From what I gather, it is not only me who has a degree of disquiet about the lengthy and somewhatsecretive gestation taking place around Callaghan Innovation (the new moniker for the AdvancedTechnology Institute).
Because part of the unease is it appears responsibility for establishing C.I. has been abrogatedto its Establishment Board, and especially its chair Sue Suckling. Allowing it to run fast and loosewith a relatively undefined mandate is not in our best interests.
Therefore, when we have no idea what or how the C.I. is going to look, advertisements for its newCEO have only just been placed and the word is that the outgoing chief executive of IndustrialResearch (Shaun Coffey) offered to act in a ‘caretaker cum help the new person in’ role – butwas turned down – is it any wonder I’m nervous for our science and innovation system.
Some captains of industry, academia and research have expressed opinions around “I hope theminister [Joyce] understands what he’s doing here.”
Now, maybe the Minister’s hands-off approach to C.I’s establishment is legitimate, maybe heis retaining the ability to cut its Feb. 1 recommendations loose if there’s too much political,science and industry grief over its proposals, maybe it is a sign of his fatigue around science andinnovation and more closely aligned to thoughts of “what do we do now.” (In that regard too theutter revamping of what was FoRST and MoRST, into the Ministry of Science & Innovation, and nowinto MBIE, and the subsequent loss of some really capable brains hasn’t helped).
Perhaps too it is the government retaining the ability to appoint an advisory board over andabove whatever the C.I. establishment board comes up with.
But as industry opinion increases that they’ll simply be carrying out business as usual (withwhoever is their current science and R&D provider), and that C.I. doesn’t appear to be solvingthe main challenge for NZ Inc – which is that really messy, ugly, difficult part between the ideaand the market – such disquiet is better addressed now than later.
Or perhaps I’m just being pessimistic.
Perhaps the Sue Suckling-led C.I. establishment board is going to deliver a proposal that getsall the R&D ducks and drakes, the capital, routes to market, partnership and ‘innovation’pieces of the puzzle aligned, and cranking.
Because, as the
It is that iterative, two-way conversation between the market andscience that we need to improve.
As already stated in a
P.S. Riffing on a theme ……one of the deep ironies of the C.I. development (in the loosest sense of the word), is thatthe A.T.I was originally I.R.L’s brainchild. Its mutation into heaven knows what has all thepotential to be a kiwi tragicomedy.
I hope I’m wrong.