NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ADDRESS

Internationalisation of Australian Science

9 September 2009
Professor Kurt Lambeck FAA
President, Australian Academy of Science

Preamble

Two years ago I talked about the Academy’s views on the importance of science, and what the Australian Government should do to maximise the benefits of scientific research. One of the components of this was greater integration into the global science effort. That is what I want to return to today.

Introduction

The importance of Australia being integrated into international science is obvious to most of us here who have worked in science. Without our overseas experience, without access to ideas and technology before they became mainstream, our own and Australia’s contribution to world knowledge would be much less than what it has been. Probably the last Australian invention that did not involve some international input was the stump jump plough!

But beyond the science community the simple fact, that to make effective use of the less than 3 percent of knowledge developed by Australia, we need timely access to much of the other 97 percentcreated overseas, is not well understood and programs that facilitate the development of the international networks are periodically under threat. The Academy of Science is concerned about this and that is why I have chosen this topic.

My message is: that if Australia is to have a safe and prosperous future in science, technology and innovation (STI), then we need an integrated long-term plan of action for international engagement. This starts with an expanded program for exchanges through joint degree programs with recognised overseas universities. And it ends with a scheme, analogous in scale and ambitions to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, for contributing human and material infrastructure to advance Australia’s STI future, but where access to overseas resources is essential.

I will argue the case why this is important, and will outline the elements that should be considered within it.

In so doing I do not imply that federal governments have not been unaware of the importance of expanding Australia’s part in the global science effort. The recently announced decision to contribute to the Giant Magellan Telescope to be built in Chile is one sign of that. But it is less clear to me that those who control the purse strings fully understand the breadth and scale of what is required.

The Prime Minister said last September in his address to the United Nations General Assembly:

'Through our membership of the United Nations, we are committed to using creative middle power diplomacy to help overcome the great challenges of our age.''Challenges which lie beyond the power of individual nation states to resolve.''Challenges which can only be solved by unprecedented cooperation between states.'

I believe that Australia’s international science engagement is critical in meeting the Prime Minister’s ambitions but I also believe that it is currently under-leveraged.

Why Science in the first place?

To this audience it is a no-brainer to ask why investment in Australian science and technology research should be one of the high priorities for any government, even in the current global economic crisis.

But there are still elements in finance and politics who believe that to be innovative, it simply suffices to buy the necessary technology when and where required.

The Academy of Science does not share this view. We understand that Australia has to become increasingly reliant on adding value to its natural advantages by developing new knowledge and innovative ideas. This cannot be achieved using old ideas and other people’s second-hand technologies.

We believe that to address this concern requires more than to just passively wait for new technologies to flow in. It is true that in the past the introduction of new products, processes or services into a market did not necessarily mean pushing the frontiers of knowledge. But the days when growth of a national economy could be achieved by transforming existing knowledge into cheaper products are undoubtedly limited. Japan has seen the consequences this and China is beginning to recognise it as well.

To be able to innovate, to make effective use of S&T, increasingly requires an ability to absorb and adapt the new knowledge. It requires an ability to make creative use of it, to experiment, and build on it in order to address issues that are important for Australian conditions including identifying niche areas where we can be globally competitive. This is not something that can that be codified in instructions or blueprints to be purchased along with the particular technology.

Finding statistical information that clearly links R&D expenditure to national prosperity remains a matter of debate. The statistics of the expenditure itself is a matter for debate, as is the relationship between this expenditure and economic benefits. But all indices show that the technological activity and the level of human capital of a country show a high positive correlation with per capita GDP and support the often-implicit assumption that current R&D expenditure lays the foundations for tomorrow’s prosperity.

Now, the danger of measurement without a theory is well understood in the natural sciences but is equally applicable to economic indices and while I may not have proven my case here, I will proceed on this assumption: that leading-edge innovation requires leading-edge research capabilities and that leading-edge research capabilities lead to improvements in the human condition.

I am not alone in this view. President Obama in his recent address to the US National Academy of Science said:

'At such a difficult moment [and he is referring to a raft of issues that the US is faced with], there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is somehow a luxury. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before'.(1)

If we accept this, then the next question becomes what has changed that makes the situation different from what it may have been a decade or two back?

