The review and report about how R&D can better support NZ's high-value manufacturing andservices sector should be made public pretty soon.
It should be interesting reading - especially given that its authors had less than a month tocarry out the interviews and writing. (See original sticK story
Therefore, much of the thinking in it must've already been pre-determined.
All in all, the report will undoubtedly continue on the more focused, more industry-assistancetone (without calling it picking winners) that recent noises out of Wellington has been heralding. Arecent thought piece by MED economist Roger Procter is but one of the changes in thinking (see sticKstory
Partly too it is a recognition that the competitive research funding model of the past 20 oddyears is not a good defacto means of deriving a national research and innovation strategy (in theabsence of actually developing one)
Given that similar sized countries as New Zealand have actively kept research and industry in thesame room (so to speak), we can expect the report by Prof John Raine, Prof Mina Teicher and PhilO'Reilly to provide high level directions while being non-prescriptive (as its terms of referencesaid).
The ever-so-slowly merging Ministry of Science and Innovation (from the combined Foundation andMinistry of Research, Science and Technology) officials are more than likely already developingpolicy based on the report's findings.
How the report handles the recent flown suggestions that there should be more CRI mergers will beinteresting. While much of the pure high-tech manufacturing R&D capability resides with IRL, thereview team was also to examine biotech, agritechnologies and meat and wool related agritechactivities.
So, while the nation's not waiting with baited breath for the report - its impact will, withoutdoubt, ripple across the R&D and the innovation ecosystem.
(Uumm, I wonder too if they'll be brave enough to recommend a national innovation strategy!)