.jpg){kind=logo}
This month’s edition of Healthcare Review – OnlineTM revisits Ministry of Research, Science and Technology’s (MoRST’s) Foresight Project which was reviewed in this Journal in November 1998 and February 1999.
The November 1998 edition of Healthcare Review – OnlineTM introduced the Foresight Project and outlined its likely future direction. Papers described the process used by the Project and set out the expectations of the health sector with respect to the role of research, science and technology in reducing inequalities in New Zealand society.
The edition in February 1999 detailed the implementation of the Foresight Project, outlining the perspective and role of the Health Research Council of New Zealand. It also considered implementation from the perspective of Maori, and the relevance of the Foresight Project to Maori health and development.
At that stage, target outcomes based on Foresight sector strategies were being finalised.
The contribution to this edition from Dr Patricia Anderson, Manager of Research Policy, Health Research Council of New Zealand outlines the final 14 Target Outcomes that were documented in the Blueprint for Change released by MoRST in May 1999, in which the Government’s expectations for the sector were broadly defined. (The election of November 1999 has changed the Government from a National-led coalition to a Labour-led coalition).
These targets aim to focus researchers on ‘outcomes’, the contribution that research would make to New Zealand either through global contributions to knowledge of direct relevance, rather than ‘outputs’, eg, publications, patents and conferences. Anderson also outlines the four high-level goals that were identified in the Blueprint for the Government’s research investment: innovation, economic, environmental and social goals. The target outcomes are designed to help the Government achieve these goals through research investment.
In his February 1999 paper, Bruce Scoggins of the Health Research Council of New Zealand, referred to the expected Health Research Council activities once the Target Outcomes had been released, including management of investments in a number of portfolio areas.
In keeping with this plan, the Health Research Council (HRC) has created nine Indicative Research Portfolios which sit alongside 26 Strategic Portfolio Outlines created by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. In her paper, Dr Anderson describes the process used to establish the portfolio system and the portfolios. The management of research contracts within a portfolio system is intended to enable the HRC to better manage research investment. Scientific excellence remains a primary criterion for research funding but future investments will also be strategic in nature and will include assessment of the relevance of the research to health outcomes. Such an approach is seen as vital for New Zealand to compete in the global health research environment.
Mat Walton, Operations and Policy Officer, and Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of Research, of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand review the impact that that the Foresight Project has had on biomedical research in New Zealand.
Walton and Le Gros note that the Target Outcomes touch on all sectors of research science and technology in New Zealand. However, there is concern that the sheer breadth of targets may water down the effects of Foresight, as purchasing agencies centre on a large number of broad relevant outcomes and in the process lose focus and effectiveness. They also highlight the need for substantial investment from Government to achieve most of the Target Outcomes.
Walton and Le Gros note the importance of maintaining a thorough peer-review process when selecting which research projects to purchase. They highlight concern that this process could be compromised if research portfolios become highly specified with the major focus on target outcomes.
There is also concern over the high percentage of biomedical research done at a basic level. There is a risk that such research, which provides the foundation of new knowledge that can ultimately deliver economic, health or technological benefit, will be less attractive to purchasers than more applied research as it contributes less to the Target Outcomes as drafted. While aligning basic biomedical research with Foresight priority areas may overcome this potential problem, this approach would work to the detriment of new knowledge creation.
The Government’s explicit expectations that purchasing agencies will fully fund research projects, including the associated administrative overhead, is seen as a major positive outcome of the Foresight Project. This allows for research to be better organised and more appropriately supported through transparent purchasing and provides the means for researchers and organisations supporting the research to better organise their research activities.
Improved links between funders, users and providers, have made collaborative research efforts more attractive and some good collaboration programmes have already been set up, allowing exciting new research possibilities to be realised.
Despite these observations on positive outcomes and concerns, Walton and Le Gros conclude that the overall benefits and problems for biomedical benefit arising from the Foresight Project remain uncertain and will be clearer once HRC portfolios are finalised and the results of the first grant rounds using them are completed in 2001.
