The government announced some big changes to the science and research sector this week. Here’s what you need to know. 

On Thursday, outgoing science minister Judith Collins announced major changes to New Zealand’s science sector that will impact several thousand staff working across Callaghan Innovation and the Crown Research Institutes. The government contributes more than $1.2bn to the research sector each year and the reforms will “maximise the value” of this money, Collins said. 

Here’s a quick guide to what the changes are and what they might mean for research in New Zealand.

What are the Crown Research Institutes? Why do they exist? 

There are currently seven Crown Research Institutes (plus MetService, a state-owned enterprise) that were created in 1992 to do research for the good of New Zealand. While they receive government funding, the institutes are also expected to cover capital costs with commercial enterprises. They’re kind of like companies, but government ministers can appoint board members and they aren’t expected to maximise profit. The institutes are Niwa, which does lots of research around climate, freshwater and the ocean (and is about to merge with weather forecaster MetService); ESR, which focuses on human health, including forensic science, diseases and genomics; GNS, which researches geology, volcanoes and earthquakes; Plant and Food Research and AgResearch, which focus on horticulture and agriculture respectively; Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, which looks at environment and biodiversity issues; and Scion, with a focus on forestry, biotechnology and manufacturing. 

The Crown Research Institutes will be merged into three “Public Research Organisations” (PROs) with a focus on bio-economy (Ag Research, Manaaki Whenua, Plant and Food Research and Scion), earth science (MetService, Niwa and GNS Science), and health and forensic science (ESR). There will also be another PRO focused on “advanced technology”: buzzy areas of research like artificial intelligence, quantum computing and forensic sciences. This area isn’t currently covered by any of New Zealand’s existing CRIs. Yes, that was a lot of acronyms and initialisms.

“[The PROs] will be adaptable and responsive to government priorities, accountable through appropriate cost recovery, and set up to be well-coordinated and to avoid unnecessary duplication,” Collins said in a press release. It’s long been pointed out, for example, that both Niwa and MetService (a state-owned enterprise) provide weather forecasting services, and even before yesterday’s announcement there was a plan for the two organisations to merge.

I’ve survived the onslaught of acronyms, but I want to know what the other parts of this announcement mean. What does Callaghan Innovation do? 

Created in 2013, Callaghan Innovation’s main objective was, according to the act that established it, “to support science and technology-based innovation and its commercialisation by businesses, primarily in the manufacturing sector and services sector, in order to improve their growth and competitiveness”. In other words, it was supposed to turn scientific research into commercial opportunities.

In practice this meant it dealt with everything from launching GovGPT, an AI chatbot for small businesses wanting to access government services, to funding research that led to the launch of a soda designed to enhance gut health. Collins criticised the finances of the organisation. “Callaghan has simply been spread too thinly across too many functions, leading to poor financial performance and an over-reliance on Crown funding.”

Many of Callaghan Innovation’s responsibilities will be transferred to other agencies. A “one-stop shop” called Invest New Zealand will be responsible for attracting international talent and foreign investment into New Zealand’s innovation sector. In a statement, Callaghan chief executive Stefan Korn said that it would take some months to formally wind up the organisation. “We will work closely with our customers and keep them updated about what this change means for them,” he said. “We will do everything we can to support [the Callaghan Innovation team] through this process.”

Who will supervise all these changes? 

As well as the science and technology minister, there is a (currently vacant) office of the prime minister’s chief science adviser. It seems like this role will be replaced by a council of advisers called the Prime Minister’s Science Innovation and Technology Advisory Council, which will determine what the PROs should be prioritising and where funding should be directed into the research system as a whole. 

Why are there changes to intellectual property? 

Much of the focus of these announcements was around making the government’s research funding have more direct commercialisation potential, just as the messaging around changing the Marsden Fund last year did too. “The changes… will ensure a science system that generates maximum value for the economy and, therefore, for New Zealanders,” Collins said. Referring to loosened rules around gene technology, she said the changes would “unlock enormous opportunities for our science sector”.

This extends to intellectual property. In a sort of announcement-of-an-announcement, Collins said the government wants to incentivise individual researchers to be directly rewarded for innovation they have been part of; this could mean that researchers on funded projects will receive financial benefits from anything that has been commercialised. For some reason the government’s plans are based on a system in place at Canada’s University of Waterloo, which describes itself as having “the most entrepreneurial IP policy in the North America [sic].”

OK, so the government wants to get more money out of science research. How have scientists responded? 

Scientists who are already concerned about funding following the changes to the Marsden Fund last year were cautiously optimistic, referring to a just-released report about the science system in New Zealand. Nicola Gaston, director of the MacDiarmid Institute, said that the principle of the reforms was sound, but she had questions about implementation. “Work done by scientists within the sector to adjust will have a cost in time not spent on science,” Gaston said. “Given the massive cuts made to both university and CRI workforces over the last couple of years, this is a lot to ask.” She said more resourcing and a commitment to ensure changes were implemented efficiently would be necessary. 

Michael Baker, a public health professor at the University of Otago, said he was pleased a PRO organisation dedicated to health would replace the ESR, although there wasn’t yet much detail about this. “It is important to remember that improving health, wellbeing and equity has economic value,” he said. “Interventions like vaccination and outbreak prevention and control are highly cost effective.”

Lucy Stewart, co-president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, took a more pessimistic stand. She worried that the announcement’s focus on commercial research would mean other vital areas would be ignored. “The message to scientists from this government is clear: they are expected to be a source of revenue rather than working for the public good, and anything they do that isn’t directly linked to economic gain is of little interest.”

When is all of this going to happen? 

Big changes in organisations that employ hundreds of people will take a while, and the names of the new PROs haven’t even been released yet. In the first half of this year, the advisory council members will be appointed and the changes to intellectual property policy will be considered. In the second half of the year, funding will begin for the advanced technology PRO and the legislation for the changes will be passed in the house, to take effect in 2026.