By The recent announcement by New Zealand’s Science Minister Judith Collins has stirred considerable debate in the scientific community. Half of the funding allocated to New Zealand’s Marsden Fund, which has traditionally supported fundamental research, is now set to be redirected towards research with economic benefits. Social sciences and the humanities, once recipients of this fund, are now excluded from future funding under this new directive. While the shift is framed as a move towards economic pragmatism, it raises important questions about the role of pure research and the potential risks of over-prioritising short-term returns over long-term scientific exploration.
The Marsden Fund’s Historical Purpose
The Marsden Fund was established to support pure, fundamental science, focusing on generating new knowledge without the immediate expectation of practical or commercial outcomes. As Simon Upton, former National Party Minister, quoted at the 30th-anniversary celebration of the fund, the core intent was to fund ingenuity and support science that could potentially lead to groundbreaking discoveries, even if their applications were unknown at the time.
Collins’ announcement signifies a fundamental shift in how the government views research funding. The Marsden Fund, traditionally a champion of curiosity-driven scientific exploration, is now increasingly aligned with research that can demonstrate economic returns. While the reallocation of funds is not surprising given current global economic pressures, it signals a redefined notion of what constitutes valuable research.
The Dangers of “Picking Winners” in Research
The notion that research must yield predetermined outcomes, often referred to as “picking winners”, poses significant risks. The problem with this approach is clear: if we could predict the outcome of research, it would no longer be research. Science, by its very nature, thrives on exploration and uncertainty. The unpredictable nature of fundamental research is what often leads to the greatest breakthroughs, many of which can’t be foreseen at the outset.
The push for applied research based on economic returns places a burden on science to deliver immediate, measurable outcomes. This could result in a narrowing of the scope of scientific inquiry, favouring areas with readily foreseeable impacts while sidelining more speculative, yet potentially transformative, fields. History shows that many of today’s most valuable commercial applications were originally driven by curiosity and scientific exploration with no immediate practical goals—think of quantum physics or the discovery of penicillin.
The Long-Term Value of Fundamental Science
While Collins’ focus on “core science” like physics, chemistry, maths, engineering, and biomedical sciences makes sense from a commercial standpoint, it overlooks the vital contributions of humanities and social sciences. These fields provide foundational insights into human behaviour, culture, society, and the environment, which are crucial for addressing complex global challenges. As Cather Simpson, a physicist and entrepreneur, highlights, fundamental research is critical to long-term economic success because it is the source of fresh ideas and innovative solutions.
By neglecting the humanities and social sciences, New Zealand risks losing a well-rounded approach to innovation. Technology and engineering alone cannot solve all of society’s problems. The social and human dimensions—understanding how people think, behave, and interact—are equally critical in creating a prosperous, sustainable future. Fields like psychology, sociology, and history provide essential context that can shape and inform scientific developments, helping ensure that they meet the needs of society in ethical, inclusive ways.
A Comprehensive Research System at Risk
One of the overlooked aspects of this funding shift is the overhead costs associated with research. New Zealand has long operated a fully-costed research system, meaning that for every dollar allocated to researchers’ salaries, the institution receives an additional 115% to cover overheads—expenses such as office space, administrative support, student scholarships, and software licenses. These overheads are essential for the proper functioning of universities and research institutions, enabling them to support researchers and fund the infrastructure needed to carry out research.
Reducing these overheads, as some have suggested, could undermine the sustainability of academic institutions and the support systems they provide. If the Marsden Fund reduces its support for fundamental research, universities may struggle to sustain their basic operations, and critical research areas like the humanities and social sciences could be left behind. In countries where universities receive higher direct funding for research, the overheads are typically less of a burden, allowing more flexibility for institutions to support diverse research fields.
The Exclusion of Humanities and Social Sciences
The exclusion of the humanities and social sciences from the Marsden Fund is particularly concerning. These fields have no other major funding sources for baseline research, and their exclusion further risks stifling interdisciplinary approaches. While the focus on “core science” may be justified by cost and equipment concerns, the reality is that interdisciplinary research often leads to the most innovative breakthroughs. The overlap between technology and the human experience, including issues of ethics, society, and policy, requires contributions from diverse academic disciplines.
For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) demands not only technical expertise but also deep understanding of its social, cultural, and ethical implications—areas that are squarely within the realm of the humanities and social sciences. Neglecting these areas could lead to the development of technologies that fail to address or even exacerbate societal inequalities.
Where to From Here?
The push for a more economically focused research system presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it is understandable that government funds should be spent efficiently and that research should contribute to economic development. However, this approach should not undermine the integrity and diversity of scientific inquiry.
If the government is serious about promoting innovation, it must find a balance between funding applied research with immediate economic benefits and supporting fundamental science, which may take years or decades to yield commercial value. One potential solution could be the creation of new funding mechanisms that target interdisciplinary research, allowing the humanities and social sciences to thrive alongside more traditional scientific disciplines.
The announcement to reorient the Marsden Fund raises important questions about the future of New Zealand’s scientific landscape. While a focus on economic returns may seem pragmatic, it risks stifling the creativity and ingenuity that are the hallmarks of fundamental research. True innovation comes from the freedom to explore new ideas without the pressure of immediate economic outcomes. For New Zealand to remain a leader in scientific and technological development, it must continue to invest in the long-term value of research across all disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences.