When the excitement of undertaking research in North America and Europe has been experienced, the contrasts on returning to New Zealand, a far-flung outpost of biochemistry, are at first quite overwhelming. A more balanced view of the two environments emerges, however, after some period of adjustment to the conditions in New Zealand. While certain aspects of the Northern scene are missed intensely, there are rewards in working in an atmosphere where the pressures ‘to produce’ to enable job survival are considerably lower. Biochemical research in New Zealand is carried out by three principal types of laboratory : government, university or industry-oriented. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries are government departments engaged in research. They employ biochemists and other scientists to carry out applied agricultural research relevant to New Zealand and in addition to work on some basic but allied problems. In addition, research institutes such as the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand (Inc.) (WRONZ) and the Meat Industry Research Institute conduct research into those animal products essential to the New Zealand economy. Biochemistry is taught in six of the seven universities in New Zealand (see the accompanying map). However, the involvement varies from a relatively small commitment to a significant one with quite large departments of about fifteen academic staff. The university biochemists endeavour to pursue active research programmes. They possess a great deal of independence in choice of research and can pursue interesting problems without a great deal of pressure to produce publishable results at a hurried rate. Within the university or medical-school environments there are also units or groups of scientists studying medically related problems. These groups, which include some biochemists and are funded by the Medical Research Council of New Zealand (MRC), are gradually being disbanded, however, and the research personnel assimilated into university departments of similar interests. Can a research group without postdoctoral fellows and without ready access to international meetings be viable? Clearly it is much more difficult to maintain standards, to advance rapidly in one’s area and to make a significant contribution to biochemistry under these conditions. There are very few postdoctoral fellows throughout all research institutes in New Zealand and only a handful are biochemists. Because of the isolation of New Zealand from the major conference venues, the cost of regular attendance at international meetings is prohibitive. To some extent the DSIR overcomes these difficulties by the nature of the various sections of the Department. Each section employs a number of highly qualified people working in the same area who have the majority of their time available for research. Unfortunately biochemists within universities do not have this advantage. With a large teaching load and administrative duties it is difficult for an academic biochemist to be involved directly in carrying out his research programmes himself. The universities do not provide technical help for research. In the absence of a science equivalent of the Medical Research Council to fund research many biochemists are therefore without technicians. This means the load of the research, in the absence of ‘postdocs’, falls on the doctoral students. In general, therefore, a New Zealand biochemist graduating with a PhD will be extremely well-trained and have undertaken a rigorous research programme. Paradoxically this weakness of the overall situation for university biochemists has resulted in the production of independent innovative graduates who perform extremely well when they move into the active world centres of biochemistry. To date, money has not been made available for such graduate students to attend meetings even within New Zealand and so they have very limited opportunities to present their work. While the DSIR biochemist has a number of colleagues he can interact with on a day-to-day co-operative basis and has time to do so, the university-employed biochemist with greater independence tends to have fewer people who either have intimate knowledge of his field or have the time for close interaction. Poletti (1973) in an article on scientific research in New N221
Read full abstract