Category Archives: Science

Can We Stop The Rot?

Posted on by
Reply

P1080304New Zealand faces a polycrisis due to decades of under-investment in public infrastructure. Indicative of this malaise are multiple failing infrastructures, over-stretched health services, decaying school buildings and unsafe civic spaces throughout the country. Stopping the rot will require raising our ambition as a nation and improving productivity through a higher value economy.

For too long our economic performance has been linked to an over-dependence on relatively low value commodities and tourism. As part of its quickfire raffle of “first 100 days” opportunities, the government is looking to “deliberately disrupt the system” by fast tracking gold mines, open-cast coal mining, property developments and bigger dairy farms, to name a few. Unfortunately these kinds of projects mostly lock us into even greater dependence on low value commodity based industries that do not generate the returns required to substantially lift productivity. But doesn’t this help us improve our gross domestic product (GDP)? Yes it does, but the benefits are not shared equitably, with returns often heading directly offshore.

Multi-factor productivity (MFP), on the other hand, represents residual economic growth due to factors (other than labour or capital) such as technological advancements, improved management practices, and a better-skilled workforce. MFP illustrates how successful a nation is at innovating and transforming resources into high value outputs. Over the last two decades or so New Zealand performed terribly compared to other OECD nations on this measure. Arguably, MFP is also the slice of the economic pie that allows governments to steadily improve the quality of public services and investment, as real wealth increases and tax receipts grow. Clearly we are heading in the opposite direction at present.

Quidnet Ventures managing director Mark Bregman illustrated the situation in a recent article discussing the innovation gap. We need to move to an “abundance mindset” and get over our hangups such as misplaced nationalism and the current reluctance of research institutions to back science that has commercial potential, he asserts. Important because one of the keys to creating high value economic returns lies in homegrown research that has future commercial potential. But getting these projects off the ground has always been problematic for a number of reasons, including funding constraints, institutional bureaucracy and lack of entrepreneurial mindset. How we approach science commercialisation must change.

With the nebulus “Te Paerangi – Future Pathways” report now mercifully euthanised by the Science Minister a new plan for research, science and technology now needs to be found. This time a sensible discussion about commercialisation must be included. To this end, the freshly minted Science System Advisory Group and University Advisory Group have been tasked with delivering a new strategic plan for transforming the science and university sectors. This will include (yet another) review of the performance based research fund (PBRF), the contentious pot of public funding that tends to favour larger universities with greater output, rather than promoting innovation or supporting the most important areas of research for society.

But none of this will matter unless we eliminate the institutional and financial roadblocks that are preventing research getting out of the lab and into the commercial sphere. The current model is simply not working at sufficient scale or speed.

Like all good researchers, we are testing some hypotheses around disrupting the status quo and creating more value for entrepreneurial science researchers. Feedback is welcome. To find out more about GeniusReFi – please join us here.

Paul Spence is a commentator, researcher and a part-time university commerce and management lecturer. A previous co-founder of a successful New Zealand based global technology venture, co-founder and director of Creative Forest, principal at GeniusNet Research & GeniusReFi and a startup advisor. You can follow Paul on Twitter/X @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events co-curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

Image credit: Renea Mackie

Data source: Figure NZ under Creative Commons Licence 4.0

Where Talent Wants To Live

Posted on by
Reply
superpro

FFA overall winners SuperPro with advisor Paul Spence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over a decade ago MacDiarmid Institute founder, renown physicist and technology entrepreneur the late Professor Sir Paul Callaghan proclaimed that we needed to make New Zealand “the place where talent wants to live”. This week’s result from the Food, Fibre & Agritech Supernode Challenge suggests we have reasons to be optimistic.

During the last few weeks it has been my great pleasure to be mentoring some of the teams involved in the 2022 Food, Fibre and Agritech Supernode Challenge accelerator programme, in my capacity as an advisor with ThincLab Canterbury. The Challenge, supported by ChristchurchNZ, KiwiNet and the Canterbury Mayoral Forum seeks to uncover innovative ideas with commercalisation potential from across research and business. Notably environmental sustainability has been a key theme that we asked applicants to address. 36 applications were whittled down to 24 participating teams, of which 12 finalists were selected.

Canterbury has a long and rich association with agricultural and is home to two universities and numerous land based research institutions. So there is no shortage of talent on offer. It has been an absolute thrill to see our young skilled migrants strongly represented among the participants in this programme. For many of them it has been a steep learning curve stepping out of the research lab and grappling with the fundamentals of business for the first time. But in every case they have grasped the opportunity and run with it.

