Why is back to basics good in education but not science?

Comment: “Back to basics” has been a catch-cry of the Government for education in schools. Why might this be a good idea?

It is because having fundamental skills in language usage (why not both te reo Māori and English?) and mathematics prepares students with the foundations for moving into more specialised career-enhancing subjects and training, whether on to tertiary study or into the job market. Maybe especially the job market.

Unfortunately, this focus on the basics is now not considered important when it comes to the funding of scientific research in Aotearoa New Zealand. In recent years there has been a marked roll-back in the funding for basic science to well below the levels needed to sustain that sector and its workforce.

Nearly all such science is critically dependent on competitive grant support from government funding agencies, as tertiary education providers such as universities and polytechnics do not receive nearly enough funding to meet the need themselves.   

A good example is the Marsden Fund administered by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. This was established in 1994 by the National government, as championed by the minister of research, science and technology, Simon Upton.

Its visionary purpose was to support excellent fundamental research in all areas of scientific endeavour. In popular terminology, this is so-called blue skies research. It tackles the why, the how, and the what if questions, where the applicability of the research to meeting society’s needs may seem unclear or a long way off.

Like teaching the basics in school, the Marsden Fund has recognised that understanding basic principles and mechanisms in complex systems is fundamental to ultimately making gains in them, whether in social, educational, environmental, primary production or health domains.

This includes increasing equity in society. It’s a long game, but also one that empowers the undertaking of the highly novel, even if risky, research from which breakthroughs emerge.  

Unfortunately, not only has fundamental social science and humanities research been slashed entirely from the fund, but half of it is now being directed to projects with a clear aim toward near-term commercialisation and economic impact.

This economic focus completely undermines the concept of blue skies research. On top of this, these changes are being accompanied by a 20 percent cut in the total funding pool, which has already been shrinking in real terms over many years because of inflation. 

In a similar vein, the Health Research Council, Aotearoa New Zealand’s premier funder of health research, has just announced new priorities whereby basic research into biomedical mechanisms is out of scope, but clear pathways to commercialisation and economic impact are very much in scope. This is again on top of a 10 percent cut to the overall fund over the next two years.

No wonder the morale of scientists undertaking basic research is at an all-time low. There’s nowhere else to turn.

This is not about feeling sorry for the scientists. Neither is it a criticism of the applied science and technology sectors that build companies and have economic impact. But these sectors have already been receiving the vast bulk of government research funding. Moreover, many of their success stories have been built on the back of basic research undertaken years or decades ago.

Let’s compare a car mechanic with a clinician. How successful would a mechanic be in repairing a motor without knowing the intricacies of how a petrol engine worked?

For clinicians it’s the same. But think how much more complex the human body is, especially the brain. Effective ‘repairs’ or therapies can only be rationally developed by starting with a fundamental knowledge of the biological underpinnings of brain and body functions.

By dramatically squeezing the pipeline that leads from basic research to applied research with economic, health and environmental impacts, we run the risk of severely compromising the fundamental skills and knowledge needed to make the gains in these areas that the Government is striving to achieve.

When basic science is squeezed to an unsustainable level, there are not only lost research opportunities and associated future outcomes, but also major impacts on staff and students at universities and other entities.

Universities attract researchers in part because of the freedom they offer to follow one’s own research priorities and ideas. They attract students who are excited to learn from these teachers, and to serve apprenticeships in researching some of the big mysteries of life, from molecules, to people, to the planet and beyond.

Losing the capacity for sustainable research programmes and careers that are dependent on continued funding will inevitably lead to a brain drain.

The even greater loss will be the capacity to expertly train and inspire the next generation of researchers keen to tackle the big questions of life and society.

This is a call for going back to basics for science, not just by me but researchers across the country, as seen in the report by the Save Science Coalition.

Let us accept that basic science offers the training, the expertise, and the understanding of complex systems vital to meet society’s needs in the future. 

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}