The New Zealand government has embarked on the most significant transformation of its science, research, and innovation sector in over three decades. Announced yesterday by Science, Innovation, and Technology Minister Judith Collins, the reforms aim to consolidate and streamline the sector to maximise public investment, boost economic growth, and position the country as a global leader in research and innovation.
The changes, which follow months of speculation and input from the Science System Advisory Group (SSAG) chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, promise sweeping changes to Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), the establishment of new entities, and a particular focus on emerging technologies. The government has framed the reforms as a necessary reset for a fragmented system, but reactions from the scientific community still reveal a mix of optimism, scepticism, and concern.
Merging Crown Research Institutes into Public Research Organisations
The crux of the reforms entails the restructuring of New Zealand’s seven CRIs into three Public Research Organisations (PROs) based on key areas of research focus. The aim of consolidating the CRIs in this way is to eliminate inefficiencies and enhance collaboration across disciplines. The three PROs are:
Bioeconomy PRO
AgResearch, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Plant & Food Research, and Scion will merge under a single entity. This group will focus on agriculture, environmental science, and biotechnology, positioning New Zealand to lead in sustainable resource management and bio-based industries.
Earth Sciences PRO
The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and GNS Science will join forces, and NIWA’s acquisition of MetService as a subsidiary will continue as planned. The new organisation will address climate science, natural hazards, and geological research, with an emphasis on supporting responses to pressing environmental challenges.
Health and Forensic Science PRO
Environmental Science Research (ESR) will be restructured to focus solely on health and forensic priorities, preserving critical capacities in areas such as disease monitoring, genomics, and public health response.
A fourth PRO will focus on advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and quantum computing—fields not currently addressed by existing CRIs—with the hope of positioning New Zealand at the forefront of technological innovation in the global economy.
While the government highlighted the benefits of collaboration, reduced duplication, and adaptability to emerging challenges, scientists are concerned about potential redundancies and loss of specialised expertise. Weekly meetings with CRI leaders are already underway to manage the transition, but many questions remain unanswered about the impact on staff and infrastructure.
The Disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation
One of the more controversial aspects of the reform is the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation, New Zealand’s innovation agency established in 2013. According to Judith Collins, Callaghan had been “spread too thinly” across multiple functions, resulting in poor financial performance and over-reliance on Crown funding.
Its entrepreneurial science functions will be transferred to the new Advanced Technology PRO and other entities, while a newly established agency, Invest New Zealand, will serve as a centralised hub for attracting foreign direct investment. Invest New Zealand’s mandate will include drawing international talent, businesses, and capital to the country’s research and innovation sectors.
Stefan Korn, CEO of Callaghan Innovation, expressed pride in the agency’s contributions to commercial science but acknowledged that winding up operations would take months. “We will do everything we can to support our staff through this process,” Korn said.
The government maintains that this move will streamline innovation efforts, but critics have noted the lack of new funding for research. Professor Nicola Gaston, director of the MacDiarmid Institute, has said that reallocating existing resources without increasing investment risks stretching the sector too thin.
New Agencies and Intellectual Property Overhaul
To provide strategic oversight, the government will establish the Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council. This body will guide the priorities of the newly formed PROs, aligning research efforts with national economic goals.
Another key aspect of the reforms is the development of a national policy for managing intellectual property (IP). The government aims to incentivise researchers by rewarding them directly for commercialised innovations, drawing inspiration from the University of Waterloo’s entrepreneurial IP policy in Canada. However, this focus on commercial outcomes has drawn criticism from those who believe it risks sidelining public good research.
Rationale and Objectives Behind the Reforms
The reforms are underpinned by four main objectives:
- Maximising Public Investment: With the government contributing $1.2 billion annually to the science sector, the restructuring seeks to allocate funding more effectively.
- Driving Economic Growth: By emphasising commercialised research and advanced technologies, the government hopes to unlock economic opportunities and strengthen New Zealand’s position in international markets.
- Balancing Public Good and Economic Priorities: While commercialisation is a central theme, officials have promised that critical public services like health and environmental science will not be neglected.
- Modernising the Science System: The changes aim to address inefficiencies in the 30-year-old system, ensuring it can respond to future challenges such as climate change and technological disruption.
Implementation Challenges and Timelines
Despite the ambitious scope of the reforms, several implementation challenges have been identified. Critics have pointed to a lack of detail on timelines and the operational hurdles involved in merging organisations with distinct cultures and infrastructures.
Judith Collins acknowledged these concerns, stressing the need for a phased approach. Legislation formalising the changes is expected later this year, with the new PROs set to take effect in 2026. However, transition costs, including staff restructuring and infrastructure adjustments, remain a significant concern.
Mixed Reactions from the Scientific Community
The response to the reforms has been divided. Supporters argue that the changes are long overdue and necessary to modernise a fragmented system. For instance, Dr. Michael Baker welcomed the retention of a health-focused PRO, emphasising its importance in safeguarding public health and equity.
However, critics like Dr. Lucy Stewart, co-president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, warn that the focus on economic outcomes risks sidelining research that serves societal and environmental needs. “The message to [scientists] from this government is clear: they are expected to be a source of revenue rather than working for the public good,” Stewart said.
Professor Nicola Gaston also raised concerns about the cost of reorganisation. “Work done by scientists within the sector to adjust will have a cost in time not spent on science,” she said.
Additionally, concerns about underfunding persist. Many scientists argue that without increased government investment, the reforms may fail to deliver the promised economic and scientific benefits.
Broader Implications for New Zealand’s Science Sector
The reforms align with New Zealand’s broader economic goals, including the export-focused targets outlined in Sir Peter Gluckman’s advisory report, and by embracing advanced technologies and streamlining research efforts, the government hopes to position the country as a leader in sustainable innovation.
However, questions remain about the long-term impact on workforce stability and public research. Critics caution against over-commercialisation, warning that short-term economic priorities could undermine the broader societal benefits of science.
In the words of Professor Richard Easther, “The key issue is that while every government has asked what fruits can be harvested from science they have shown little interest in the health of the actual trees that produce the fruit, and there is no sign of a change in these announcements.” For New Zealand’s scientific community, the coming years will reveal whether the reforms achieve their transformative promise or fall short of expectations.