Science (funding) in NZ
Sep. 9th, 2005 09:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stellar_muddle'Blue skies' research gets $40m from science fund*
Nice to hear that they have doubled the funding for "Blue Skies" research (Marsden Fund) in NZ. Takes it up to $40 million, which is a large amount compared to what I have in my pockets, but is a very small fragment of the NASA budget... Don't ask about how much NZ spends on scientific research as a function of GDP, it ain't pretty and is very bottom of OECD (reference was in New Scientist a while back: sorry not more specific)
And the odds of getting funded: 79 out of 897 (8.8%) compared to a previous turn down rate of 92 out of 100 applicants, which is 8% funded... Wow, what a change...
And then we come to the definition of blue skies... Pure research, no immediate commercial gain, just cause it sounds like a cool/interesting thing to look at. Astronomy is about as blue skies as you can get. But I wouldn't say that many of the projects listed as funded are blue skies: several have direct applications and the possibility of saving lives. Projects such as "research into an important molecule in cancer prevention," "monitoring of the predicted Mt Ruapehu lahar, and a mathematical approach to understanding a common breathing disorder. " I am definitely not saying we shouldn't be researching these things - on the contrary, these really really need looking at, but these aren't pure research for research sake.
Possibly 3 categories of funding are needed:
a) Pure intellectual curiousity, because we can stuff.
b) Useful, potentially lifesaving stuff which you are unlikely to make a quick buck off selling, the stuff which AFTER the disaster hits, people realise that if they had just investigated a bit more time and money into that area, they would know a bit more and perhaps a few less people would have died. Tsunami warning systems, earthquake and volcano monitoring systems etc.
c) The cash cow technology/agricultural shit that everyone wants and commercial companies lap up.
It is really a continuum between these extremes, but still...
And I know which I think Govt should be funding (b), and I know which I would wish govt to fund (a) and I know the realities of funding crushing both.
Time to get some work done and listen to an interview with the guy who invented the contraceptive pill.
* NZ Herald is changing policy such that articles may only be up for a week after posting...
Nice to hear that they have doubled the funding for "Blue Skies" research (Marsden Fund) in NZ. Takes it up to $40 million, which is a large amount compared to what I have in my pockets, but is a very small fragment of the NASA budget... Don't ask about how much NZ spends on scientific research as a function of GDP, it ain't pretty and is very bottom of OECD (reference was in New Scientist a while back: sorry not more specific)
And the odds of getting funded: 79 out of 897 (8.8%) compared to a previous turn down rate of 92 out of 100 applicants, which is 8% funded... Wow, what a change...
And then we come to the definition of blue skies... Pure research, no immediate commercial gain, just cause it sounds like a cool/interesting thing to look at. Astronomy is about as blue skies as you can get. But I wouldn't say that many of the projects listed as funded are blue skies: several have direct applications and the possibility of saving lives. Projects such as "research into an important molecule in cancer prevention," "monitoring of the predicted Mt Ruapehu lahar, and a mathematical approach to understanding a common breathing disorder. " I am definitely not saying we shouldn't be researching these things - on the contrary, these really really need looking at, but these aren't pure research for research sake.
Possibly 3 categories of funding are needed:
a) Pure intellectual curiousity, because we can stuff.
b) Useful, potentially lifesaving stuff which you are unlikely to make a quick buck off selling, the stuff which AFTER the disaster hits, people realise that if they had just investigated a bit more time and money into that area, they would know a bit more and perhaps a few less people would have died. Tsunami warning systems, earthquake and volcano monitoring systems etc.
c) The cash cow technology/agricultural shit that everyone wants and commercial companies lap up.
It is really a continuum between these extremes, but still...
And I know which I think Govt should be funding (b), and I know which I would wish govt to fund (a) and I know the realities of funding crushing both.
Time to get some work done and listen to an interview with the guy who invented the contraceptive pill.
* NZ Herald is changing policy such that articles may only be up for a week after posting...
