Foresight – New Insights and Expanding Horizons

The primary purpose of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology’s (MoRST’s) Foresight Project has been to orchestrate a nationwide consultative process to shed light on the setting of priorities for the funding of Public Good Science. Although the process is not yet complete, it is clear that Foresight has already achieved much more than this.

For the first time, on this scale there has been a well organised, inter-sectoral, community-wide debate on the future role and function of research, science and technology in New Zealand society.

The Foresight process has been a challenge to all involved. For MoRST, it has required a huge organisational effort and a major investment of resources. It has modelled the way in which the new information technologies can be used to inform debate and to engage communities nationwide in thinking strategically about the future and what is wanted from investment in research, science and technology.

Already, it is clear that target outcomes for Public Good Science funding in the year 2000 will be much more broadly conceived than has been so in the past. The draft target outcomes, which have been developed out of the Foresight process, to this point, are as follows:

1. Communities and social connectedness
2. Culture and identity
3. Economic efficiency and productivity
4. Ecosystem management
5. Equitable social and health outcomes
6. Governance, policy and informed citizens
7. Maori development
8. National infrastructure
9. New and improved services
10. New knowledge and innovation
11. New products and product attributes
12. Risk, hazard and biosecurity
13. Sustainable use of ecosystem
14. Systems and behaviours eg, foresight, market intelligence
15. Wellness, lifestyle and health.

These target outcomes reflect the breadth of interest and concern that emerged and energised the Foresight debates.

In the past, priorities for the funding of Public Good Science have concentrated mainly on the so-called “productive technologies” – technologies which add technical sophistication and comfort to our lives, make us more competitive internationally, and contribute to our material wealth as individuals and as a society. Now, as the impact of the information revolution and globalisation becomes more apparent, questions are being asked about what implications these changes are likely to have on the health, well being, social connectedness and sustainability of our society. What evidence is there about how these changes could or should influence the nature and shape of our society, the length and quality of our lives and the way in which we resource, plan and manage health services?

As part of the quest for more evidence-based health care, greater attention is currently being given to the social and cultural determinants of health. This was highlighted recently in a report on the social cultural and economic determinants of health in New Zealand by the National Health Committee.  ¹   Evidence is now emerging which suggests that changes made to the social and economic structure of our society over the last 15 years or so have brought significant gains of wealth and health to not more than 20 percent of New Zealanders. The rest have gained little if anything from the changes. This raises basic questions that go to the core of concerns about the role and function of not only health research but also about the future of the health sector as a whole and its place in New Zealand society.

Foresight has not only enjoined and energised debates between the various sections of the health research community but also it has expanded their horizons. People who had not met or talked together before have shared information and discussed their concerns about a common future. As mentioned above, in the past, Public Good Science funding has tended to focus on productive technologies, such as forestry, farming, fishing and the like. Most research funding in the health sector has been aimed at advancing biomedical knowledge and technologies. In neither case has there been much investment in applied research aimed at protecting and promoting the health and well-being of New Zealanders as individuals, as families, as communities, and as a society as a whole.

Not everyone has welcomed the Foresight experience. For those whose work and ambitions are narrowly defined and who have been major beneficiaries under the existing funding arrangements, Foresight is a cause for concern. Regardless of the future funding levels for Public Good Science, it is likely the available resources will have to be shared more widely if the new target outcomes are to be addressed.

In this context, the increased interest in social and societal issues is of the utmost importance. An increase in the nation’s capability and capacity to undertake social science research will be required if the new target outcomes are to be taken seriously. Changes will be needed to the way health research is organised and funded, to the way priorities are set, and to the pattern of investment across the health research spectrum. More research will explore the social and economic determinants of health. Greater emphasis will be given to areas such as public health, primary care, mental health and, disability support. Health systems research will achieve greater prominence exploring ways and means whereby health knowledge and technologies can be applied to the health benefit of not only individuals but also society as a whole. Time consuming as it may have been for many, and frustrating for some, Foresight has created opportunities to broaden insights and extend horizons and to explore exciting new prospects and partnership possibilities for health research in New Zealand.

References

1. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, (National Health Committee). The social, cultural and economic determinants of health in New Zealand: action to improve health. Wellington, New Zealand; June 1998