Challenge overall winners Mahnaz Shaverdi and Associate Professor Ken Morison are food process engineering researchers from the University of Canterbury with big plans for turning plain old pea protein into a more desirable food source. Shaverdi moved from Iran with the aim of studying and raising her young family in New Zealand and Morison is a research engineer who returned to work in the dairy industry after completing his doctorate at Imperial College in London. Commercialisation of their research is timely. Plant-based ingredients are one of the fastest growing food categories globally, as witnessed through the recent investment by Khosla Ventures in Canterbury plant protein processor Leaft Foods.

Some commentators have been worrying lately that our technology startup ecosystem lacks diversity. But at a time when the world needs many bright minds to be working on solving a myriad of social, economic and environmental problems that confront us, it is exciting to know that our skilled migrants are making an increasingly significant contribution. This is a success story that we rarely hear about and that needs to be told more often. I’m sure Sir Paul Callaghan would be encouraged by this progress.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, principal at GeniusNet Research and an advisor at ThincLab. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

A Helping Hand Needed For Our Researcher Entrepreneurs

Posted on by
Reply

 

Hands

Source: Wikimedia Commons

It was fun this week attending the Global Entrepreneurship Network NZ Unconference which was hosted in a completely virtual environment. GEN NZ provides a community setting to engage in discussion and take action around promoting entrepreneurship. This article comprises the basis of my pre-recorded flash talk.

During the two years that I have spent at ThincLab Canterbury, we have supported dozens of (mostly young) entrepreneurs to explore their passions through our pipeline from the wonderful UC Summer Startup programme and we have assisted a number of early stage research based ventures founded by students and academics. This has led to over $10 million in capital being raised and the creation of many new high value jobs for our region. But there is a lot more work to do.

The European Union has recently launched the world’s largest and most ambitious multinational research and innovation programme Horizon Europe, investing almost 100 Billion Euros in “goal oriented research missions”. A special “innovation council” has an additional 10 Billion Euros to “fast track” innovations to market, including investment, incubation and advisory. We don’t have those kind of budgets here of course, but what is notable is that 10% of the public investment purse is focused on addressing downstream commercialisation under this initiative.

Notwithstanding the excellent work of organisations such as KiwiNet and MacDiarmid, there is quite limited support for entrepreneurial researchers here in New Zealand. In a recent article discussing the government review of research, science and innovation, Callaghan Innovation CEO Vic Crone argued that publicly funded research requires better and more commercialisation pathways.” Yet the already microscopic funding pool for incubators (including those connected with universities) was actually reduced this year and many providers have already been excluded from further participation. The pathways are actually receding.

We all understand the need to move our economy towards high value, less polluting industries. We also now know that this will be the biggest economic opportunity of our lifetimes. But research does not spring out of the lab and turn into a business overnight and here’s why…

  1. Our neighbours across Asia-Pacific have collectively invested hundreds of millions of dollars into developing their innovation ecosystems over the last two decades. For example $755 million invested into Advance Queensland. Now founders and investors are enjoying multi-billion dollar exits and reinvesting those winnings into new ventures. New Zealand has abjectly failed to make that investment in the ecosystem.
  2. Our universities and research institutes are well meaning but slow moving corporate elephants whose organisational design impedes innovation rather than accelerating it.
  3. Our academics and researchers are mostly not natural entrepreneurs and they are not incentivised to pursue venture opportunities in an environment where publishing papers is the only perceived way to achieve success and recognition.
  4. Research with commercial potential is not being connected to entrepreneurs and industry downtown who could make a difference.

Let’s find a better way by firstly investing a meaningful amount in developing our innovation ecosystem. Secondly all public funding for science and technology research should include a 10% component towards funding downstream commercialisation support. Finally, if academics and researchers see the value in their work but are unwilling to step up as founder entrepreneurs, then ensure that we match-make those projects with experienced local entrepreneurs and industry partners, so that value created remains onshore.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, principal at GeniusNet Research and an advisor at ThincLab. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

Climate Tech A Hot Topic

Posted on by
Reply

Image credit: P. Spence

A recent report commissioned by Callaghan Innovation sheds light on the opportunities to lead in the commercialisation of technologies that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and it delves deeply into how New Zealand “climate tech” businesses can succeed on the global stage. New Zealand Climate Tech For The World articulates the global context and invites the local innovation ecosystem to rise to the challenge. At 209 pages, it is quite a big read. I summarise some of the key points here.

