Science funding is in trouble – can philanthropists help?

By Rebekah White

On June 26, Christopher Luxon told the China Business Summit his goal was to “brutally commercialise our science system” and to see professors become millionaires “because they’re partnering with entrepreneurs and building out businesses”.

This view of the science system, say many scientists, omits the necessary work for understanding the world around us – including some of the fundamental science needed for those start-ups to succeed in the first place.

“It also loses sight of the purpose of science and universities more generally,” says Maria Armoudian, an associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Auckland.

“Strengthen societies by building and deepening knowledge.”

Cuts and disruptions to government funding rounds over the past three years hit blue-sky research hardest of all.

New Zealand has just one fund for what’s called ‘fundamental science’ – that’s the curiosity-driven, how-the-world-works type of research – and in 2024, half of that fund was reallocated to support only research that had monetary benefit.

Subsequent budgets have seen science funds trimmed to fund a new pool of money dedicated to the commercialisation of research.

In particular, environmental research is left out in the cold – meaning the country faces a lack of knowledge about itself, says marine scientist Professor Simon Thrush from the University of Auckland.

That poses serious problems for understanding the realities we face.

Why fundamental environmental science is important

Here’s one example: mangroves. If we knew more about mangroves and their environments, says Thrush, we’d be able to factor them into climate calculations.

“There are some studies that are being done in New Zealand saying mangroves are wonderful, they sequester carbon, they’re really great,” says Thrush.

Sounds ideal – until you look at how long it takes the mangroves to do that sequestration. It’s hundreds or thousands of years, says Thrush.

“Meanwhile, particularly when the harbour is stressed, those mangroves are releasing methane. And they’re doing that on timescales of hours to days.”

But we don’t really understand what’s happening in that ecosystem, he says.

“And if we understood the processes better, we would be able to identify where the best interventions were and what we might do so we could create a win-win scenario.”

Better mangrove health, for instance, and lower methane emissions.

“But we risk losing the capacity to generate that kind of process-based understanding of how our world works.”

If we want to reliably assess marine carbon-removal projects, or big-money geoengineering projects, this knowledge is crucial – and that’s without the added question of how the country should conserve ecosystems.

“Why do we allow the Government to get away with not providing a knowledge base for our environment?” asks Thrush.

“The way that they’ve set things up now isn’t really going to foster long-term benefits to grow out of our natural environment, whether they’re economic benefits, biodiversity benefits, climate benefits, or whatever it is.”

One solution: science philanthropy

Several medical research institutions in New Zealand are philanthropically funded.

In Wellington, the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research is part-funded by philanthropic donors, and at the Liggins Institute at the University of Auckland, about a third of research is funded by philanthropy.

Money for environmental research is harder to come by: the Wai Wānaka programme, a partnership with the University of Otago and Lincoln University, is seeking to raise a modest $65,000 to support research into freshwater.

But there’s one environmental research centre at the University of Auckland that’s entirely philanthropically funded – and as government sources dry up, it serves as one possible model for others.

The George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment – which Thrush directs – was founded in 2016 with a $5 million donation from scientist-turned-philanthropist George Mason. In April, it received a $10 million top-up.

Its research is funded largely from the investment returns on its endowment, guaranteeing its continued existence.

A diverse board of scientists picks which research proposals to fund, according to a set of criteria developed by the centre in accordance with the donor’s wishes.

The centre prioritises early-career scientists, solutions-focused research and interdisciplinary work.

“It’s supported a lot of post-doctoral fellowships – more in the environment space than probably government does,” says Thrush.

“We’re looking for opportunities where we can see projects that have some synergy that maybe the researchers have not got together. And we’ll try and facilitate that connection. “

The idea is that the work has real-world impact, says Thrush.

“It’s thinking about making the research do some work in society, whether that leads you right to a solution or it’s a step along the way. We’re playing a long game here.”

Keeping talent in New Zealand

Because the centre funds a type of research that isn’t prioritised by government funding, it means that scientists from these fields are able to stay in the country.

“So, it’s giving those people an opportunity of developing and having a career in New Zealand rather than, ‘Okay, well, I’ve got a PhD, now I need to go off and work somewhere else’,” says Thrush.

For Thrush, whose specialty is marine science, the centre offers a home to researchers interested in conservation and ecosystem management – not just fisheries and aquaculture, which are comparatively well-funded research fields.

The centre’s proposal system is also designed around efficiency – unlike other funding applications, where researchers might spend an entire summer working on a proposal.

“We’ve deliberately tried to create a system which is easy for the researchers without it being a massive time sink,” says Thrush.

Its research is much smaller-scale than what’s supported by government grants.

“Some of the projects are not very big – some of them are funding PhD students,” says Thrush.

“You can’t expect them to cure cancer or create world peace.”

But it’s been effective, he says.

“It has had researchers connecting across the country with both other research organisations and with management agencies. And all of that has led to further funding and creating enough cred that we can make a contribution.”

And it shows that it’s possible for New Zealanders to contribute to science via philanthropy, he says.

“It’s a relatively new thing in New Zealand. It has been growing, which is fantastic, but we definitely need it – and we need more of it.”

• The world is facing unprecedented environmental challenges. Planetary Solutions, an initiative of the Sustainability Hub at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, and Newsroom, explores these issues – and the practical ways we can all be part of the solution.