As a nation, we find ourselves in a strange situation — there is a desire to evaluate new land-use options, yet our science and innovation structure is such that to get decent funds for research, there is a requirement for 60% co-investment by industry. This means the largest industries, which have the most money, are able to secure the lion’s share of such funding. At one level, I am OK with this, there is no doubt that the dairy, sheep and beef and the kiwifruit industries, have contributed massively to our country’s economy. Encouraging those industries to co-invest with 60% industry funds is a good strategy.
However, there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The early research those industries were built on was 100% funded by the government (via the now-defunct Department of Scientific and Industrial Research). Their industry success, innovation and growth were the result of a long-term commitment to fundamental science by previous governments, which I don’t see anymore.
In my last project with AbacusBio, I was able to work on a project evaluating the oat milk supply chain — the report is now available via Thriving Southland’s website. Since leaving AbacusBio, I have been entrenched in my new business, Zestt Wellness, where we utilise plants grown in New Zealand to develop health products. The local supply chains we engage with include blackcurrants, boysenberries, yacon and kiwifruit. Evaluating the oat milk and the nutraceutical supply chains has highlighted to me the challenges of building new sustainable land-use options for farmers with realistic financial returns.
It’s not as simple as asking the question "what can we grow?". We need to understand what the market wants and how to support all players in the chain, from farmers to manufacturers to brand-owners. We need to evaluate how and where to partner and, most important of all, we need to determine how we can be different and how we innovate.
In many ways, we are lucky with Zestt that we have some grey hair. We have an existing, extensive scientific network, and we have been able to collaborate with food technologists, microbiologists and engineers without having to navigate the Crown research institute and university structures which often impede such collaboration. For younger innovators without a scientific background, this can be a nightmare.
I had an experience many years ago of arranging a meeting with scientists and turning up at that meeting to be fronted by a lawyer and two business managers. It was completely bizarre and turned me off any further discussions — perhaps that was their aim, who knows!
It’s also time for a rethink of science and innovation funding in New Zealand. This is widely understood and the subject of review now, but the answer is not a $10,000 here and there lolly scramble in the hope of hitting the jackpot that I have seen from one of our government organisations.
Innovation and transformational change require a number of elements: people with passion and drive to create change; collaboration across disciplines starting in an informal way (don’t get me to sign a 10-page legal document before I have even walked in the door); recognition that the way things have always been done is not necessarily right for the future; and recognition that most successful industries are not "unicorns" — they don’t spring up overnight, they come about as a result of long-term investment, freedom to explore and smart people.
Finally, it’s important to understand that smart people don’t have to have a PhD by their name or a fancy title. Some of the most innovative and driven people I have worked with have no degrees — and guess what, females can be innovative too.
Sadly, I have found, the people most likely to block innovation are the ones wearing the suits with all the titles.
We live in an age where we have information at our fingertips. The goldmine lies in how we interpret that information and how we turn it into things that are useful. We need to support cross-disciplinary, innovative teams with a science funding system that has greater agility and greater tolerance of failure and which does not always need industry co-funding.
We need to declutter our science system so scientists and innovators can invent, explore and collaborate — without spending months on soul-destroying funding applications and reporting to "steering groups".
Innovation and collaboration are most successful when they are purpose-led by passionate people — that’s what we need to enable.
- Anna Campbell is a Co-Founder of Zestt Wellness, a nutraceutical company. She also holds various directorships.
