Hard News: What I'd really like to know
134 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Excuse my ignorance of how this works but my experience, admittedly only as a consumer, is that when an agriculture sector (take your pick which flavour crops, livestock whatever) has a "bad season" due to weather the price to me goes up correspondingly so presumably the farmer's income hasn't "halved" ?
Well for some stock, the price doesn't go up. In order to get through a winter farmers often have to sell sheep/cattle etc, and since the market is flooded the price goes right down.
And if your crop is 90% wiped out, it doesn't matter if the price goes up 50%, you're still going to have a bad year.
-
Andy Milne: there are things you can prepare for, and things you can't, but either way, bitching about it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and is an entirely wasted effort.
To paraphrase The Wire,this is New Zealand; the gods will not save you.
-
jg,
hi,
read the responses and here's my 2c:
1 - do good science (this is really hard)
2 - turn this into a product that people will pay $$ for (this is also really hard)
rocket science huh?
i'm all for basic research but tripling the amount of papers and patents churned out will not spontaneously lead to any kind of payback no matter how much scientists implore you to just, just... believe. the trick is to try and do good basic research in areas that you have a credible chance of turning into products and in tandem bootstrap the entrepeneur ecosystem that will help get these things out the door. the blunt fact of the matter is that fonterra should be doing basic R&D as a matter of course and shouldn't need prodding with public funds (as they probably are, their brand new research centre is based in melbourne i believe but i haven't seen anything for ages about that).
so - who will poney up the matching funds from industry? why limit yourself to big companies already resident in nz? venture capital is global - there is no reason a smart niche player with a solid piece of science can't attract capital here and launch the company with matching funding from the pool (for instance). rinse and repeat a few times and if you're lucky some of the first few will re-invest in start-ups and you get a positive feedback loop. it is not a crime to invest $20M in a company and sell it off for $250M if it outgrows the nz economy. the learn-by-doing payback for the nzers involved is invaluable and soon enough the depth of experience will increase and we will be able to hold them here longer and longer. nothing breeds success like success.
what industries should we choose? well, i don't like govt picking winners but i certainly think they should support them as and when they pop up i.e. nobody would have picked PJ to be such an outstanding success with LotR yet for lack of basic broadband infrastructure an entire supportive industry never got off the ground (i believe the NZ Institute had some nice numbers about $/MB transport costs) - we have a world leading farming sector and world wide trade in commodities is going up - it would seem a no-brainer to position ourselves as the 'smart' food nation/ the 'clean' food nation etc etc providing it's backed up with reality and isn't just marketing.
another angle is 'what shouldn't we bother researching'? this is anathema to the classic academic rallying cry of 'fund excellence wherever it is' but the blunt fact of the matter (mentioned by someone already) is that clustering is a good thing - 5 world class people in the same room are far, far more valuable than the same 5 people scattered geographically. things that nz shouldn't bother with are things that are massively important to other, richer countries that already have expertise in or close to it i.e. nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage, rice DNA, anti-ageing GM technologies, high tech health equipment etc. that's not to say that we couldn't have niche roles within these 'mega' trends that could potentially become very large rather, i'm saying i'd be horrified if $50M was slapped down with the expectation that NZ was going to develop the next hospital MRI scanner/search engine/single chip DNA sequencer - it's not the courage i'm questioning, just the sanity. we have enough strengths to work with, go with the flow.
profitablity - large organisations by and large struggle with innovation (read The Innovators Dilemma) purely because they need to have massive returns to justify the effort. it's a lot easier to move and adapt if you are small and sniping at the underbelly - i think this is a reasonable strategy for nz science commercialisation, i.e. don't go head-to-head with nestle on bulk ice-cream with one large super-duper effort, have lots of little companies trying to develop, say, lactose-intolerant ice cream and sell it for $$loads to parents for b'day treats etc eventually a market will move and your small furry rodent company will be bang smack in the middle of the mammal revolution. it's also a lot easier to grow this way than try and put 2 dozen people on the ground in yr 1 - not a trivial statement in the under-resourced nz science/commercialisation pool. this isn't to say its easy and that there is no competition but by their deeds shall ye know them - if the fund rolls into some gargantuan govt institution that only deals with other ginormous companies via MBA middle men then i believe this money will dribble away and 10 years from now we'll be wondering where the hell it went.
size - assuming the details aren't an accounting trick - i think this is a credible and proportionate response (albeit a decade late) for one industry sector/theme. i think another 2 would easily be justified. nz has more un-tapped resources than just green grass that no-on else is going to commercialise for us i.e. tourism and how we deal with the travel footprints and i think broadband's potential for niche nz businesses is huge (think dozens of 37Signals).
cheers,
dr joe -
Returning to one of RB's original points regarding media coverage. It is clear from last night's news (and radio reports for around 24 hours) that the media is primarily interested in reporting the lurid and scandalous, esp. if it has a 'local' angle (e.g., the 'perp' has a NZ passport). It's lazy. It's lowest common denominator. It contributes to general stupidification of the NZ populace.
-
jg
i'm all for basic research but tripling the amount of papers and patents churned out will not spontaneously lead to any kind of payback no matter how much scientists implore you to just, just... believe.
I'm to simply disagree with you, but I do.
The history of science and technology is really really clear on this. Basic science makes the big differences. Applied science is necessary but doesn't make the big differences.
Tripling the number of papers and patents actually does triple (or more) the economic payoff. This is not an argument, the data is out there, go look at US research from 1950 to 1990 and compare economic benefit from NSF funded (basic) versus USDA (applied) funded science. Yes USDA science is tremendously valuable but the step changes the transformational changes come from basic science and the more basic science you do the more likely you are to get payoff.
You cannot and shouldn't solely fund basic science but you also must not pretend for a second that you can "pick winner" because of some clever economic goal. It just doesn't work that way.
'fund excellence wherever it is' but the blunt fact of the matter (mentioned by someone already) is that clustering is a good thing
Yes it was I who said both things. But I'll reiterate, in my opinion it is better to fund higher quality than to "target". And again go look at research outputs from the US over the last 50-60 years.
-
there are things you can prepare for, and things you can't, but either way, bitching about it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and is an entirely wasted effort.
To paraphrase The Wire,this is New Zealand; the gods will not save you.Same applies for people bitching and whining on the interweb about, to take some recent examples, mortgages, the economy, food prices, and last night's selection on the television news.
Main difference being that after the RNZ Rural News reporter goes home the farmer will go out and try to do something about alleviating the effects of the drought...
-
Russell
I’ve got a few answers to your questions about New Zealand Fast Forward.You asked about the companies involved. Some of our most important primary
sector companies have made a commitment. They include Fonterra, DairyNZ,
Meat and Wool NZ, the Meat Industry Association, Zespri and PGG
Wrightson. (I notice you have picked up a few of these in comments.) This
is just the start and there will be more commitments from other companies
in the sector.Because the fund is a partnership, the specific areas of research will be
decided over time. It’s better anyway for experts than for politicians to
make decisions about research areas.So when you ask about the most promising areas of research, I can give you
one example, (purely for illustration):One priority might be looking for major gains in nutrient retention and
recycling, which would reduce the loss of nitrogen into the air and into
waterways. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral
farming, improve our ability to meet our climate change obligations and
improve water quality in the surrounding waterways. It would also reduce
costs to farmers, who would effectively only need to pay for fertiliser
once, yet be able to use it again and again.Ownership of the intellectual property in the ‘killer products’ we want to
create is likely to vary depending on the nature of the project.As for other industries, like forestry, there are a number of initiatives
with the forestry sector including the Forest Industry Development Agenda.
I’m working very closely with that sector. Significant amounts of money are
going into it separately. Over $300 million has been invested by the
Government in programmes to support the forestry industry over the last 8
years.There are any number of important industries. You mentioned biomaterials. I
could add a few more to the list. There have been a lot of economic
development initiatives across all sorts of industries in recent years,
including biotechnology, telecommunications and industrial design. This
particular initiative focuses on the pastoral and food sectors because
these sectors already have global reach and are integral to our economic
prosperity. These sectors provide the best chance to transform our economy
in the next ten years.Basic research is included in the scope of the fund. It is just one
element. Fast Forward is very comprehensive and covers the whole value
chain, including basic research. We know, for example, that there is
fundamental research needed around the rumen to ensure we increase animal
productivity and reduce methane emissions.Finally, it’s an interesting point about the name. We never considered
calling it Russell. Perhaps next time. But you will be relieved to hear
that at least the government changed the name from the ‘Sustainable
Pastoral and Food Innovation Initiative.’Hope that helps. Obviously I’m very excited about the fund, and I think it
offers a genuine chance to step up our innovation to the levels we need to
make a real difference in our economic prospects. You can read all the
details by clicking the NZ Fast Forward link at the beehive website,
www.beehive.govt.nz .Regards.
-
but to me it's obvious the co-op's owners aren't going to invest in R&D to the level other global companies can.
Jason, I think you make an excellent point about Fonterra's ownership. What's your take on the proposed restructuring and partial float?
-
Interesting conversations going on here but sometimes it feels a bit like being in a room, where everyone is engrossed in different conversations...
The mentions of the Yates garden book reminds me of an odd little book I own--"Adam the Gardener: New Zealand edition" (n.d.), with strip drawings of a rustic type pruning and sowing and planting. It appears to be a local adaptation of a UK season-by-season guide, originally published by the London Sunday Express. I am sure there is an interest group in old gardening books but they sure are useful for info on older species, such as quince and black currants.
There is old section of the New Zealand Herald, used as a bookmark, which dates "Adam" around 1939/1940.
From the crisp-dry Waikato, where evenings promise rain which never arrives.
-
there are things you can prepare for, and things you can't, but either way, bitching about it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and is an entirely wasted effort.
I agree with you completely on this IS, bitching doesn't change the circumstances a tinkers damn. I think it's entirely understandable though and i found it pretty patronising to say they simply should have prepared better when for many farmers there isn't always much they can do in advance.
I should clarify some of my comments further upthread by saying that most of my (limited) agricultural experience is in sheep & beef, not dairy or cropfarming. So Glenn when you say:
when an agriculture sector (take your pick which flavour crops, livestock whatever) has a "bad season" due to weather the price to me goes up correspondingly so presumably the farmer's income hasn't "halved" ?
You'd be dead wrong from a sheep farmer's point of view. A drought leads to an oversupply at the freezing works, as farmers try and shed stock in response to their reduced capacity to graze them. This oversupply inevitably leads to a sharp decline in the price farmers recieve. The flow-on effect is that next season, if grass cover improves, the farmer will face increased costs in re-stocking his farm because there are fewer lambs available.
And Emma, you commented earlier about dairy farmers in Canterbury. As I understand it, weather doesn't have such a negative impact on dairy farms (at least in canterbury) as it does on sheep/beef farms because of dairy farmers' increased access to irrigation. So when the rain doesnt arrive, the impact is not on the dairy farmers directly, but on river and groundwater levels. Whether or not that's a good thing is a whole nother argument entirely.
-
Jim - I'm sceptical about our ability to use technological "advances" to help meet our obligations to Kyoto.
The N product is at best a delay on pollution, but not a solution. It is the intensification and suitablility of the land being used where true solutions lie.
The Carbon Sinks for example borrow directly from the plot of John Travoltas movie "Broken Arrow" where a Nuke explodes in a Copper Mine and therefore seals in the radiation. Both require great leaps of faith and are not plausible.
-
You cannot and shouldn't solely fund basic science but you also must not pretend for a second that you can "pick winner" because of some clever economic goal. It just doesn't work that way.
Sure, and I think its worth pointing out that the antibacterial effects of Penicillium weren't discovered as a result of some PPP between government and a pharmaceutical company's R&D division. I don't think Alexander Fleming or Howard Walter Florey came to work one morning determined to create a vastly profitable antibiotic.
-
And when some enormous part of New Zealand - say, Wellington or Auckland - gets swallowed up by a massive earthquake someday, or buried by an enormous volcanic eruption, I'm sure you'll all have the same charmingly empathetic 'well, you shouldn't have lived there, dumbasses!' response, right? I mean, who would live in a place so geologically unsound? We must all be crazy and stupid and deserve to die, or at least lose our homes!
ah... I thought Emma was suggesting( and I was agreeing) that all the complaining about the weather isn't going to fix the problem especially when it is constant, annually even.
-
Jim Anderton
Now we're 'Ministerial special'.
-
Speaking of carbon sinks and other traps (for N, radiation, whatever), I found the following from George Monbiot especially instructive:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called … leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
-
I'm with Bart to some extent, and agree that doing science is a good idea.
But there are contra arguments. The US did lots of basic science through (say) 1950-80 and made money out of it. Japan (although this is a bit anecdotal) did bugger all and still managed very well economically by productionising other peoples technology.
However, one main reason for Japan's economic malaise since 1980 has been their inability to adapt to a world where software and marketing are more important than hardware. Whether more R&D would have helped in this remains to be seen.
I'd say that a bit of microeconomic pushing (and $500 mln would seem to be a sensible amount) in the right direction is a fairly good idea.
-
They've jumped the shark.
It's remarkable how badly Key has handled this.
I would have thought he could very easily have gone for "This is too much like the government picking winners. What we'll do is put more money into science research overall and let the market do the rest".
-
You cannot and shouldn't solely fund basic science but you also must not pretend for a second that you can "pick winner" because of some clever economic goal. It just doesn't work that way.
I've had quite a few discusions with mathematicians while doing some work for NZIMA and time after time the story was "I was just doing some obscure bit of pure maths and now various industries are beating a path to my door".
NZIMA is losing its funding.
-
It's remarkable how badly Key has handled this.
not really, not when you consider his track record
-
While it is great that research money is being made available you do have to admit that the vehicle choosen for its delivery is a little ....strange
And " trust us we will deal with the details" is really is not good enough...remember the last time we heard thatAnd it is really great to hear from the Minister who I might add was regarded with some suspicion by the rural sector when he was appointed
Strangely, Labour has had two good agriculture ministers, so well done Jim 1 & Jim 11
Also nice to see some rural support from amongst the "Hard News" readers,it is not easy down on the farm -
And " trust us we will deal with the details" is really is not good enough...remember the last time we heard that
I remember all the times we've heard that from successive governments, and I'm put in mind of the proverb, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' :)
-
And " trust us we will deal with the details" is really is not good enough...remember the last time we heard that
I really don't get this line of thought. Government almost always announces the headline first, and then the detail later.
It makes practical sense - means you can sort out the details by involving stakeholders and tidy things up without the headline being leaked.
It also makes political sense - means you get two bites from the media. In actual fact they typically get four bites - 1. we're going to announce more funding for XXX tomorrow. 2. Oh look more funding! 3. we're going to announce the details of the funding tomorrow. 4 Oh look, juicy details!
But it's what they do with most things, have for ages. What's new people?
Also nice to see some rural support from amongst the "Hard News" readers,it is not easy down on the farm
Who else automatically finished this with "where we really know our cheese"? Just me?
-
Key could also have a had a shoot at Labour for letting the Geothermal Institute at The Univeristy of Auckland fold.
That was a highly successful progargmme run in conjunction with the UN that provided education to many developing country students and facilitated research into a significant sustainable energy source.
Letting it fold doen't sit very well with Labour's current desire to be seen as pro-science.
-
I have to say the minister's response was pretty good. Thanks
It’s better anyway for experts than for politicians to
make decisions about research areas.I agree wholeheartedly.
Can we get a definition of "expert" please? If you mean experts like the royal society of NZ who have done such a wonderful job with the Marsden fund then great.
Can I also suggest that whatever organization does the decision making, they use peer review as the primary method to determine the best proposals for funding.
cheers
Bart -
Thanks Jim,
Finally, it’s an interesting point about the name. We never considered calling it Russell. Perhaps next time.
I'd like to you consider "Colin". It works very well for our somewhat famous cat, and I'm confident someone could reverse-engineer a good acronym into it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.