ncatastrophe.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Future Pathways white paper has
\ndone a thorough job of surfacing many of these issues
\nthrough its lengthy consultation process. It is hard to
\ndisagree with the case it makes for change and, although the
\npaper is very high-level, it signals a positive new
\ndirection for the RSI system. Some of the devil will be in
\nthe details to follow, but the ambition is evident: if the
\ngovernment can follow through with the funding to support
\nthe many new initiatives foreshadowed in the paper then it
\ncould be transformative.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the most
\nchallenging proposals in the document is in the setting of
\nnational research priorities. The establishment of the
\nNational Science Challenges was the closest exercise the RSI
\nsystem has run in recent times, and the process somehow
\nmanaged to bury climate change and outright exclude
\ninfectious disease. I think that shows the risks of a
\nprocess that focuses on near term political agendas and
\nprivileges the views of a select group of senior
\nresearchers. The conversation will need to be much more
\ninclusive and future-focussed. And the key to getting buy-in
\nfrom the sector for any new research priorities will be to
\nput new money on the table rather than rearranging already
\nstretched existing funds.\u201d<\/p>\n

No conflict of
\ninterest declared.<\/i><\/p>\n

Dr Tara McAllister (Te Aitanga
\na M\u0101haki) Research Fellow at Victoria University of
\nWellington, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cI am cautiously optimistic
\nabout the new directions for reform of our Research,
\nScience, and Innovation (RSI) sector outlined in the Future
\nPathways White Paper. The inclusion of \u201cEmbedding Te
\nTiriti\u201d as one of the four reform objectives presents a
\npositive shift, but I am concerned about how this will be
\nimplemented and actioned. As this objective is set to start
\nin 2023, it would have been helpful to know how it will be
\nactualised. I am concerned that the work required to embed
\nTe Tiriti in our research sector will fall on the shoulders
\nof already overworked and underpaid M\u0101ori researchers. I
\nalso hope embedding Te Tiriti will not be limited to certain
\nportions of this reform \u2013 but will instead be
\nappropriately centred in every single part.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am
\nexcited to see the (re)introduction of M\u0101ori and Pacific
\nfellowships and the expansion of the number of early- to
\nmid-career fellowships. Whilst these fellowships are much
\nneeded, they will not address the overwhelming precarity in
\nour RSI sector. With only 45% of researchers employed in
\ntertiary education having permanent contracts, we need wider
\nsector shifts to incentivise organisations to reduce
\nprecarity.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are some positive shifts in the
\nRSI funding system proposed, including a new dedicated fund
\nfor M\u0101ori and M\u0101tauranga M\u0101ori. The creation of this fund
\nis a step in the right direction, but Te Tiriti will also
\nneed to be embedded across all existing and future RSI
\nfunding activities. M\u0101ori research has been significantly
\nunderfunded by the RSI system so I hope that the size of
\nthis new dedicated fund will begin to address that. Funding
\nM\u0101ori-led research will undoubtedly have many positive
\nimpacts but this in isolation will not fix the
\nunderrepresentation of M\u0101ori. This will require significant
\nshifts in our research sector, including the dismantling of
\ninstitutional structures which function to marginalise
\nM\u0101ori people and knowledge.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 2023, MBIE will be
\nreleasing an RSI Te Tiriti o Waitangi statement. I agree
\nthat this is a good first step, but it must be followed by
\naction. There has been a proliferation of equity, diversity,
\nand inclusion policies at many of our research organisations
\n(including MBIE who released a Diversity in Science
\nStatement in 2018) but the impact of many of these policies
\nhas been negligible. I am hoping there will be action,
\nfunding, and assessment tied to this
\nstatement.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are a few key omissions in this
\nwhite paper. The role of PhD students in our RSI system was
\none of them. We know that PhD students make up a significant
\nproportion of the research sector and are doing a
\nsignificant amount of work, yet we are limiting who can do
\nPhDs through extremely low PhD scholarships. There is also a
\nclear gap in the proposed changes to the RSI funding system
\nfor Pacific-led research. Pacific researchers are
\nsignificantly underserved in the current funding landscape
\nso the lack of dedicated research funding for Pacific
\nresearchers is disappointing. It is important that we
\nconsider diversity beyond women, as there are many other
\nmarginalised groups of people in our sector (including
\npeople who exist beyond colonial gender binaries and people
\nwith disabilities), which is not thoroughly reflected in the
\nwhite paper. Lastly, there was no mention of addressing
\nracism in the RSI sector, and little mention of how these
\nreforms will allow for rangatiratanga.\u201d<\/p>\n