There are numerous ways of measuring the “innovativeness” of an economy, but levels of venture investment tend to receive an overwhelming level of reportage compared to other indicators. Climate tech sectorial innovation is no exception. The numbers are certainly staggering. The Economist recently reported that $500 Billion in capital was invested into the “transition economy” in 2020 alone. That comes as no surprise because whilst climate tech is a huge economic opportunity driven by a critical set of environmental problems, the capital requirements of the sector are substantial. So indications in the Callaghan report that climate tech innovators in New Zealand have raised only a tiny fraction of the investment funding compared to other comparable “small, advanced economies” must be concerning.

Furthermore, historically most funding has been raised by later stage businesses, with Lanzatech essentially being the only substantive project during the last few years. That company has raised over $400 million in capital to date, in its bid to capture industrial waste gases and reconvert into fuel stock. But Lanzatech has been domiciled in the United States since 2014 because the local investment landscape at the time was not ready. A lot has changed since then. How can New Zealand leverage the vast amounts of global capital currently pouring into this space, retain intellectual property and create value for the local economy?

For starters, the report cites the lack of multi-national companies residing in New Zealand as a brake on raising investment and developing partnerships. So this requires a sustained and intentional global engagement by the innovation community and a strong focus on solving key problems for offshore partners. The report goes on to illuminate the three stages of the entrepreneurial journey – R&D/commercialisation, financing and connection to demand. An assessment is provided on how the New Zealand innovation system is delivering in comparison to other small advanced economies such as Israel, Sweden and Finland. The report illustrates that New Zealand consistently lags behind the others in the commercialisaion of climate tech. Predictably however, we do a lot better when a similar analysis is done on agriculture and food sector innovation, illustrating that there is certainly ability to improve.

The report is at pains to point out that other small advanced nations that have successfully launched innovative climate tech industries have done so through a wider process of investing in ecosystems of innovation, rather than backing companies one-by-one. In New Zealand we have a legacy of “picking winners” rather than building capacity across industries. This is slowly beginning to change however. A good example is our government’s recent laudable enthusiasm for promoting an aerospace industry. In fact “sustainable aerospace propulsion” gets a mention as a promising new vertical.

So what other responses are needed to take advantage of the global opportunities in the transition economy? The report suggests a greater emphasis on cross-sector collaboration. A return to nationwide clustering efforts is recommended in order to better utilise knowledge spillover effects. A much stronger focus on researching and growing global demand-side through strategic relationships is also flagged. “New Zealand, as a small, innovative economy that is geographically isolated from much of the world, must use innovation resources efficiently”, say the report authors. Increasing the visibility and attractiveness of the local ecosystem to global players seems instrumental. As a starting point, the report suggests low emissions agriculture (including agritech digitalisation) and geothermal energy as initial focus areas where there is already considerable local expertise. Although these are certainly not the only growth areas.

The report suggests that some technologies are remaining undeveloped in the lab because researchers are being discouraged by too many barriers to success. Obstacles include lack of business knowledge, scarcity of follow-on research funding and time constraints on busy academics.

Paul Spence is an advisor and digital marketing lead at ThincLab Canterbury. This article was originally published on the ThincLab blog.

2021 – A Political Retrospective

Posted on by
Reply

watersThis year has been remarkable if for no other reason than the pandemic has resurfaced some ugly divisions that continue to bubble away behind the easy-going facade of New Zealand society. We are doubtless challenged now more than ever on numerous complex topics, including environment, poverty, crime, health, immigration and race. So the need for change is absolutely genuine. But the manner in which change is now being enacted is both contemptuous and potentially self-defeating.

2021 firmly reminded us of the fragility of the social contract. In an otherwise generally compliant nation, a vocal minority held out against vaccinations and wise public health measures on the basis that their “freedoms” were being threatened. There was of course little discussion by these lost souls about the freedoms of thousands of elderly or unwell who would have very likely lost their lives, had we caved in to the views of the misinformed. I had several respectful but somewhat disturbing conversations with individuals this year invoking thinking from my recent article on why science is more trustworthy than their deranged social media feeds.

