BASIC RESEARCH OUGHT TO HAVE TESTABLE IMPLICATIONS.

Power Line's Steven Hayward calls attention to sponsored research funding in New Zealand, apparently informed by that maxim.

This week, in an announcement that stunned New Zealand’s research community, the country’s center-right coalition government said it would divert half of the NZ$75 million Marsden Fund, the nation’s sole funding source for fundamental science, to “research with economic benefits.” Moreover, the fund would no longer support any social sciences and humanities research, and the expert panels considering these proposals would be disbanded.

Universities New Zealand, which represents the nation’s eight universities, called the planned disinvestment in social science and humanities “astonishing.” It was among several academic groups and many scientists calling for the government to reverse the unexpected decision.

In announcing the change, Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins said the fund should focus on “core science” that supports economic growth and “a science sector that drives high-tech, high-productivity, high-value businesses and jobs.”

That closing sentence is an invitation to rent seekers.  That, though, is not what has set the boffins off.

Paul Spoonley, a sociologist at Massey University and the convener of the fund’s social sciences panel, says it’s a mistake to exclude social science. “The idea that somehow the economy doesn’t involve people seems to me a very strange one,” he says. Other researchers fear the cuts will disproportionately slash research by New Zealand’s Indigenous Māori scientists.

Spoonley says the decision also goes against New Zealand’s current science policy of encouraging interdisciplinary research to ensure the nation can anticipate societal impacts of technological developments. His own research themes cover New Zealand’s demographic challenges, including an aging population and declining fertility, and the rise of extremism. “All we need to do is go back to [the mosque shootings in] March 2019 to realize how significant understanding extremism is,” Spoonley says.

If queer theory and radical chic and "indigenous ways of knowing" are but half as prevalent in New Zealand academe as they are in the States, it is as likely that Serious Thinkers are enabling extremism as they are in understanding (and perhaps hypothesizing methods of taming) it.

Read on, and judge for yourself how likely that might be.

The cuts and priority changes suggest officials don’t realize commercially viable research is often underpinned by discoveries in fundamental science, says Nicola Gaston, co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology at the University of Auckland.

Heather Zwicker, a cultural studies researcher at the University of Queensland, says the blunt action also fails to recognize the importance of the humanities and social sciences to New Zealand’s economy and social cohesion. Zwicker is president of the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, which represents 44 universities in New Zealand and Australia. It has called for an immediate reversal of the decision.

University of Waikato demographer Tahu Kukutai has a new Marsden grant to compile a database of 19th century iwi and hapū (tribal groups) and kāinga (homes) to better understand New Zealand’s population changes during colonization. She is particularly concerned about the loss of funding for Māori-led research such as hers. This year, Māori made up 13% of all Marsden-funded investigators. Take away the humanities and social sciences panels, and this drops to 5.5%. “This decision defunds Māori research and researchers by stealth,” she says.

Demography, and its laymens' companion, genealogy, at least deal with evidence, and, in principle, getting the facts right, and validating hypotheses.  Whether that is true elsewhere in the humanities is debatable.