Mission-led funding is mission impossible

19 April 2026

Science and technology, Faculty of Science

Attempting to poke its head through the thicket of news stories about wars and fuel crises recently was the release of a report on Government funding of science, innovation and technology in New Zealand.

The report recommends a complete transformation of our science funding system. At its heart is the establishment of "four mission-led pillars" with the goal of developing "a mission-led science, innovation and technology framework" for the country. The Government has signalled its intention to implement this.

What does this mean, and is it a good idea?

Mission-led funding involves funding research that is tailored to achieve a particular mission. The four missions the Government wants to support are: primary industries and bioeconomy; technology for prosperity; environmental sustainability and resilience; and healthy people and a thriving society.

Funding should support research that benefits the country in some way. These missions are all areas of importance to the country, so surely funding them is sensible? Alas, no - it is a 'mission impossible' because research doesn't work this way.

To understand why, we need to break down the path from research to solutions. Think of this as involving two phases.

One example is an early breakthrough in understanding cancer that came from researching yeast (yep, which makes bread and beer), even though it's impossible for yeast to get cancer.

The first is a research-heavy, exploratory phase that tries to glean new understandings of the world. If we understand the world better, that understanding might form a solution for some problem.

The second is a development-heavy, solution phase that figures out how to turn a new understanding into a real solution.

The mission-led approach the Government wants to establish is good for the second phase. Perhaps the most famous (although not the most inspirational) example is the development of the atomic bomb. New understandings in physics established the theory for the bomb, and the US government created a mission of turning that understanding into (horrific) reality.

However, the mission-led approach is exceedingly poor at the first phase. Although it seems intuitive that the best way to find a solution is to direct research at the problem, that isn't the way it works. Instead, solutions typically arise from the most unexpected places.

One example that illustrates why targeting the 'obvious' research solution leads us astray is the history of artificial intelligence development.

Starting in the 1950s, researchers tried an 'intelligent' approach to developing artificial intelligence. They reasoned that to imbue computers with intelligence, the computers should mimic our intelligence. So, for decades they tried to get computers to emulate the cognitive process that underlies our thinking - the manipulation of symbols like 'cat' and 'grandmother' and 'metaphysics'.

However, it didn't work. This is because researchers made the mistake of assuming what the solution would involve: computers 'thinking' the same way as us.

Instead, what turned out to work was shifting the focus away from presupposing what the solution should be, to the more humble approach of allowing computers to decide what works. This was simply providing a vast number of inputs, letting the computer do some voodoo, then favouring the best outputs. Not very intelligent sounding, but extremely effective.

Mission-led funding mirrors the flaw in the original AI approach - it fixates on the solution, channelling funding into research we presuppose will give that solution.

Problems, though, are typically very complex. For example, the Government's four pillars are extremely broad - we don't have anything near a complete understanding of all their components. This means that the research paths from which solutions arise are neither traceable nor predictable.

One example is an early breakthrough in understanding cancer that came from researching yeast (yep, which makes bread and beer), even though it's impossible for yeast to get cancer. The research identified 'brakes' that limit yeast growth. Surprisingly, we have the same brakes, and cancers are cells that escape these brakes. Their identification enabled these brakes to be targeted for cancer treatments. At the time, though, the idea to use yeast to understand cancer was bold and, many would have said, laughable.

The lesson is that the exploratory phase of research should be as wide as possible, but also as productive as possible. This is where the alternative research funding model - competitive, curiosity-driven funding - shines: researchers submit applications for what they want to do and, following a competitive selection process, the best ideas are funded. This approach is productive - it only funds the best ideas. And it is wide - the sole criterion is the quality of the idea.

Putting these pieces together, the ideal funding system would recognise that we need to fund both the exploratory and development phases, and that their very different natures require different funding approaches.

To support truly exploratory research, one half of the system would be a competitive, curiosity-driven funding platform. To take new understandings through to real solutions, the other half would be a mission-led funding platform.

The current Government's policy means we are only funding the latter. This gives what I call the Christmas-tree model of funding - a tree with the roots cut off. As nicely as we decorate it, we still know what eventually happens to that tree. Research in this country should be a healthy tree, not a decoration.

Dr Austen Ganley is a senior lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science

This article reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily the views of Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland.

This article was first published on Newsroom, 19 April, 2026

Media contact

Margo White I Research communications editor
Mob 021 926 408
Email [email protected]\