At the other end of the political spectrum, hand-wringing social purists doggedly continued to promote the longstanding policy of shutting down any debate that appeared to challenge their well meaning, but at times misguided ideologies. Consequently institutions that had been previously hotbeds of intellectual debate and where ideas were once challenged and tested in open fora, have latterly become hotbeds of conformity and intolerance instead. Nowhere was this more apparent than the embarrassing public skewering of celebrated evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, for daring to question why a group of science academics were being villified in a Galilean inquisition by the very body responsible for promoting science discourse in New Zealand.

Of course the danger in shutting down the intellectual debate of good ideas is that bad ideas from across the political spectrum similarly do not receive proper analysis or exposure to the sunlight. This appears to be part of the strategy currently being invoked by the government as it pursues a programme of social reform aimed at centralising control of some of the most important assets and resources in the country. With convenient distractions provided by the public health crisis, our servants in the Capital have quietly set about executing a quite radical socio-political agenda that the majority of voters actually did not yet sign up for.

History has shown however that rapid, ideologically driven reforms are quite often not very successful and ironically may even disenfranchise the intended beneficiaries long term. Unfortunately, many of the idealistic and bright-eyed policy wonks busily designing the new order from Wellington were not even born when we last fundamentally overhauled our economic order and thus have little lived experience to draw upon. Worryingly, much of the reform model is based on a flawed legal premise around the nature of our important responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. The interpretation of this precedent perversely constrains governments to take a narrow, binary and transactional approach in an obviously highly diverse and increasingly complex world.

The other difficulty here is that this reform programme received little exposure at the last election and therefore suffers from what some have termed “democratic deficit”. Worse still, in the absence of a properly informed and curated public debate, the attitude of some of the critics has turned from fearful to venomous with some unpleasant personal attacks containing racial overtones. That is unfortunate and sad. But it also illustrates that sidelining large sections of society is not the way to pursue important social reforms. Instead of stifling open public debate around big ideas, we must encourage it.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, principal at GeniusNet Research and an advisor at ThincLab. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

Frontier Firms Follow-On Funding Favoured

Posted on by
Reply

frontier-firms

The recently published New Zealand Productivity Commission Report on the economic contribution of “frontier firms” predictably rated only a passing mention in local media. However recommendations in the publication could have far reaching impacts if implemented. But is the government listening?

Frontier firms are described as the most productive, profitable and innovative in an economy and generally have scale and global reach. But the report says that New Zealand’s frontier firms lag behind their global peers in terms of productivity. The OECD defines productivity as the ratio of economic output compared to inputs. Nations with highly productive frontier firms have greater competitiveness because of more efficient use of resources such as labour and capital. These nations also benefit from secondary “innovation and knowledge diffusion” within their economies.

Chairperson of the Commission Ganesh Nana, in an interview with Radio New Zealand says New Zealand is already well behind other small developed economies in the OECD in terms of productivity and the gap is growing every year. He says part of the reason is because we do not have many so-called frontier firms to which smaller innovation based companies can anchor. One of the key findings of the report is that the government must invest in developing a deeper innovation ecosystem, including supporting more commercialisation of research, science and technology.

But will the government take on board this message? Many of us currently working within the New Zealand innovation ecosystem have lobbied in the past for vastly increased resourcing and for setting greater aspirations as a nation. But such pleas have largely fallen upon deaf ears over the years. There are sadly also actors within our ecosystem that are philosophically opposed to any kind of government investment on the basis that only wealthy and well-connected players should be allowed in the game. This is despite the fact that our neighbours (and competitors) in places like Australia, South Korea and Singapore identified the value many years ago and have literally invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building out their own innovation ecosystems.

Developing more frontiers firms is not about growing more “unicorns” as some have mistakenly claimed. But it is about building a more interconnected economy that has research, science and technology at the heart of the beast. That’s a big ask for a small nation for which there are many competing priorities and challenges to face such as health, housing and climate change. But the key to motivating the decision-makers involves grasping the reality that having a powerful innovation ecosystem is actually part of the solution to those challenges.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, advisor at ThincLab within the University of Canterbury Centre for Entrepreneurship and principal at GeniusNet Research. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest. Paul is a co-author of the Entrepreneurship Manifesto 2020.

The Commercialisation Imperative

Posted on by
Reply
Oxford

Blue Skies Thinking Needed

Competing and surviving in a highly technological, fast changing and globalised economy increasingly dictates that universities and institutes step up and generate economic returns on their research. But although there have been a few notable exceptions at New Zealand universities, we continue to underperform in the commercialisation of new scientific knowledge into value generating products and services that drive economic growth. So if disruptive innovation lies at the core of economic development, how can we better reconcile commercialisation with the core purpose of our institutions?