No
\nconflict of interest.<\/i><\/p>\n

Dr Sereana Naepi, Rutherford
\nDiscovery Fellow, Sociology, University of Auckland |
\nWaipapa Taumata Rou, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an ambitious
\nrethink of the sector that reflects our sector\u2019s key
\nchallenges according to the MBIE Workforce survey. It is
\nclear that a major shift is necessary given high levels of
\nprecarity, inequity and underinvestment. The four pillars
\nfor change are a hopeful beginning step for a research and
\ninnovation sector that creates brighter futures for Aotearoa
\nNew Zealand. I challenge our sector to not only deliver on
\nthis vision but push it further.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is heartening
\nto see the commitment to stable workforce development,
\nparticularly as a first step priority. However, these
\ninitial steps need to be followed up with a whole-of-career
\noutline, New Zealand invests in our research sector
\nqualifications and ideally we would create a system that
\nretains and rewards researchers for their commitment and
\nwork. Missing from this conversation is the role of PhD
\nstudents and their contribution to the system, particularly
\nas a precarious workforce.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe establishing of
\nnational priorities is an exciting moment for our sector to
\ncreate spaces for collaboration and development with clear
\nequity drivers. Particularly exciting is that M\u0101ori
\npriorities are viewed across the priorities instead of boxed
\noff and limited to a single priority. If we are going to
\nhave a Te Tiriti-embedded research sector then there will
\nneed to be major shifts in our current funding streams to
\nreflect this commitment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe call for an
\nall-of-government approach to Pacific research and Pacific
\nexcellence is overdue and an urgent priority if we are going
\nto meet our commitments to the Pacific community and enable
\nPacific peoples to thrive and contribute to the sector and
\nNew Zealand with our significant skill base. The possibility
\nof a national research space for Pacific peoples is the
\nfirst step towards this, and needs to be more than a
\npossibility but instead a firm commitment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe
\nimplementation roadmap has key moments but we also need key
\nmeasurements for progress to ensure that progress is made.
\nIdeally, these next steps will ensure that our future sector
\nwill be anti-racist, anti-ableism, and inclusive of all
\ngenders as it strives to serve all of
\nAotearoa.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement:
\n\u201cMember of the Working Group and RSNZ Early Career
\nResearch Forum I am not commenting on behalf of either of
\nthese groups.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Professor Nicola Gaston,
\nCo-Director, The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials
\nand Nanotechnology, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Te Ara Paerangi
\nwhite paper gets some things very right. We might call these
\nthe known knowns: that our Research, Science and Innovation
\n(RSI) system is too small, and mechanisms to increase
\ncollaboration and critical mass are immensely important to
\nNew Zealand researchers. That to drive necessary system
\ngrowth, government investment needs to increase to the
\nlongstanding target of the OECD average of about 2% of GDP
\n\u2013 that we MUST start bridging this gap.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe need
\nfor government investment, and consequently our innovation
\nefforts to diversify beyond traditional areas such as
\nagriculture \u2013 not to replace them, but to complement them
\nand share some of the overall economic load \u2013 this has
\nbeen known for many years, as many readers of Sir Paul
\nCallaghan\u2019s Wool to Weta book will
\nremember.<\/p>\n

\u201cFurther motivations for changing the
\nsystem are identified as the need for clear direction and
\nintegration of research efforts, higher investment in M\u0101ori
\nresearch (done by and for M\u0101ori), and the pressures
\ncurrently being felt by the research workforce. These may be
\nmore opaque problems to some, but are certainly clear to
\nthose of us familiar with New Zealand research systems: the
\ncase for change is clear.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen it comes to the
\nproposed system reforms however, we are into the realm of
\nthe well-known unknowns. The key uncertainty as I see it,
\nhaving seen the National Science Challenges set up a decade
\nago, is what the suggested National Research Priorities will
\nbe, and how they will be chosen. The case being made now, on
\nthe basis that our system is too small and we need to find
\nareas of focus, is similar to the case that was made then.
\nInterestingly, however, they are here being linked to the
\nneed to move from areas of traditional strength to research
\nareas that will support future wellbeing and prosperity.
\nThey also seem to be being linked to the need to have a
\nresearch system that delivers proportionately for M\u0101ori
\ncommunities. These two messages make me view the idea of
\npriorities positively, but I do think caution is still
\nneeded in setting these up so that they deliver on exactly
\nthese objectives.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne thing that looks different
\nfrom when the National Science Challenges were brought in is
\nthe level of emphasis on the research workforce, with
\nprecarity being singled out as a specific problem and
\nfellowships being mooted as a key part of the solution, and
\nspecific mention of diversity as an objective that
\nfellowships are uniquely suited to address. As someone who
\nwas brought back to Aotearoa from a career overseas by our
\nnational postdoctoral fellowship scheme in 2007, which was
\ncut only a few years later leaving a massive hole in our
\ncareers pathways, I am fully in favour of this approach and
\nI really look forward to seeing more detail on the use of
\nfellowships to build both capability and the system capacity
\nto absorb additional RSI funding. As noted by Sean Simpson,
\nLanzatech founder in today\u2019s NZ Herald, a key reason that
\nLanzatech moved overseas was the challenge of securing
\nenough talent. This is something that we have been working
\nto change in Aotearoa for many years, and postdoctoral
\nfellowships are one of the remaining missing pieces of the
\npuzzle.<\/p>\n

\u201cI won\u2019t dwell on the unknown unknowns
\nother than to say that they are real, and that to address
\nthem the system needs to monitor itself and be accountable
\nfor its effectiveness. The incentives that operate within
\nour science system are not all able to be moderated by our
\ngovernment as many are set by the international community,
\nfor example. As a consequence, the value of RSI-sector
\nexpertise needs to be taken seriously within MBIE and the
\nexpertise of researchers needs to be part of decision making
\n\u2013 the consultation behind this Te Ara Paerangi white paper
\nseems a good start, but must be followed through
\non.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn summary: I am strongly supportive of the
\nproposed direction of change. The challenge will be
\nimplementation, and I would strongly urge policy-makers to
\nstay open to RSI community critique as the processes are put
\nin place: it matters that we get this right for Aotearoa. A
\ncompeting challenge is that of the timeline on which change
\nneeds to be made, and I would urge the Minister to
\nprioritise investment in people \u2013 fellowship schemes, for
\nexample \u2013 that can help us scale up the system towards the
\nnecessary 2% of GDP in a relatively flexible way in the
\nshort-term, knowing that the system-wide change is coming
\nand that talented people will be ready to make the most of
\nthe enhanced opportunities that this roadmap aspires to
\nprovide.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement: I
\nreceive government research funding from the TEC, as funder
\nof the Centres of Research Excellence, and the Royal Society
\nTe Ap\u0101rangi, through the Marsden Fund.<\/i><\/p>\n

Dr Aisling
\nRayne, Te P\u016bnaha Matatini and Cawthron Institute; Professor
\nTammy Steeves, Te P\u016bnaha Matatini and University of
\nCanterbury, comment:<\/p>\n

\u201cTe Ara Paerangi signals a need
\nfor bold and transformative change in the way that we do
\nresearch, science and innovation (RSI). The current RSI
\nsystem has been built to promote hypercompetition and
\nindividualism, and has marginalised many, especially women,
\nM\u0101ori, Pacific peoples and those from intersectional
\ncommunities. The White Paper also promises that people
\nwithin the RSI system will be supported through the reforms,
\nbut there is no clear accountability for facilitating
\neffective and just transitions, nor strategies to identify
\nand address perverse outcomes.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are pleased to
\nsee an emphasis on equity and a wellbeing approach that
\ndraws from He Ara Waiora and its four principles
\n(kotahitanga, tikanga, manaakitanga and
\nwhanaungatanga).<\/p>\n

