RESEARCH WORK IN N.Z.

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22105, 29 May 1937, Page 16

RESEARCH WORK IN N.Z.

More Criticism By Mr Leslie EMPLOYMENT OF BEGINNERS DEPARTMENT VERSUS DEPARTMENT ine replacement of qualified research workers who have left the country with two juniors or beginners at a lower aggregate salary; a constant struggle between department and department; and the inharmonious working of the multitudinous sections of research activity—these are only three of the basic troubles of research work in New Zealand as seen by Mr Alan Leslie, formerly veterinarian at the Canterbury Agricultural College. Yesterday Mr Leslie elaborated, at the invitation of “The Press,” on the address which he gave during the week to the North Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union. Mr Leslie quoted many happenings which he contended militated against successful research as it was carried out in this country, and he stated emphatically that . he was prepared to stand by any or all of his statements. Mr Leslie declares that he seeks no personal gain, and he says that any suggestion that he is seeking personal gain would be distasteful in the extreme. “The farmer is squealing—it must be bad for the farmer to squeal—and I know what he wants,” he said. “It is up to those who have the information to give it. I am not belittling the work, of the juniors and beginners, but we must have experienced men to guide those others. I' have no animosity against any person; I just believe I am working for the good of * the country. “There is a tendency to staff the laboratories with New Zealanders on the principle of New Zealand for New Zealanders,” he added. “There is a lot to be said lor that, but after all the results are what count. I have stood out against all these other bodies because 1 contend that the farmers do not get a fair return for the money spent. I am not kicking particularly against the work of the individual laboratories, but I am pleading for some sort of co-opera-tion. . “Whilst all may be well with research in New Zealand on paper it Is, no use hoping to get results till, the hundred and one sections, tire working together, and are reduced to two branches, plant research and animal research. Combining Efforts “Efficient plant research to be worth the name should combine under one organisation, the joint efforts of a chemist an ecologist, a geneticist, and a mycologist It is obvious that they should all be under one roof, but that is not done in New Zealand, and there is a typical example of this disintegration close at hand. A pure seeds station- has been built on land right beside the Wheat Research Institute's station at Lincoln. Both are Government organisations, but a fence divides them, and they work independently. That is typical of the lack of cooperation.” Mr Leslie said that when Mr H. E. West, formerly chief chemist to the Wheat Research Institute, left his position, he was replaced by two juniors whose aggregate salary he understood was less than that of Mr West. The country also lost a wonderful worker in Mr Dudley A. Gill, veterinary bacteriologist to tile Department of Agriculture. In 1929 he toured the world for the department and gained much valuable knowledge. Three years ago he was sent, to Sydney for a year. “When he came back with such great experience he was not put in the laboratory as bacteriologist,” Mr Leslie added. “He went into the laboratory as superintendent, and then he went to a job to which he is suited in Australia. His place was taken by a recent graduate. He is lost to New Zealand and is replaced by a beginner.” ' Mr Leslie contends that in too many cases the laboratories are just staffed to give good service and not to do good research. Responsibility For Research “What I would really like to know Is; who will do the research work when the wool levy goes on. Will the veterinary division of the Department of Agriculture do it or will the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research organise a veterinary branch? The former department is already dabbling in research, but whichever takes over the work it should be under one absolute control. “The failure of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to undertake husbandry research may be due to the reluctance of the Department of Agriculture to drop what little work it is doing in that or it may be due to a lack of suitable qualified men. "The Minister does not claim to have a knowledge of animals; the secretary of . the council is a physicist, pure and simple, and knows nothing of animals; and the chairman has admitted that he knows nothing of farming. . Yet they are to decide what research shall be undertaken. This is a full-time job for a highly qualified man. With all due respect to Dr. Denham’s ability, I think he has too many irons in the fire. “If the Department of Agriculture should desire to carry out research into diseases under the wool levy, it will need a larger staff, because the laboratory staff at Wallaceville is certo a large extent. Mr Leslie quoted as an example of the lack of harmony one of his own experiences. For a long time he had been conducting research into the incidence of pulpy kidney, and he had proved conclusively that he had discovered one of the causes of the disease, He prepared an article, for consumption by the farmer, based on his own certain discoveries in the field, and submitted it for publication in the Journal of Agriculture. Only after the/'greatest difficulty did he prevent beihg published with the article tho abatement. •This is the, type of work done outside the Department of Agriculture, but It Is not accepted by the department until it has been proved by the depart* rent’s officers.” This, Mr Leslie says, Ik typical of the absence of any form of co-operation. “The weakness in research in New Zealand has been aggravated by the formation of these numerous small organisations. Surely It must be under*

stood that to multiply the divisions and sections of departments, each with some sectional job, is inevitably to turn research away from the fundamental. Of course, the very departmentalising creates the illusion of mechanised perfection. For instance, the council of the Deoartment of Scientific and Industrial Research undoubtedly may sit and have before it a neatly-typed agenda. It may give this to one body and that to another. But how in the world are these bodies to keep in touch as they sink or swim in tidy little tubs? How, under any such system, can the negative results of one, body be overcome when that body has been placed at the head of a section? It is certain that the faulty body will sit on a successful but junior one which is lost in the whir of cogs in the section. “The truth is that co-ordination is not the result of mechanised departmentalising,” Mr Leslie concluded. “It comes, and must be made to come in this country, from efficient, keen, generous men of science, working in reasonable freedom, and general association under good administration. And the head administrator must be himself untrammelled by departmental regulation and routine and reasonably assured of financial resources which are sufficient and flexibly disposable.”