Black: critical of new system.

To the disappointment of researchers, Maurice Williamson, New Zealand's Minister for Research, Science and Technology since 1996, has dropped the practice of his predecessor, Simon Upton, of consulting widely and directly with scientists, depending solely on policy advice from the 34 members of his ministry.

Where specific studies are needed, they are usually commissioned from the Royal Society of New Zealand under contracts worth NZ$1.4 million this year. Established in an act of parliament, which was recently revised to extend its coverage from traditional to social and applied sciences, the society is officially independent of the government.

But maintaining its autonomous role is a delicate matter. In a celebrated spat starting in 1995, Philippa Black, a geologist and then president of the society, was declared persona non grata by Upton for criticizing the science system he championed (see Nature 379, 112 & 380, 282; 1996).

Black says: “If anything my views have strengthened since then with the current strain on funding, including the impossible infrastructure position of PGSF, and Marsden grants not allowing purchase of equipment costing more than $5,000, and the high costs of managing research.”

Sir John Scott, recently elected as the society's new president, describes the government's position on science as technically amounting to cuts, which he finds “very depressing”. He says he runs the same risk as Black in describing the restructuring of the economy and science as “experimental and too dependent on accountants”.

George Petersen, president of the academy council of the society and a biochemist at the University of Otago, says that one of the problems in New Zealand science is how to boost the morale of scientists, which he describes as being “at an all-time low”, especially in universities.

He sees the ‘technology foresight’ process planned by the government (see below) as not being properly linked to funding, educational and scientific workforce requirements.

In a joint statement, Scott and Petersen say they urgently need to lobby the government to influence long-term policy “without being continually knocked back with the response that scientists are just looking after their own interests”.

The New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) is less cautious. Its president, Brion Jarvis, a retired microbiologist, says he was elected because of his advocacy of science and his ability to comment freely, now that he is no longer bound to any organization.

Evenly split between universities and CRIs, the NZAS speaks for CRI staff who are prevented by their contracts from speaking publicly on policy issues.

Jarvis says there is a “groundswell of discontent” among CRI scientists and uncertainty over jobs. Indeed a US Fulbright scholar, Jack Sommer, found in 1995-96 that only a quarter of CRI researchers felt they could speak freely on public policy issues. Most said their job satisfaction has decreased in the past two years.