on the destruction of New Zealand Science
and earthquakes
When I was a kid, I had the huge privilege of meeting Harold Wellman. My mum knew his wife, and I remember watering their plants when they were away.
Harold is a superstar of New Zealand Geology. He started as a prospector from the U.K. and was hired by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to look for minerals. While doing this work, he got a degree and then a Master’s in Geology, ending up as chair of Geology at Victoria University of Wellington.
Harold discovered and mapped the Alpine Fault, the great discontinuity that runs down the South Island of New Zealand. He found that weird geology of Red Hills in Nelson is mirrored in Red Mountain in Southland. Red Hills sits on one side of the fault, and Red Mountain on the other, but they are separated by about 480 kilometres. Sliding movement along the fault explains the separation of these odd bits of geology and gave Harold the ammunition to argue for the plate tectonic view of the Earth, and show that the faults are always moving.
The Alpine Fault has a 75% chance of causing a devastating earthquake in the next 50 years. The impact of this event will effectively destroy most infrastructure in the west of the South Island, including massive impacts on key towns and cities like Queenstown and Greymouth. Knowing about the Alpine Fault and planning for this coming, and inevitable catastrophe is the only way to build resilience.
New faults are found all the time in New Zealand, with geologists recently showing a previously unknown fault in Auckland1, capable of causing a 6.8 magnitude quake. Such an earthquake would be a significant event that would severely affect our largest city. New Zealand isn’t known as the ‘Shaky Isles’ for nothing.
Of course, both Harold and more recent geologists published their findings, allowing them to be incorporated into future plans to inform how and where to build, how to protect infrastructure, and how to keep people safe. I would have thought that this is the pinnacle of scientific impact- providing the data and the knowledge that make the world a better or safer place.
Our government, and especially our Prime Minister think differently, judging from recent announcements. They think Harold and co should not have told people about fault lines, but should have kept this information secret and sold it to those people who would pay them for it. They would have them as consultants who would only tell you that you are at risk of dying in a terrible earthquake if you pay them enough money. To become rich on their specialist knowledge.
The reason I am talking about Harold and earthquakes is that the government has recently announced their new science funding system for New Zealand, and it has made me pretty depressed. Firstly, it is a very significant cut in funding for science, but also almost all the funding is pushed towards making money at the expense of other high-quality, impactful science.
You can see that with this table released by MBIE
You will notice that most of the money goes to “Technology for Prosperity”, and there is no talent development fund for any other area. The amounts for primary industry, the environment, or health are hugely cut; 6.2 million for ‘Healthy people’ is a pittance in a science system that has full cost recovery (Luckily, the Health Research Council still exists, but for how much longer?).
So, underpinning science supporting our primary industries- cut (in the face of rapid climate change). Science supporting our environment and native species, cut. And health? Who gives a shit about that? No humanities of any sort as far as I can see- because who needs to do research in Law, Economics, Society, etc?
What is the winner? Technology for Prosperity. So what is that?
Well, luckily, we have a Prime Minister who has waded into the debate, saying (as quoted by Radio New Zealand):
“To give you a feel for R&D (research and development) in New Zealand, we’re probably 19th per capita in terms of our spend on R&D, but we’re 46th on commercialisation. And I just hate it when I run into people and they go, ‘Oh, New Zealand invented a piece of science.’ You go, ‘That’s lovely, sunshine, but actually who invented the $10 billion business?’ And it’ll be some American or some Australian that gets to do that.”
Luxon said the goal was to “brutally commercialise our science system”.
“I want professors to become millionaires because they’re partnering with entrepreneurs and building out businesses ... where that interface between universities and entrepreneurship and government is all joined up, like we see in other parts of the world too.”
Sigh.
What they mean by “Technology for Prosperity” is the commercialisation of research for private industry. Our research system is being turned into corporate welfare.
Luxon also says he wants to turn me into a millionaire- so that’s nice. So why am I complaining? I’m clearly supposed to think that the future is rosy.
I have a few issues. The first one is that the Prime Minister’s statement misunderstands how science works. Yes, we probably don’t have a good track record in the commercialisation of research in New Zealand- but that is not the same as implementation for commercial benefit. Much of our research in agriculture, for example, is given away freely as breeding technologies, biocontrol systems, advice on how to grow cows and sheep in a difficult environment. I work on a biocontrol system that stops up to a billion dollars a year in pasture damage caused by an introduced pest- and it’s free to every farmer in the country. There is my $10 billion industry. It would be easy to make the biocontrol system drop dead every generation. Farmers would have to come and buy new agents every year- making money! Would that be a better system? No. It would be incredibly wasteful and damaging, because it’s not valuable that the pest is controlled on one farm; it’s valuable because the population is suppressed across the country. So by commercialisation, you get poorer outcomes for New Zealand- and guess whose taxpayers are paying the bill for the science?
