Science in New Zealand's future: ideas, issues and directions

This special issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand considers ‘the future of science in New Zealand’. We have been delighted with the response to our call for papers, and we thank the contributors for sharing their insights and vision. We are pleased to provide a brief editorial overview of the 12 papers in this special issue.

We began from the premise that no one can predict the exact future, but that thoughtful consideration of the future is at the heart of the purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand—to promote, invest in and celebrate excellence in people and ideas, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. This volume asks questions about the future, aiming to understand what might or could happen. We wanted to hear from experts in science, those that understood the bigger picture or those that could understand the dimensions and interconnectivity of science and how events could unfold. Fundamentally, we were curious what the future may be and how others imagined it.

The 12 papers in this issue represent a wide breadth of opinion. Some, but not all, are from fellows of the society; not all authors are active researchers, so their perspectives are formed from other involvements in science, such as from work as public servants. Some views may be outside the mainstream. The papers are opinion pieces or stories, writing with a degree of speculation, but all are concerned with different directions New Zealand science could take, and all are trying to understand the shape and characteristics of science in New Zealand. We asked potential contributors to consider the near future or far future, on any topic that related to the future of science and New Zealand. We did not prescribe a particular thought, paradigm or idea—rather, we strived for diversity. In the end, the 12 papers in this special issue are not right or wrong, but scenarios and ideas to ponder and reflect upon.

We have structured this editorial or introductory commentary based on six areas that represent the common themes that have emerged from contributors’ writings. They are:

1. Science and society: the role of science in New Zealand’s society.

2. Mātauranga Māori: forms of knowledge and ways from a Māori perspective.

3. Imagination: the role of science in creating a better picture through innovation and application.

4. Communications: how the story is told.

5. Good science: exemplars of practice.

6. Which way: decisions to be taken.

Science and society: the role of science in New Zealand’s society

McGrath’s paper, ‘Sustainable growth of New Zealand’s economy from New Zealand’s science sector’ (2015, p. 114), asks a series of questions about New Zealand science’s role in society by drawing out the key issues. A key question is: is New Zealand choosing to be a place of consequence from a science perspective in relationship to our neighbours and competitors within an OECD sphere? The paper concerns the environment in which the discourse of science takes place, whether this is education, commercialisation or achievement.

In ‘The future of scientific thought’ (2015, p. 95), McGuinness considers the realm of scientific thought and concludes that the central issue for success is creating scientific capital which can be regarded as a measure of value in society. She quotes Bush (1949, p. 5) saying that science does not operate in a vacuum, ‘But is conditioned by the political system that controls its operations and applications … [science] depends upon what is desired by authority, by those who rule or represent the people’. The second world war (Pielke 2010) not only provided an opportunity to galvanise scientific thought; it had also given scientists prestige and academic freedom through their contribution to the war effort. This concept is central to those who run the science system, to those who educate the scientists, to those who enable communication between them, and to the scientists themselves. It is suggested that the creation of science capital (Archer et al. 2015) depends on New Zealand and its institutions and companies learning how to take advantage of threats and create environments for positive change, with education and science being the crucial elements of a strong economy. Real and multi-way integration of the education, business and research sectors, built on innovative practice, is required to generate a robust and resilient economic framework that is primed for growth, thus putting science at the centre of the economy.

Mātauranga Māori: forms of knowledge and ways from a Māori perspective

The 2014 government survey of public attitudes towards science showed that 39% of respondents think that Mātauranga Māori (traditional Māori knowledge) has a role in science (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [MBIE] 2014). Salmon & Priestley (2015, p. 101) note that there are two widely divergent approaches and definitions regarding ‘Māori science’. One approach wishes to place it in the ‘Western science’ framework and the other regards it as stand-alone. The authors believe that bringing these two perspectives and literatures together could both improve the quality of science research and engagement, and improve the ways that we think about science engagement, so that it is better linked to the needs of communities. This is discussed in detail by Broughton & McBreen, who state in their paper, ‘Mātauranga Māori, tino rangatiratanga and the future of New Zealand science’ (2015, p. 83), that mātauranga ‘is a complete knowledge system that includes science’. The authors discuss effective revitalisation in terms of:

• recognition of tino rangatiratanga and self-determination;

• an equitably funded and Māori-controlled strategy for mātauranga development;

• restoration of land and resources, education, systems and institutions; and

• prioritising projects that are most likely to support whānau, hapū and iwi to develop and practise mātauranga.

Imagination: the role of science in creating a better picture through innovation and application

Looking at the future is about imagination, a degree of speculation and remembering that all science fiction books and films are based on a degree of truthfulness. Two papers seem to complement each other to capture our imaginative futures. Hickson’s paper, ‘Four short science scenarios’ (2015, p. 65), has been developed in a vigorous and challenging manner, with a bit of reductio ad absurdum, to suggest ways in which New Zealand could capitalise on what we have. The paper by Gurevitch, ‘The innovation engines: science, entertainment and convergence in New Zealand’s research future’ (2015, p. 77), can be seen as a real-life enactment of one of Hickson’s scenarios.