Firstly, there are some valid arguments in favour of the separation of commerce from academia. Normative, collectivist elements of academic science as a social system, along with the autonomous nature of university culture, seem to sit uncomfortably with the motivations of profit seeking firms that wish to take ownership of intellectual property. Claims of IP ownership can lead to fears of diminishing the scientific commons, which would be detrimental to the collegial and collaborative nature of science and therefore hinder the very process that will drive future discoveries.

Furthermore, commercialising technology research is risky and accommodating new and developing fields of commercially focused science takes up resources that might be used for other teaching and research, impacting the core mission of universities. We have already witnessed closures and staff reductions within arts and humanities faculties where commercial outcomes are less of a focus. There’s also a danger that high tech institutes established in emergent fields become impenetrable and elitist silos of specialist knowledge open to only a few, at a time when we should be striving for greater equity. Are there other societal factors at play that dampen success?

Patent filings data is sometimes quoted as an indicator of “innovativeness” in the context of economic development. New Zealand sits at the lower end of the table, but not because it is a small economy. Countries with relatively small populations such as Finland, Switzerland and Israel lead the pack. In New Zealand total expenditure on research and development as a proportion of GDP has been increasing in recent years, but continues to lag behind other developed countries. Investment rose to 1.37% in 2018. This compares to an average research intensity figure of 2.38% across all OECD countries, ranking New Zealand 21st out of 34 nations [Statistics NZ — 2018]. So whilst the size of an economy does not fully explain the innovativeness of a nation, the level of commitment to research and development investment certainly plays a part.

Approximately half of that R&D investment originates from publicly funded sources. With government investment comes an expectation that tax payer funded academic research will provide a “return on science” or economic and social benefits to society. The challenge then is to generate meaningful commercial outcomes, that do not undermine the core missions of teaching and research. There are a great many reasons to do so, not the least of which is our ability to fund future health, education and welfare needs. As a nation heavily reliant upon commodity based income we must gravitate towards higher added value goods and services to ensure the future economic wellbeing of our society. Developing an ecosystem approach to cultivating innovation is a key part of this journey.

For example, benefits in cultivating university-industry ties become amplified due to network effects and serendipitous conversations around the humble water cooler (or perhaps kombucha fridge these days). This “innovation ecosystem” approach has benefitted a number of scientific fields. For example the emergence of biotechnology as both a science and business from MIT and other institutions clustered within the Boston area. Commercialisation of new knowledge can also speed up solving complex social, health and environmental problems that might not otherwise be addressed, attracting both government and private sector funding into academia.

The global pandemic has also accelerated the need for scientific innovation. Previous hard won gains against poverty and improvements in social equity have been wiped out by pandemic related economic carnage. In addition, because of growing urgency in relation to addressing environmental challenges, there is forecast to be a vast migration of capital away from polluting industries over the next two or three decades. This green transition will create enormous opportunities for scientific organisations operating at the leading edge of cleantech, renewable energy, low carbon construction and regenerative agriculture, for example.

Embedded within entrepreneurship centres of research, university innovation labs such as ThincLab at the University of Canterbury are important intermediaries in the cycle of innovation and a key part of a vibrant ecosystem that engages with a wide array of supporting players to ensure the success of spin-off companies, whilst at the same time respecting the scholarship that underpins scientific discovery.

This article was first published on the ThincLab blog and formed the basis of my presentation to the Food, Fibre and Agritech Supernode Challenge 2021 cohort.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, advisor at ThincLab within the University of Canterbury Centre for Entrepreneurship and principal at GeniusNet Research. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest. Paul is a co-author of the Entrepreneurship Manifesto 2020.

March For Science Matters

Posted on by
Reply

Last weekend’s March For Science may have been largely symbolic, but it was important. When a government appoints a rabid climate change denier to perform a hatchet job on its own environmental agency, you know that somebody has seriously lost the plot and voices need to be heard.

Interestingly even China is now becoming increasingly concerned around problems created by climate change and has committed to refactoring the economy towards green energy. It’s a bit like trying to turn around a super-tanker, but I suppose you have to start somewhere. But it is very difficult to reconcile that technologically adept nations such as the United States are going in the opposite direction to almost everyone else on the globe.

