The Taxpayers Union is questioning the cost of Marsden Grants awarded to academic research of dubious value.

259 grants were awarded in the last two years, accounting for $158 million of public money. The full list of Marsden Grants awarded in 2019 and 2020 can be found here and here.

The Marsden Fund was established in 1994 to fund "excellent fundamental research".

Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, "It's hard to see how some recently-funded projects are either ‘excellent’ or ‘fundamental’. We're exposing examples of the grants so that taxpayers can judge for themselves."

• $300,000 to examine how New Zealanders are using dating apps.
• $300,000 to prove it is “benevolently sexist” to believe that “men ought to protect and cherish women”.
• $842,000 to find out why there aren't many Asian people on New Zealand television or in cinema.
• $870,000 to find out whether multiculturalism harms indigenous people.
• $300,000 to examine the relationship between housing and security in Papua New Guinea.
• $870,000 to “re-imagine anti-racism theory in the health sector”.
• $842,000 to study ethnic women politicians in New Zealand.
• $300,000 to find out how religion affects inequality in Fiji.

Full abstracts of these examples and more can be found on the Taxpayers' Union website.

Recommendations for funding are made by a council of 11 researchers hand-picked by the Minister for Research, Science and Innovation – Megan Woods.

“Some Marsden Grants go toward tangible scientific research that will conceivably provide a return for New Zealand taxpayers. But the funding council seems to give equal priority to vague, navel-gazing treatises that will only ever be read by a handful of academics,” says Mr Houlbrooke.

“At the Taxpayers' Union, we take a simple view: taxpayer money should be spent on New Zealand's highest areas of need. How can Megan Woods possibly tell taxpayers that we need to spend $300,000 studying Tinder when we're facing problems like a housing crisis and a pandemic?”

“The Marsden Grant seems to deal in default funding figures, such as $300,000 or $842,000, which suggests there isn't much, if any, scrutiny of whether these projects actually need the full sum. Many of the projects involve international collaborations, meaning funds can easily be eaten up by overseas junkets.”

“We're asking Megan Woods whether she's actually read what grants her funding panel has approved, and if she seriously thinks that all these projects are worth the many millions they're costing taxpayers.”

“Interestingly, even hard-headed research proposals have been pitched in ideological terms – for example, an investigation of human impacts on Antarctic ecology was pitched as examining 'how vulnerable Antarctica's coasts are to colonization'. Funding applicants clearly understand that themes of intersectional politics are likely to win them taxpayer money.”

“Many Kiwis will support the principle of funding blue-skies academic research. But we're urging taxpayers and the media to take a closer look at where the money actually goes.”

A selection of abstracts from questionable grants proposals can be found on the Taxpayers' Union website.

© Scoop Media