The Science System Advisory Group is calling for submission on the role of matauranga Maori in government research policy.
The group, led by Sir Peter Gluckman, is seeking public opinions on how research involving the study of or the application of Mātauranga Māori should be managed and funded.
It announced today it is seeking submissions for phase two of its consultation process.
Phase two “consists of high-level questions regarding the funding tools and mechanisms for the science, innovation and technology sectors”.
Matauranga Maori is raised as part of a funding question:
Phase two “consists of high-level questions regarding the funding tools and mechanisms for the science, innovation and technology sectors”.
Matauranga Maori is raised as part of a funding question:
Questions
- In what areas must New Zealand have or develop in-depth research-based expertise over the next two decades?
- At what levels should research prioritisation occur?
- What are some criteria for research selection?
- What is the value of research roadmaps in priority areas?
- Does New Zealand need to rationalise its funding mechanisms?
- Should we have multiple funding agencies or combine them into a single entity?
- What kind of funding instruments should be used and in what circumstances
- How would a funding agency balance these different expectations?
- How should high- intellectual risk but potentially high-reward research applications be identified and funded?
- How should research involving the study of or the application of Mātauranga Māori be managed and funded?
- How should New Zealand address expensive research infrastructure needs such as access to supercomputing, bespoke lab equipment or spaces, and data requirements? are the major structural barriers to greater efficiency, effectiveness, and impact?
- What does New Zealand do to improve workforce retention and develop the research workforce from the early career to the mature? How does New Zealand ensure the retention of research/innovation leaders?
- Are there other key issues (beyond the quantum of funding) that should be considered in the science and innovation system not yet addressed in this or the previous report and consultation? is the role of public research organisations such as Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) in the New Zealand context?
In its first report to the Government, the Science System Advisory Group recommended the restructuring of Crown research institutes.
Judith Collins, on her last day as Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology, announced several decisions the Government had made in response.
Her successor, Shane Reti, today said New Zealand will see the benefits of the science reforms this year.
“We are moving quickly on changes to New Zealand’s science and innovation system which will maximise the value of government funding and drive economic growth,” says Dr Reti.
“To realise the benefits of these reforms sooner, I expect Crown Research Institutes will form three new and more focused public research organisations (PROs) in early October. Legislation to formally establish the PROs will follow in 2026.
“Moving quickly to establish these new organisations that align with Government’s priorities of driving economic growth will make sure these organisations are better placed to deliver excellent science. It will also make sure they’re adopting more collaborative ways of working with universities and seeking partnerships with private sector investors, sooner.”
Reti also announced further decisions on the future of Callaghan Innovation’s Biotechnology and Applied Technologies Groups.
The Biotechnologies Group will continue to be funded until the end of June 2027 and will transfer to the new bioeconomy PRO once it is established.
Reti’s statement, curiously, made no mention of the phase two consultation.
As PoO reported last month, the Science System Advisory Group – in its first report in August last year – called for the restructuring mentioned by Reti.
It also proposed a National Research Foundation to administer research funding and to provide a distinct funding stream for mātauranga Māori.
The report said:
There is strong agreement that a Māori-led panel for mātauranga Māori research is needed, and that too would fit in that structure…
The report expanded on this:
New Zealand is a multicultural society based on its bicultural underpinnings established by the Treaty of Waitangi, which is core to New Zealand’s identity. It is essential that the science and innovation system is inclusive and beneficial to the diverse fabric of New Zealand’s society.
Māori have a particular relationship with the Crown, and the context of this relationship extends to the unique knowledge systems that are inherent to Māori history, identity, values, culture, ancestry and economic wellbeing.
There is no debate that research into Māori culture and knowledge is an obligation of the New Zealand research system and that this should be largely determined by experts in mātauranga Māori. We will be recommending a distinct funding stream in the proposed National Research Foundation. Science and mātauranga Māori are distinct ways of knowing.
Submissions on the Phase Two consultation are open until 5pm Friday 4 April.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
Simple answer to Question 5 above: get Maori corporations to finance and manage it.
If they are including a spiritual world view into science then they cease being scientists.
In that case they should move overseas to remain real scientists because if Mataraunga is incoporated in any science (as an equivalence or otherwise) then their careers are done along with science and research in NZ as part of a global science 'economy'.
We do NOT want pseudo-science myths incorporated as real science. The real answer is to not include it in any way whatsoever.
What really gets up my nose is the statement: 'There is no debate that research into maori culture and knowledge is an obligation of the NZ research system'. There never has been a debate when that is exactly what is needed. The unthinking adoption of an animist mythology into modern science should not only be debated at length, but in fact really should be refuted and dismissed without delay, absent of debate. Sounds contradictory but any scientific thinking gives some room for debate.
Who better to find and manage Matauranga Maori research than Maori corporations. They will be able to identify, very quickly, the benefits that flow from their own-funded research.
Are the commenters on this blog site the only ones to say of our politicians and so -called experts, "The emperor has no clothes!".
Leave “mātauranga Māori” to the archeologists where it belongs.
Seriously, has any other country in the world started perusing research into Stone Age ways of anything as a way of advancing science & society?
Again, I repeat, start with a blank sheet of paper and start writing down all the scientific things that Maori have ever discovered that have been unknown to the rest of the world for thousands of years.
You will always have a blank sheet of paper.
Anyone who claims otherwise is totally gullible, or intimated into lying on behalf of Maori and the woke administration of NZ.
Time to loudly repudiate this nonsense before we come more of a laughing stock to the rest of the world
Have to agree, if needed (and it isn't!) then it must be only funded by Maori for Maori using their own funds. Sadly, the reality is that these funded originated from the public purse and Treaty agreement misappropriations. As recompense for that how about Finlayson and Goldsmith be forced to pay out of their own ill-gotten gains!
While there is definitely a place for Māori historical knowledge of plants & their uses or local area knowledge (such as locations prone to flooding) there is no place in science for BS.
The exact same reason that other better known religions (Christianity, Islam, etc ) are typically left out of science discussions, they are all founded in BS.
Yes - fait accompli management. But politicos know few people will protest. They wager that they can bluff at the next elections - and if they win, still do nothing. It is a farce.
Only a very principled and brave political figure would challenge the Maorification process today - even if so easy to justify.
Post a Comment