Wellington
Taking a further opportunity to look at
Now, CI is meant to be more at the end of converting good science andengineering oriented ideas into commercial reality and money-makers.
And, as it says itself, while CI isn’t going to be bidding for any of the funding areas in R, S& T, it is certainly still in the overall mix.
However, what is still totally unclear, in fact non-existent, is an overall national SETD plan.There is no STRATEGY.
The only mention in the CI SoI is in passing on page 19 which talks about setting up NationalTechnology Networks.
“These Networks could become a framework for a national science and innovationstrategy which can help define a more strategic approach to funding rather than making one-offdecisions on individual proposals.”
If that’s the case, yet again we’re going to have a national plan as an after-thought.
It’s a bit like retrospectively figuring what we’re doing after we’ve assembled all thepieces, rather than figuring out WHAT we want to do, and THEN assembling the pieces.
Sure, having industry input into what the future might hold is important; but they’re moreinterested in the here and now, meaning say a two year future-view.
It is an underwhelming way to approach things – a middling method that the likes of Taiwan,Singapore, Finland et al abandoned long ago. It is, yet again, putting the cart in front of thehorse.
It also flies in the face of
Oversight and Leadership
Recommendation 13
Form a Science and Innovation Council, led from a very senior ministerial level in Government,with representatives from the university, public and private research organisations and fromindustry. Members should represent a wide range of science and technology themes, including thesocial sciences. The role of the Science and Innovation Council should be to establish a nationalinnovation strategy and advise on science and
innovation policy and priorities.
Now, perhaps there’s a cunning plan to set up such a council.
On page 10 of CI’s SoI, under the third bullet point sits the sentence.
“The [Callaghan Innovation Act 2012] Act provides for the Responsible Minister toappoint a stakeholder advisory group to support Callaghan Innovation’s work.”
Might I suggest, strongly, Mr Joyce, that this be set up post haste.
Our country desperately needs a simple and clear view of what we’re going to concentrate on forhigh-value and other value-added manufacturing (especially around some of our biologicalresources).
I appreciate it is a brave political statement to say; ‘right, we’re heading here, by doingthis’, but it is what is lacking at our highest level.
Shuffling such a responsibility down to where it won’t see the light of day within CallaghanInnovation will simply mean more deck-chair arranging for our SETD.
All of the exemplar countries that our bureaucracy and ministers are fond of saying we should belike, lead from the top, based on a Science and Innovation Council.
Even if such a council gets it wrong, at least it is a direction….and you can changedirection.
At the moment we have nothing.
To focus our own SETD efforts, we need to do the same as other countries have done and lay ourcards on the table for all to see and understand.