Hickson presents four brief scenarios about science in New Zealand in 2030. They are ‘growth’ (current key conditions persist), ‘collapse’ (where some critical conditions fail), ‘discipline’ or ‘constraint’ (resource-based limits and reorganisation) and ‘transformation’ (development of disruptive ways of doing things rather than reliance on traditional means). The application of these principles to the New Zealand case make far from dry reading. The author’s satirical style and imagination make this paper a joy to read while still addressing serious issues. His description of the Marsden Fund becoming a lottery based on submission of brief abstracts is not that far from current developments in the United Kingdom. And the danger of over-production of widgets and gadgets that are efficient but not effective is ever-present unless we follow the author’s advice and have closer contacts between the researcher and the end-user.

Like all good scenarios, science fiction becomes science non-fiction; reality arrives. This is what Gurevitch has done. He considers the relationship between computer science, industrial innovation and New Zealand’s research future, taking as its basis the case of Weta Digital and its continual development of computer-automated tools that replace cognitive labour. This process of computer automation offers a glimpse of the potential direction in which industrial and research production may move over the coming decades.

Gurevitch concludes by asking: what is success? Can we move from imagination to reality through the capacity to leverage high-end research? What Hickson and Gurevitch are saying is echoed by Robinson, who argues that science should be fun, imaginative and an environment to let ideas flourish.

Communications: how the story is told

Salmon & Priestley’s paper, ‘A future for public engagement with science in New Zealand’ (2015, p. 101), discusses the need for good communications systems and an awareness of the other’s needs and backgrounds. The authors put forward a vision for how a more publicly informed science, and science-informed public, might be achieved in New Zealand, and assess where New Zealand currently sits with regard to public engagement with science. They say that New Zealand has a relatively science-literate public. One result of the 2014 government survey of public attitudes towards science showed that, while the New Zealand public appear to be ‘interested’ in science and technology, and think that it’s ‘important’, they are not necessarily engaged with science and technology, or feel they have a say in what research is carried out.

However, even with the increased focus on science communication that may be an outcome of the National Science Challenges (NSCs), there is a real danger in simply doing ‘more of the same’ without pause to consider exactly what we are achieving through these interventions, or trying to achieve. An initiative called Research in Public Engagement with Science (PES) challenges the current system. PES scholars argue instead for a more democratic science—one in which different publics are engaged not only with understanding science, but in informing its research priorities (Irwin 2014). The engagement goals of the NSCs suggest that the New Zealand government appears to be moving in this direction. However, there is still a wide gulf between theory and practice.

Good science: exemplars of practice

Two papers show that science is alive and very well in New Zealand, and this bodes very well for our future abilities to tackle our own problems as well as the global problems that engulf us, whether food production, wise use of resources, or innovative thinking. Stevens & O’Callaghan present a paper ‘When the holiday is over: being clever in New Zealand’s marine domain’ (2015, p. 89). Rowarth & Parsons present a paper entitled ‘Rethinking production systems: science for the land-based sector’ (2015, p. 108).

Stevens & O’Callaghan speculate on a marine future for New Zealand and how, as a society built on a foundation of maritime endeavours, it could benefit from a re-engagement with the ocean domain. Specifically, they suggest that by embracing a rapidly, globally and radically evolving scientific understanding of the oceans and its workings, we could become a marine-thinking culture. This requires a shift from our present land-based focus, which we maintain despite ownership of a marine domain that spans from subtropical to subantarctic waters. They use imagination as a cornerstone, along with understanding, education and societal value, to consider a revitalised marine outlook.

Rowarth & Parsons say that, overall, the calculations indicate that current technologies applied to less-developed countries will enable the population to be fed to a better state of nutrition than at present. However, overcoming the limitations will take considerable effort in enabling the technologies to be affordable. There is also the challenge of minimising environmental impact. Traditional routes involving field trials ‘and which plants grow better’ cannot deliver what is now required; the tools are too broad-brush. Fundamental science is vital to make the fundamental changes that we need. What is proposed in New Zealand is research leading to a step change in efficiency.

Which way: decisions to be taken

Can New Zealand’s science respond to pressing global research problems? Robinson’s paper, ‘What future for science?’ (2015, p. 71), says that New Zealand lacks the social, political and economic environment that would enable scientists to apply their skills, knowledge and innovation to solve global problems such as scarcities of energy, food and water. He says that the forecast of increasing global damage and disruption, with a tipping point around 2030, is being disregarded. He states that the expected combination of massive problems is surely the major scientific—and indeed existential—question of our time, far more serious and much more important than any in the past. However, Robinson argues that science in New Zealand is no longer organised by scientists, as was the case in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) and, subsequently, the critical and questioning approach required to comprehend the future is lacking. He states that independent and questioning science in New Zealand does not have a viable future without a change in policy direction to recover the scientific enterprise. Should we revisit the DSIR model in order allow independence, science thought and constant review?

On the other hand, Penman & Goldson argue in the paper ‘Competition to collaboration: changing the dynamics of science’ (2015, p. 118) that in the coming years the interconnected world will have recognised that the great and prevailing issues such as climate change, food security, societal stresses, loss of biodiversity, pollution and so on, will be able to be alleviated only by an internationally collaborative environment that strongly engenders new thinking. Scientific research in New Zealand is competitive and the authors argue that this should remain. The authors believe that, as it is, a ‘science business as usual’ approach without meaningful policy and institutional evolution will not solve many of the issues facing society. In the future, many issues will be addressed only through a more inclusive framework such as are embedded in the mission-based NSC process. In larger and more complex economies, developing a responsive and flexible system may seem beyond many. As a small and advanced nation, we have the opportunity to reshape our scientific approach using existing personal connections to achieve what is so often referred to as an ‘innovative society’.

Gerrard’s paper, ‘Investigator-led science: predict the unpredictable and be ready to capture transformational change’ (2015, p. 122), celebrates 20 years of the Marsden Fund, one of New Zealand’s success stories. Scientists are very good at justifying a focus on blue-skies research with the throwaway line that it will be useful in the long term. A 20 year investment has afforded an opportunity to test that thinking and see what difference has been made. A reflection on these benefits helps inform our predictions for how science can help New Zealand in the future. With the benefit of hindsight, can we work out which horses we should have backed?

The answers may well not come from narrowly defined research programmes, rather from a community that values research excellence and a passion to unravel the unknown and see where our learnings might lead us. If New Zealand is to share in a global vision of science-driven enlightened prosperity, it is important to keep in firm sight the important fact that the path is not certain. We cannot map our route of discovery from here to 2050. We need to be constantly on the lookout for new information and new observations that might radically change not only our direction of thought, but what the future might hold.

Gluckman’s paper, ‘Science in New Zealand's future’ (2015, p. 126), is a seminal policy paper that describes New Zealand’s ‘ecosystem’ for science and innovation. He takes into account many of the issues that have been discussed above: the history of the science-funding regime in New Zealand; the need to set frameworks for science such as the National Science Challenges and Centres of Research Excellence; the need to meet the needs of society in the area of health, education and technology advancement. This gives the framework in which we are operating at present, as well as indications of where it might lead to in the future. The author introduces the concept of a country’s science and innovation ‘ecosystem’, which is a function of social, cultural and political histories. Public science systems evolve to meet multiple objectives including the advancement of knowledge, economic growth, workforce development, social and environmental health, and good public policy.

Given New Zealand’s small size and nature of the economy, we face particular challenges and opportunities. Gluckman argues that New Zealand needs a science system that favours disruptive knowledge development while ensuring incremental progress in other areas. But there will always be inherent pressure on the funding system because in a complete system there are elements with different objectives. The paper’s conclusions ponder the considerable change in our science system over a comparatively short period. Science systems are not static and will continue to evolve. Much change has been structural, but we have also seen important repositioning: the public spend on science is now seen as an investment rather than a cost; science is now closer to the heart of policymaking; and the major science policy debates are about the speed and shape of increased investment, rather than about whether to invest. Ultimately, we do science in part to satisfy the urge to know more about the world around and within us, but the justification of greater taxpayer investment is that we will use our talents to improve the world through knowledge and science-based technology and innovation. The science community must be a constructive partner in these discussions.

Conclusions

The themes above throw light on the pressing problems that face science in New Zealand today, and on possible ways to move forward. What emerges is a vision of New Zealand as a small but focused ‘ecosystem’ comprising both science and society, which is able to make the most of our resources and to contribute to the global effort to solve the problems of the future such as climate change and shortages of energy, food and water. This can be achieved if we use our science capital, if we have robust funding systems, if we focus on the areas in which we can excel, if we recognise that ‘science is the discovery of the unknown’, and if we work across disciplines and coordinate our efforts. It is up to us to imagine how good we can help to make the future that we can leave to our children and grandchildren.

What next? It is with great interest that Professor Peter Hunter and the Royal Society of New Zealand have assembled a panel of fellows to review the New Zealand research system (including research in the humanities) and to develop a strategic plan for research investment. ¹ Professor Hunter notes that the articles in the present special issue will provide valuable contributions to many of the issues being addressed in the review.

To conclude: enjoy the future as it is the only place to which you can travel.

Notes

1 See http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2015/future-of-new-zealand-research-system/