Hiding our light under the No. 8 wire

by Anthony Scott, chief executive, Science New Zealand

 

Is the No. 8 wire a myth as passé as defining the Kiwi bloke as being about rugby, racing and beer?

Hayden Walles, in a story in The Press (Christchurch) on 7 March presented a staunch defence of DIY and the No 8 wire culture.

The PhD student of Cognition and Language (University of Otago) seems not to understand the meaning of myths in a national culture; or how they shape people’s behaviour.

It is even more concerning than his comments on science communications as being essentially to teach an “ignorant public”.  

Christchurch is host to two of the nation’s best science communications entities (Science Alive! and the National Science & Technology Roadshow Trust).  His own university has recently launched a Chair in Science Communication.  I suggest they have a broader view of their task.  

But first let’s clarify the objectives of Science New Zealand.  The members, the nine Crown Research Institutes, are the only science research bodies owned by the people of New Zealand, operating under a mandate from Parliament to do research which benefits New Zealand and to promote that research.

Science New Zealand was launched at Parliament in February 2008. Its task: to foster appreciation of the value of science & technology for New Zealand in all elements of the nation’s wealth and well-being.

It is not a business development lobby, urgently desiring every dollar of R&D spend fall into its members’ laps.   The nine certainly have tremendous capability, but in a country which has one of the OECD’s lower rates , increased spend on R&D is a bonus.

Indeed the Government has set aside $630 million in tax credits over the next four years to bolster R&D investment.  Crown Research Institutes cannot claim the tax credit but are actively promoting it because it is good for the country.

And that is where Walles’ defence of the DIY myth is potentially damaging.

Our isolation has developed self-reliance as an integral part of our national identity.  Kiwis can do anything with No.8 wire, is the story.

I hope that continues, because it is a huge strength for this country even in our less isolated age. It typifies can-do, Kiwi ingenuity. 

But when the myth crowds out the possibility of science being looked to, then we have a national problem.  And we do – the appalling level of science investment in this country is clear evidence of that reluctance. 

We need both the No 8 wire approach and the instinct that increasingly more may be required. 

Look at our national productivity: we work longer and harder than most nations and have a greater percentage of our people in work. 

Yet we are still in the lower third of the OECD tables for wealth. 

The difference is that others produce things of greater value, faster and with less effort than we do.  Why?  Through the application of science.

And they do not pretend otherwise.  They know and value the contribution of science and technology in all aspects of their social, environmental and economic well-being.

Here we hide its contribution, and so undervalue it.  That shows up in study and career choices, types of businesses, and where we prefer to put our money. 

Yet New Zealand is a science dependent nation.  Our farmers are the best educated, most science receptive and yes, the most No 8 wired people in primary industry in the world.

Beneath the mythological black singlet are superb examples of New Zealand science in action, with attitude. 

The meteoric growth of our wine industry is not the result of some brave heroes simply taking a punt.  It comes from long term soil, climate and water science, primarily done by New Zealand’s Crown Research Institutes. 

I would like to plant a little (biodegradable!) sticker on each blade of grass, tree, fruit, dairy and wine product, high and low tech manufacture saying “New Zealand science inside”.

It is the equivalent of the ‘Intel Inside’ sticker on the otherwise nondescript computer box on your desk, signifying the implicit knowledge.   

This is not about teaching people how, say, the light above their head works. It’s about letting people see where there is science in their lives, so they value both it and the people who work on it.  

My final comment is about the distortion of Lord Rutherford’s famous injunction: “We have no money gentlemen, so we must think.”  

Is Rutherford really saying, as those who misuse this comment imply, that money imperils the ability to think?  Money is never a substitute for thinking, but boy can it ever help the thinking move into new directions or help action the thinking. 

Most science advances are made in teams as opposed to individuals these days.  The days of the sole operator are largely gone; and that implies more money for teams, facilities and duration.  

New Zealand is not the only country to claim ingenuity as a defining characteristic; let’s not be the only country in which ingenuity is an excuse to under-value science.