Looking at Science Through a Startup Lens in Yeni Zelanda: Why is it Flawed?

The new science policies of the Yeni Zelanda government and the damage this approach causes to science are being deeply criticized. The government's attempt to increasingly manage scientific research like a startup company is being met with serious concern by experts in the field. Experts argue that science inherently progresses slowly, the process is full of uncertainties, and therefore, it cannot be measured with startup logic. It must not be forgotten that scientific discoveries and innovations emerge as a result of accumulations that take place over time, sometimes spanning generations. Otherwise, there is a growing concern that while chasing short-term gains, long-term, vital studies are being sacrificed.

Today, when governments talk about science, they increasingly speak as if they are talking about startup companies. Research is expected to be agile, innovative, and produce measurable results within political cycles. Additionally, attracting investment, creating intellectual property, supporting industry, and ultimately contributing to economic growth are among the sought-after qualities. The 'Science Investment Plan' recently published by the Yeni Zelanda government roughly reflects this direction. To some extent, it is not difficult to understand why this approach makes sense; as the country faces known challenges such as low productivity, brain drain, and environmental pressures.

However, when we start talking about science in this way, we need to ask whether we are missing something fundamental about how science works. These ambitions sit more comfortably alongside engineering and product development rather than with the vast majority of science. Because science generally moves slowly. Even though some discoveries are made quickly, many are not. While some projects end in failure, others may look ordinary for years before becoming indispensable. The people doing the work rarely know which category their research will fall into at the outset.

Technologies that transform modern life often emerged from investigating questions that had no commercial application at the time. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could exist thanks to physicists studying the behavior of atomic nuclei for decades. The development of mRNA vaccines was based on research that struggled to secure funding for years and was considered by some to be a scientific dead end. GPS relies on the understanding of relativity, which emerged from theoretical work conducted by Einstein more than a century ago. All these examples clearly show that the practical and surprising benefits of science and theoretical research are often unpredictable.

In Yeni Zelanda, some of the most valuable scientific contributions have come from long-term investments in knowledge. The Christchurch Health and Development Study followed over 1,200 people born in Christchurch in 1977. Even almost fifty years later, the study continues to provide insights into child development, mental health, education, addiction, and crime. It is highly unlikely for a venture capitalist to imagine waiting half a century to see a return on investment. Yet today, few people would argue that the study was not worth conducting. Furthermore, even the methods used in forensic science are made available to today's researchers as a legacy of past scientists.

Ultimately, science demands something more difficult from society. It asks us to embrace uncertainty, tolerate failure, and invest even if the value of the work only becomes apparent long after everyone has retired. This is not an easy proposition to sell; especially while households struggle with immediate pressures such as rent, mortgages, and food. But some activities only make sense when examined over generations. Science not only produces answers; it creates the conditions that allow future generations to answer questions that have not yet been asked. This makes it difficult to evaluate it with the same metrics we apply to businesses.