The role of science in economic growth and development has long been established. Science driven technological innovation has been a key contributor to our advancement as a species over the last few hundred years. From health to computing to space exploration, science has been at the base of almost every step forward. We live longer and more fulfilling lives, largely due to scientific discoveries.

Conversely, science has arguably also been responsible for some of our backward steps. Industrialisation, internal combustion engines and nuclear weapons are also products of the science lab. Science therefore is no panacea. The philosophical and morale context around science is ever-changing and what seemed like a good idea 50 years ago might be framed very differently by future generations. Scientific theories also evolve over time as new ideas emerge and get tested and old ideas are discarded.

What we do know is that the scientific method provides a solid basis for exploring and understanding our world. Discarding rational thought in favour of rumour and outright lies may be a successful political strategy, but it will certainly not help us to address the pressing social, health and environmental issues in the world.

Paul Spence originally completed a B.Sc. degree in Applied Geophysics and was previously employed as a support meteorologist in the aviation industry. He is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a co-founder of Wellington, New Zealand based technology ventures iwantmyname and Polanyio and a mentor with Startup Weekends and Lightning Lab. GeniusNet is working to support global environmental projects through its portfolio companies.

You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

A Special Event For Entrepreneur Researchers

Posted on by
1
swrschCompared to many OECD nations, New Zealand underperforms at building great global companies based on smart commercialisation of knowledge. That’s a shame, because we have no shortage of intellectual talent and we also enjoy a fantastic natural resource base.
So we are putting on a very special Startup Weekend event here in Wellington focusing on science and research. It’s all part of our efforts to strengthen the entrepreneurial ecosystem in New Zealand and get more people in science and technology thinking about entrepreneurship as a career. Encouraging a culture of entrepreneurialism and building bridges between the research and business communities are important themes in driving value-added economic growth that we need to underpin our future.
It is a fantastic opportunity for young researchers who are interested in research commercialisation to spend a weekend with some very cool mentors as well as investors and people from across the business community. The McDiarmid Institute and Kiwinet are actively supporting this event. It’s mostly about teaching a lean methodology for developing and testing business ideas, as well as networking with potential future collaborators.

Participants can bring a project of their own that they wish to explore or join another team simply for the learning opportunity. We are looking for researchers from any field plus engineers/developers, designers and business gurus to get involved as well. Who knows where it might lead?

This will be a smaller event than usual and spaces are limited. Sign up for Startup Weekend Science & Research today!

Paul Spence is a commentator, technology entrepreneur, a co-founder of iwantmyname (a New Zealand based global Internet venture) and an organiser and mentor with Startup Weekends in New Zealand. You can follow him on Twitter @GeniusNet

Shifting The Economic Goalposts

Posted on by
2

Economist Brian Gaynor’s recent article on why we will never “catch up” to Australia was another sobering reminder of the hard road that New Zealand has ahead. Invoking a sporting analogy by beating Australia may be a popular rally to arms, but it focuses public attention on completely the wrong set of goalposts.

Another sobering occasion was when we sadly learned of the passing of Sir Paul Callaghan, one of New Zealand’s most passionate science communicators and technology entrepreneurs. Sir Paul lived every moment and notably even turned his cancer treatment regime into an experiment. More importantly he was one of the most ardent promoters of science and technology commercialisation as a means of growing New Zealand’s economy.

“Sir Paul was a true public intellectual who earned the respect of everyone, including those who disagreed with him”, stated the government’s sternly worded Ministerial press release reporting news of Sir Paul’s death. Curiously, outside of Cabinet, I can’t name a single (intelligent) person who actually disagreed with his thesis that New Zealand urgently needs to ramp up economic growth through more investment in research, science and technology commercialisation, rather than continuing with an over-reliance on flogging unprocessed, environmentally unsustainable dairy commodities to the world.

To its credit, the government has finally moved to increase research funding and there are more frequent mutterings along the lines of “doing something” about uncovering intellectual property locked up within our many publicly funded institutions. But those of us who looked on frustrated over the last decade as the “Knowledge Wave” withered on the vine, are becoming more and more concerned that the opportunity to fully promote science and technology as an economic driver is disappearing.

Beyond pumping more cash into research, we need a huge cultural shift involving both governmental agencies and the public mindset. As clean-tech entrepreneur Nick Gerritsen stated at a recent seminar, “we need more millionaire scientists and fewer millionaire sportsmen”. With the loss of Professor Callaghan, I’m left wondering who will be brave enough to pick up the mantle.

You can follow the author on Twitter @GeniusNet