The heart of the controversy lies in Mistry-Mehta’s apparent lack of a direct scientific background. Critics are questioning the transparency and meritocracy of the appointment process, particularly given the crucial nature of a science and technology advisory body. This situation fuels concerns about potential “cronyism” and whether the government is prioritizing connections over qualifications when filling key strategic roles.

Adding to the uproar is the perceived over-representation of individuals with agricultural backgrounds on the council, according to some prominent scientists. Critics, including Labour Party spokesperson Reuben Davidson, have accused the government of leaning towards “old economy” interests at the expense of broader scientific expertise. This imbalance could potentially skew advice and policy decisions impacting dairy economics and wider innovation.

The New Zealand Association of Scientists has also weighed in, expressing significant concerns about the implications of such appointments. There are fears that non-commercial science areas could face defunding or reduced emphasis if the advisory body is perceived to be heavily influenced by specific industry interests, rather than a balanced pursuit of scientific advancement for the nation.