Loss and recovery of research investment for applied sciences: a salutary lesson from New Zealand

In 1992, all governmental resourcing and investment in New Zealand, including that for science, underwent dramatic reform. The global philosophy driving the reform was new public management-a method by which nations could be run more economically by emulating the commercial world. Central to the reform was separation of policy, purchasing (investment), and providers (in the case of research scientists). The reform led to a large reduction in the number of governmental scientists. For example, in 1 year alone, 2001-2002, the Horticultural and Food Research Institute, one of the nine governmental branches of science, lost 51 staff members, 10% of its work force. Over a decade later after the establishment of the reform, in July 2003, the New Zealand government's investment agency announced its budget for the next 6 years. The government-funded science sectors considered to do modern research such as computer technology and biotechnology, and halved funding for land-related sciences. The reduced budget dramatically limited New Zealand's capacity for research in soil and land-use science and ended all research positions in this area (38 jobs). Public outcry through newspaper editorials and from leading businessmen, along with effective leadership from the scientific community, led to the reestablishment of funding in the form of a virtual national center called Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative (SLURI). The elimination of funding for soil and land-use science research in New Zealand was an unexpected and potentially disastrous result of new public management. New Zealand's experience has relevance for the United States, because budgets for agricultural research are being severely reduced or converted to competitive funding. The U.S. President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposed to cut formula funding by 50% and to zero it out in fiscal year 2007. The funds would have been put in competitive grants. In New Zealand, the lack of ability to respond to a scientific problem demonstrated that a balance must be maintained in funding decisions so that scientific capability is retained to solve unforeseen future problems.