Commercialisation is one route to impact- but we have had a public good science system that values ‘benefit to New Zealand’. That benefit is not just commercialisation. Measuring the value of our science system via what we commercialise is a huge misunderstanding of how science works.
Another key issue is independence. This country, and the world, desperately needs independent academics. Academics whose paycheque doesn’t depend on selling something. Academics who can point out inconvenient truths to power without losing their jobs. I know Luxon is very keen to listen to non-independent scientists, as we can see by the allocation of taxpayers’ money to the tobacco industry and his scepticism about human-produced climate change. Non-independent researchers from the tobacco and oil industries have systematically supported cancer and the climate crisis amongst humanity. It is independent science that has proved the links between tobacco and cancer, and between burning oil and climate change. If you do not have independence as a scientist, then the public can not, and should not trust you. That’s why the Universities in the country operate under an Act ( Education and Training Act 2020)2 that charges them to be the ‘Critics and Conscience of Society’- to be an independent voice that questions. Can you be that in the context of selling your commercialised science?
To be clear, I am not against the commercialisation of science; it is one route to impact. But it is not the only route, and certainly not the most valuable one. The late great Dunedin Biochemist George Peterson sequenced the second ever genome in the world, and worked to promulgate the technology invented by Frederick Sanger and colleagues to sequence DNA in New Zealand. Their work, published freely, enable companies to develop technology around it, allowed the sequencing of the human genome, unlocked billion dollar industries built on the knowledge of DNA sequence, and brought us a revolution in genome drive precision medicine which has been proven to reduce the cost of health care and improve outcomes (though the New Zealand government seems unable to invest in it due to laziness). George triggered the use of genetic sequencing in New Zealand agriculture, transforming how we breed animals. The dollar value impact is massive. The 10 billion company built on it doesn’t exist because the science was given freely. If we stop the free exchange of knowledge, we stop being scientists.
It’s also clear to me that Mr Luxon is not interested in commercialisation. If he were, he would have invested in Universities, where new knowledge is generated. He would have invested in tech transfer systems (in fact this government closed them). He would have found ways to incentivise companies working with academia- because, and this is a key point, this is actually the problem here. Companies in New Zealand don’t, in general, invest in research. New Zealand companies invest 0.97% of GDP in research, a third of the OECD average3. If you want more commercial investment in science, that might be what you need to solve, not “brutally commercialising our science system”.
He might even have managed to change the genetic engineering regulations in New Zealand, allowing us to make commercial impact from biotechnology. Unfortunately, as I warned before Luxon and crew got into government4, politicising the genetic engineering issue is foolish. They should have done their job properly and reached out to other parties to build a cross-party consensus for New Zealand’s future. That was a bit too hard for them and now it looks like the opportunity to build a sensible, effective, and safe system to regulate genetic modification has been lost.
What Luxon is actually signalling is the death of New Zealand science. He thinks it should cost less, and he sees no value in it. He is, in my opinion, using a smoke screen of commercialisation to suggest that science in New Zealand isn’t working well.
The consequences are clear. Early-career researchers are leaving science in droves. Highly successful New Zealand scientists are giving up and retiring or going elsewhere. There will be, given the lack of investment in health, environment and primary production research, more job losses from our new Public Research Organisations. Here, at the coalface, with the people who do impactful science in New Zealand, it looks grim. The Prime Minister’s statement is inaccurate, ignorant and incoherent. I would hope he and his ministers might have more care about a science system that has served New Zealand well. But clearly, all he cares about is $10 billion companies. It appears that, in his mind, that is the only value someone might have.
So, Mr Luxon. Where is your $10 billion company then? Practice what you preach.
Also- don’t fucking call me sunshine..
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions\_auckland/597500/the-detail-faultline-discovery-changes-perception-of-auckland
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/38/en/latest/#LMS170676
https://www.swell.co.nz/journal-article/closing-the-gap-how-new-zealands-r-d-stacks-up-globally
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132327296/how-we-can-realise-the-huge-potential-of-genetic-modification-technology
Outstanding, Peter. But can we publish your withering critique more widely? Every voter needs to understand this carnage.
I heard Luxon's horrific comment re 'brutally commercialising science and cried.