Troy Baisden
@troybaisden
Personal views that may help environment, global change, climate, soil, water, isotopes, biogeoscience, math, community, complexity & random facts come together
But mine won’t. After dozens of efforts to point people to the different cultures of science, the system sciences and historical sciences are valid, and there are many different views of “the” scientific method, I throw up my hands and offer only this.
This whole idea of pushing Business R&D at the expense of the public research system in our institutes, universities etc does not appear to be going well if you plot the data sensibly. It's flatlined in terms of the people for a number of years. Why is current policy doubling down on it?
I've been pondering Parliament's Scrutiny Week and other statements where it seem the Minister & officials see Business R&D Growth as a panacea. We rarely plot this data inflation adjusted or as a percent of the economy, and when we do it seems apparent it is not growing.
That's certainly a potential problem but the issues the systems is headed toward are obviously more complex. We highlighted the framework is generally successful in our BIM (p5). scientists.org.nz/news/13632765
NZAS release on Budget 2026 is out. It wasn't even a nothing burger this year... What is shocking is the long-term trend. scientists.org.nz/news/13636927
The BIM ends with four narrative strategies we think are needed for the research system to be successfully reformed. Read the BIM - scientists.org.nz/news/13632765 4/4
It includes an improved conceptual diagrams with the needed horizontal layers to complement 'pillars' – so that we focus on the intersection of technology and our existing strengths. Do you agree a new tech pillar isn't the right way to think about it? 3/4
Concerned about the mishmash of bad news hitting research? So are we at New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS). Read the press release – scientists.org.nz/news/13632857 1/4
We now have a reply on LinkedIn - this is a result of breaking each fund down into each year's investment across the transition. But we're still requesting to see the maths.
If you came here looking for answers on what MBIE's Transition Research fund is, we're trying to find out. On the face of it, the $84.8m per year replaces Marsden + Endeavour and more, which currently total 4 times this much?
I dunno, I’ve had this version on my wall for very long time. Are we winning yet?
The Acumen/Edelman Trust Barometer 2026 survey results don’t report anything for scientists or academics. Unless lumped into NGOs.
What worries me most about the directions of NZ's science reform is that it now matches closely what our extensive 2022 Te Ara Paerangi submission highlighted as 'what to avoid'. (1/3)
We'll keep updating our concerns about the Prioritisation Report released last week, cutting 22% of the funding that currently looks after the future competitiveness of 60% or more of our exports, and cuts other important areas too. Today, I want to focus on something @lcsnz.bsky.social spotted.
Our initial reaction to the Prioritisation Report, that would cut existing science areas by up to 22% to pay new Tech development, expresses deep concerns. Do you think the report has strayed into policy-based evidence making? scientists.org.nz/news/13616237
We're filling the gap that was once a pillar of the previous science reform. What happened to it? Need for Workforce Strategy as Job Losses Escalate scientists.org.nz/news/13605014
Heavens! All that confusing noise about AirNZ’s dire financial results, and then I see in the Economist that the dire state of British planning has Heathrow’s expansion in exponential cost overruns when it is already the second most expensive airport in the world. AUCKLAND IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE!
The current reforms of the research system are now on track for another failure. They double down on mistakes that undermine long-term growth, well being & safety. We must ask for accountability and transparency about three key issues as we go into the election year. scientists.org.nz/news/13593197
Sun’s trying to come out but end of 2025 (year of discontent!?) still looking moody in Welly.
We hope to see you tomorrow at our conference and awards, in person in Wellington. If you can't make it, we'll have some limited streaming including the opening session and awards. Check the webpage for details. scientists.org.nz/nzas-confere...
Could changes to our nation climate change policy do more to undermine integrity and transparency of our commitments? environment.govt.nz/news/governm... (1/2)
NZ's new methane target: Represents doing nothing if historic efficiency gains continue, and assumes new mitigations won't work. Worse, our farmers need to realise it cedes the future of the paperwork they complain about to places like Brussels instead of Wellington.
Embarrassing? The good news is the grand potential for no one to notice NZ.
The lovely kākā don’t usually show them off to me, but this one did.
It does look like it would be nefarious if so, but also hard to rule out. And BTW, some of the increase is said to come from SSIF! (p207) Note the fund is part of the larger "Talent" category so hard to unpick.
Our deeper analysis of Budget 2025's implication for science is out. It's worse than a nothing burger. It's a black hole budget pushing many areas towards the bring where they'll never recover, with funds going to pay for regulation and restructuring. scientists.org.nz/news/13502878
I have focussed on the core public research investment noted by SSAG - target is about 0.6%. The 2% overall goal is clear not useful - R&D tax incentive has proved a subterfuge and has low quality and benefits if this investment falters, which it is.