Will New Zealand's science reforms spark meaningful change?

Opinion: New Zealand’s science system is undergoing its biggest transformation in over 30 years.

The Government has announced sweeping reforms that will consolidate seven crown research institutes (CRIs) into three public research organisations (PROs). A fourth will focus on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing and synthetic biology.

The reforms also propose a radical shift in intellectual property (IP) policy, modelled after Canada’s Waterloo University, which would give researchers ownership of the IP they generate.

These changes could unlock new opportunities for entrepreneurship and commercialisation, particularly within universities. But without structural and cultural shifts in how research is funded, managed and supported, they risk being little more than a reshuffling of existing institutions.

New Zealand’s innovation system is fragmented, with limited pathways for research to transition into high-growth startups. The proposed IP policy is a step in the right direction.

Under current models, universities or research institutions often retain IP ownership, creating commercialisation barriers. The Waterloo model shifts this dynamic by allowing researchers to own and directly commercialise their discoveries. In theory, this should incentivise more academics to pursue entrepreneurial ventures.

However, IP policy alone won’t be enough - universities must fundamentally rethink their role in innovation and entrepreneurship.

If implemented successfully, this new approach could turn universities into true engines of economic growth, enabling researchers to launch startups, secure investment, and form industry partnerships more seamlessly.

But for this to work, universities must overhaul their commercialisation offices, change their academic standard and promotion policies, re-envision doctoral education, commit to entrepreneurship education across all disciplines, and increase support for researcher and student-led ventures.

Of course, this depends on clear government signals and funding, which are not in the minister’s announcement.

Beyond the university sector, creating a Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council is another major structural shift. This council will set national research priorities, ensuring alignment between government investment and economic needs.

While this has potential, it raises an important question: Will short-term economic concerns dominate strategic decision-making or foster long-term innovation and societal benefits?

Innovation is not always immediate or predictable. Many of today’s most transformative technologies - mRNA vaccines AI, and quantum computing - emerged from long-term, curiosity-driven research. The challenge for the advisory council will be balancing targeted funding for industry priorities while ensuring that fundamental, exploratory research is not neglected.

The Government’s emphasis on commercialisation and foreign investment also raises concerns about funding shortfalls. The new research structure aims to maximise the value of New Zealand’s $1.2 billion in annual science funding, but there is no commitment to increasing this investment.

Compared to small, innovation-driven nations like Denmark, where public research spending is nearly double New Zealand’s, research here remains severely underfunded.

If the goal is to double exports by 2034 and position New Zealand as a science-driven economy, then simply repackaging existing institutions is not enough. The reforms must be backed by greater investment in research infrastructure, start-up support and technology-transfer initiatives to ensure that ideas generated in New Zealand stay in New Zealand and scale globally.

Another major concern is the future of New Zealand’s scientific workforce. Over the past decade, research careers have become increasingly precarious, with limited post-doctoral opportunities and many scientists seeking work overseas.

The Government has emphasised attracting foreign direct investment and skilled professionals from overseas, but this ignores the urgent issue of retaining and developing local talent.

Young researchers will continue to leave without clear, structured career pathways, taking their expertise and innovations with them. To counter this, the Government must ensure that the new public research organisations and universities offer sustainable career opportunities, globally competitive salaries, clear knowledge mobilisation and commercialisation pathways, and specific support for emerging researchers.

The merging of Niwa, GNS Science, and other CRIs into fewer, larger institutions is another contentious issue. While it should reduce duplication and improve coordination, it risks losing specialised expertise in climate science, conservation, and social sciences.

New Zealand’s recent cuts to Marsden funding for humanities and social sciences have reduced its ability to develop evidence-based policies, address societal challenges, respond to climate change, foster innovation, preserve cultural identity, prepare for crises, and maintain global research leadership.

Universities will need to play a larger role to bridge these gaps. Globally, leading institutions integrate social science, business expertise and environmental research into their innovation ecosystems. New Zealand’s universities must expand interdisciplinary collaboration, ensuring that innovation is not just about technology but also about addressing societal challenges.

Despite these challenges, the proposed reforms have potential. But the devil is in the detail. Success will require more than structural change - it demands a cultural shift towards a research system that actively supports entrepreneurship, values long-term innovation, and provides clear pathways from discovery to commercialisation. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the minister’s response about fostering a more entrepreneurial culture in NZ.

To make this work, the Government must:

1. Fund universities to support knowledge mobilisation, commercialisation and entrepreneurship education and support at all levels and disciplines.
2. Expand entrepreneurial training in PhD programs, ensuring that graduates have the skills to lead change, innovate in existing organisations, and start and scale research-based businesses.
3. Increase research funding, bringing New Zealand in line with other small, research-intensive economies, and reinstate funding for humanities and social sciences research.
4. Ensure the new PROs and advisory council support both commercialisation and fundamental research, not just projects with short-term economic potential.
5. Retain and develop local research talent, creating sustainable career pathways to prevent brain drain.
6. Signal the benefits of a more entrepreneurial culture and work to achieve this, especially through entrepreneurship education at all levels.

Such changes are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a science system that produces world-class research and turns that research into economic and social impact.

New Zealand has a choice: continue to under-invest in research and entrepreneurship and lose our best ideas to other countries, or build a thriving innovation ecosystem that empowers researchers, fosters entrepreneurship, and translates discovery into prosperity.

Are we bold enough to make solving this challenge a national priority?