The Motu study of the effectiveness of the Marsden Fund is a great step towards transparency and the use of evidence in setting policy around science funding in New Zealand. Given the anecdotal evidence in the scientific community, in particular that supplied by the winners of our most significant awards for scientific achievement, it is not surprising to see the positive effect that Marsden funding has on the productivity and impact of researchers.
What is a little surprising, at first glance, is the conclusion that the rankings made by the panels at the second (and final) stage of decisions does not predict the ultimate impact of the work. However, this is not as surprising at it may seem, given that the panels are broad (for example, spanning physics, chemistry, and biochemistry) and heavily oversubscribed, meaning that sometimes panellists may be comparing apples and oranges in terms of the research topics. What’s more, proposals at this stage have already been through a highly competitive first screening. If the panels were to be given more choice at the second stage, then the decisions they make might be worth more—but this is a hypothesis that would itself need to be tested. It certainly doesn’t change the conclusion of the researchers—with which I agree wholeheartedly—that this study demonstrates that there would be no diminishing returns if we were to increase (perhaps even double or triple) the size of the Marsden Fund.
The second point made by the research team, that the resources invested in the second stage review of proposals may be largely viewed as wasted, I think is rather more nuanced. From the perspective of the funders this is perhaps true, but the reality is that the expected process of evaluation determines the behaviour of the researchers who apply to the fund. For example, one could imagine that if the second round were perceived to be less rigorous than it currently is, the fund would attract a larger number of less credible applications. So I would recommend caution in any response to this particular conclusion.
Finally, there are a number of additional salient points addressed in the study which are worth comment. Firstly, the suggestion that there are fewer alternatives to the Marsden Fund for the support of fundamental research in New Zealand than in the United States, for example, does reinforce the primary conclusion, that the level of funding distributed via the Marsden Fund is simply too low. Secondly, the simulated trajectories for publication and citation counts, under scenarios with and without Marsden funding, demonstrate one very crucial fact: the baseline slope is negative. Funding for research of the kind available through Marsden is not just a nice-to-have; funding for research is an absolute necessity if we are to sustain a vital and productive research community in New Zealand.
Dr Nicola Gaston is a senior lecturer in Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Chemical and Physical Sciences. She is also President of the New Zealand Association of Scientists and a Principal Investigator for the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology.