The areas that have been cut include research in subjects like nursing, law, and archaeology.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Professor Nicola Gaston, Co-Director, The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments:
“I am horrified by today’s announcement. I am absolutely disgusted by the way that the kind of science I, and my colleagues do – as physical scientists involved in research that is purposeful, focused on solutions to climate and sustainability challenges, that do have real economic value – is being weaponised against our colleagues in the humanities and the social sciences.
“The work that our colleagues in the humanities and social sciences do is incredibly important. We can do all the work in developing clean technologies we want, but if we don’t understand the barriers to people purchasing that tech? It becomes useless.
“We need scholars who work in the arts, in the social sciences, who ask questions about who we are and why. We need these people not only so that they may publish their work – and it is fair to consider that esoteric at times – but so they may teach the next generation. Teaching should never be reduced to repeating what is contained in decades old textbooks, but must be based in active scholarship – in asking research questions of relevance to our times today, and to our society.
“And in any case, can it really be any more esoteric than quantum physics? In my experience, when I look at the work of my colleagues in the humanities and social scientists, it is always far more based in the needs of now and here than anything.
“Science that has economic impact is already privileged in our funding system. It has access to funding through MBIE, both via Endeavour programmes and Smart Ideas funding. Health research has its own funding mechanism, through the Health Research Council. We could argue about the relative amounts of funding that are awarded through these different mechanisms, but the fact remains: the Marsden Fund is the only funding source that operates even-handedly across disciplines.
“The Marsden Fund is not a partisan beast. It was set up by Simon Upton, when he was the responsible Minister for the National Government in 1992. It was established to support research excellence – based on discipline specific assessment of what excellence is – because it has long been understood by scientists, and in scientific communities, that the path from fundamental research to impact is a long and unpredictable one. Trying to ‘pick winners’ when funding fundamental science is a fools task: the impact is real, but it is measurable only at a collective level.
“The context we are currently in, with our Science and University funding systems being reviewed, is also important. There are significant changes on the cards in the next years, and we all understand that. Changes to the PBRF or to the overheads paid to our universities might change the overall equation in terms of funding the vital work done by the humanities and social sciences in Aotearoa New Zealand. But none of those decisions have yet been made public. As it stands, this decision is an outrageous indictment on the research funding system in Aotearoa, and our collective understanding of what scholarship is.
“Scientists who take pride in your work on ‘fundamental’, or ‘blue skies’ topics? Watch out. You will be next if we let this stand.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am a Fellow of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute, and currently funded by Marsden.”
Dr Siouxsie Wiles, Microbiologist and Associate Professor, University of Auckland, comments:
“As a scientist who will likely benefit from the changes to the Marsden Fund today, you might think I’d be happy with Minister Collins’ announcement. But I’m not. I’m horrified. If the pandemic taught me anything, it was how valuable our humanities and social science scholars and researchers are. Yes, “science” developed new vaccines in seemingly record time (although, ironically, we only have the mRNA vaccines because of decades of ‘blue-skies’ research that was deemed largely irrelevant by funders…) but it’s not scientists who understand how best to vaccinate people and what barriers might be faced.
“The Marsden Fund was the only government fund to support humanities and social sciences research. Refocusing the fund to focus on “science with a purpose” ignores the evidence of the incredible impact of Marsden funded research of all kinds and is going to have enormous negative ramifications for Aotearoa New Zealand. It is naïve to think that we can tackle the current and future challenges we face as a country and a world without our humanities and social science scholars and their research.”
No conflict of interest to declare.
Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President NZ Association of Scientists; Motu Research Affiliate; and Te Pūnaha Matatini Principal Investigator, comments:
“As we await more detailed information, the New Zealand Association of Scientists deplores key aspects of the today’s announcements that the Marsden Fund will eliminate its Social Sciences and Humanities Panel, and introduce measures requiring funded research to be of economic benefit.
“For those who understand national research systems, receiving this announcement is chilling. That’s especially true because the government has been unable to progress the long-awaited reports on reform of the research system.
“More than any other panels, those eliminated investigate and help us understand who we are as nation. Why would we not care to support that?
“It may be a surprise that so many scientists cannot support this type change. The research funded by Marsden is best referred to as fundamental, and deserves support on that basis. So this isn’t more money for science. While the same area of research can be both fundamental and applied, forcing economic benefits into the Marsden fund doesn’t get us a 2-for-1. Instead, it is likely to erode the excellence, quality and efficiency of both.
“Excellence in fundamental research forms the foundation for knowledge that supports our society, and the quest for understanding that drives high quality teaching in universities and supports a wide range of applied research. I’ve always felt that the tendency to refer to the foundations of knowledge as ‘blue-skies’ research invites the mistake in funding that we’re seeing today.
“The research areas defunded are important and were also among the most attractive areas for emerging researchers starting their careers. These cuts double down on the end of National Science Challenges where social science was one of the cost-effective bright spots that emerged.
“In effect, it appears that we’re defunding our ability to understand and address some of our most important challenges. Climate change is an area where we know half the challenge is social science and that humanities can be vastly important to support public understanding and communication. The same applies to hazards and many other areas where social science is essential in making science both useable and used – to save lives.
“Similar changes have been made to the Catalyst Fund, and reflect a similar short sightedness. International collaboration is most effective around fundamental research in areas of mutual excellence and interest. Attempting to extract economic outcomes undermines the quality of collaborations as well as their long-term benefits.
“With ongoing cuts, we must be sadly asking, what funding is left for these areas and where do we expect our excellent researchers and collaborators to go? What does it signal about research careers or that the research system supports New Zealand’s unique needs?”
No conflicts of interest.
Associate Professor Nic Rawlence, Director, Otago Palaeogenetics Laboratory, University of Otago, comments:
“This is dire news for blue skies research in New Zealand. Now there is no funding for anything archaeological-related (i.e. humanities) unless you can put an evolutionary biology spin on it and put it through the Ecology, Evolution & Behaviour panel.
“As a palaoecologist, I reconstruct prehistoric ecosystems, how they have responded to Aotearoa dynamic geological, climatic and human history, and how this can inform evidence-based kaitiakitanga and conservation management of our taonga species. To answer these pressing research questions, collaborating with archaeologists across the motu is key.
“Archaeology is by nature a multidisciplinary toolbox that spans the fields of biology to humanities and social sciences. The government’s announcement about the refocusing of the Marsden Fund and the scrapping, effective immediately, of the humanities and social sciences panels, means there is now no funding for research into Aotearoa Māori and European history. This is a sad day.
“While some archaeological research projects will be able to pivot towards evolutionary biology angles and submit to different Marsden panels (e.g. ecology, evolution and behaviour), the majority will be left high and dry. There is only so much research you can do off the smell of an oily rag.
“If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it, which will have real economic consequences considering this supremely ill-advised decision by the government.”
No conflicts of interest declared.