\u201cWe renew the call for an
\nindependent professional board for all researchers that
\nupholds tikanga and ethical behaviour in research spaces
\n(see for example, the NZ Medical Council or Psychologists
\nBoard), and to which all researchers are required to belong
\nin order to practice, to create a safe and thriving research
\nsystem. Currently, there is no clear direction for
\ninstitutions to lead with values-centred approaches that
\nuphold ethical behaviour.<\/p>\n

\u201cTe Ara Paerangi White
\nPaper\u2019s four focus areas promise a more people-centred and
\nagile RSI system. The introduction of stable funding is a
\ncritical step toward these important objectives. However, it
\nremains unclear whether the reforms will build trust and
\npatience into the RSI system, for example, by extending
\nfunding timelines and reinvesting in community-based
\nresearch partnerships. We also ask whether and how the
\nreforms will build public trust in the RSI system,
\nparticularly where it has been most eroded.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe
\nWhite Paper focuses on levers within a narrowly defined RSI
\nsystem, but we question whether the proposed reforms will be
\ngenuinely transformational without aligned efforts to
\naddress the wider RSI system\u2014particularly primary and
\nsecondary education, universities, Te P\u016bkenga and
\nw\u0101nanga.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are disappointed by the lack of
\nattention to intersectionality\u2014for example, explicit
\nconsideration of the barriers faced by members of LGBTQIA+
\ncommunities, disabled people, women, especially M\u0101ori and
\nPacific women\u2014in the White Paper, and in the recent RSI
\nworkforce survey.<\/p>\n

\u201cGrowing and supporting narratives
\nof people from diverse backgrounds belonging in the research
\ncommunity will be crucial for the future success of
\nresearch, science and innovation in Aotearoa New
\nZealand.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement: Dr
\nAisling Rayne and Professor Tammy Steeves are leaders in the
\nKindness in Science project funded by Te P\u016bnaha
\nMatatini.<\/i><\/p>\n

Volker Kuntzsch, Chief Executive of
\nCawthron Institute, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cCawthron Institute is
\npleased to see the white paper set new aspirations for
\nAotearoa New Zealand\u2019s research, science and innovation
\nsystem. We are strongly supportive of some of the changes
\nthat are proposed \u2013 in particular greater investment in
\nresearch, science and innovation, the development of an RSI
\nTe Tiriti o Waitangi Statement, and a move to mission-led
\nscience that directs resource towards research that will
\nachieve the broadest social, cultural, environmental and
\neconomic benefits. Given the urgent nature of the challenges
\nfacing society, we support research priorities that quickly
\nredirect resource towards excellent and impactful
\nscience.<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, the devil is in the detail: how
\nthese aspirations will be achieved is almost as important as
\nthe aspirations themselves. As New Zealand\u2019s largest
\nindependent science organisation, Cawthron Institute is
\neager to see independent research organisations play a
\nsignificant role in helping to set national research
\npriorities. Ideally, we would like to see an independent and
\ndiverse body tasked with setting our national research
\npriorities, including experts and people from all walks of
\nlife, across all demographics. In particular, we want to see
\nindependent M\u0101ori research organisations empowered to take
\na leadership role in the reform process to ensure that
\nresearch priorities are set by M\u0101ori, for
\nM\u0101ori.<\/p>\n

\u201cCawthron Institute welcomes any opportunity
\nto contribute to this future direction and revitalise
\nAotearoa New Zealand\u2019s research, science and innovation
\nsystem.\u201d<\/p>\n

No conflict of interest
\ndeclared.<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\u00a9 Scoop Media<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Science<\/a><\/p>\n

Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.<\/b><\/p>\n

The Science Media Centre is New Zealand’s only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wednesday, 7 December 2022, 10:06 amPress Release: Science Media Centre NZ The system that supports<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":28689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28687"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28687"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28687\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28690,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28687\/revisions\/28690"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peymantaeidi.net\/stem-cell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}