What has changed in S&T?

If I reflect over my 40 plus years in scientific research that started in Australia and took me to Europe and North America for almost half of that time, I see tremendous changes that make the old ways of doing things both archaic and anarchic.

  • There has been the growth of scale: the scientific community has increased very substantially, as have the scientific platforms.
  • There has been the growth of the interdisciplinarity of science. New disciplines have emerged that only a decade or two back we did not have names for.
  • There have been the explosions in computational capacity and data.
  • There has been the technological take-over from the scientists – with science being increasingly driven by technology.
  • There has been the communication revolution from snail mail to email and beyond. And I am tempted to add from a time when one could give considered responses, to a time where instant response is expected.

In addition there is the increasing participation in global science by developing countries that have recognised that failure to participate risks falling further behind in economic and social development.

And this is true as well for countries that are at the technological frontiers today: that to remain there, nationaliInnovation systems have to increasingly draw on knowledge created in other systems. That they have to become increasingly interlinked in the global network of technological activity in order to remain in a position where they can access information at the earliest stage and commercialise innovations ahead of competitors.

It all means that science has become exceedingly more complex and that S&T has come a long way from the days when Australia’s innovation could be driven by its very isolation. No single scientist can understand all; no single institution can afford the facilities required to do leading edge science. To remain competitive we increasingly have to progress science through networking and collaboration, making the long-term investments in human and material infrastructure along the way.

Yet paradoxically, despite these changes, there has also been a significant decline in the number of Commonwealth science officers posted overseas who have served as our listening posts and provided invaluable introductions to progress particularly at the Innovation part of the STI spectrum. And in the last budget funding of the international science linkages program was significantly reduced.

Linking into the world-wide network of STI: Why we cannot go it alone.

So why is international linkage important? There is the 3 percent to 97 percent argument: that it requires access to the other 97% of the globally created knowledge simply to maintain the status quo. Because scientific and technical advances occur quickly and come from unexpected directions there is a need to have a broad in-house skills base to benefit from, and be competitive in the use of, the new developments.

This has become increasingly clear to even the most technologically and scientifically advanced nations: that no nation can go it alone and no single country can lead in all fields.

President Obama (loc. Cit.) again:

'We also need to work with our friends around the world. Science, technology and innovation proceed more rapidly and more cost-effectively when insights, costs and risks are shared.
And that's why my administration is ramping up participation in -- and our commitment to -- international science and technology cooperation across the many areas where it is clearly in our interest to do so.'

And it is not empty rhetoric for this is what his Science Advisor, John Holdren, had to say in presenting the President’s R&D budget to Congress.(2)

'With the President’s encouragement, (my office) is working to reduce unwarranted barriers to international exchanges in science and technology fields and to take advantage of the opportunities many other countries are eager to offer for collaborative efforts that are clearly in the U.S. interest.'

Other developed countries with strong practice in S&T have announced similar aspirations and follow-up actions, and the technologically emerging world is following suit. Notably we have the China example. Their 2006 plan for the Development of Science and Technology spells out how it intends to become an ‘innovation oriented society by the year 2020 and a world leader in S&T by 2050’. It notes that to reach it, China will be participating significantly in the global knowledge system.

Note that this emphasis on collaboration is not all done in the name of altruism. In all cases there is a strong emphasis on self-interest. National innovation systems increasingly draw on knowledge created in other systems. Australia, likewise cannot afford to not go down the path of greater integration of the international science effort if we are to increase our ability to commercialise innovations ahead of our competitors.

But others’ self interest can also be in our interest. In the China plan there is a clearly enunciated argument that China is faced with the same global issues as the rest of the world, and that how it responds is of great interest to the world. As it has been put to me by one of their leaders: if China is to reach a high level of development via the route travelled by the present developed countries, then the negative consequences for Australia and the rest of the world will be severe indeed.

And then there is the pursuit of really global initiatives: of dimensions such that no single country can handle them: the Hadron Collider to explore the inner secrets of elusive sub-atomic particles; the Square Kilometre Array for exploring the origins of the universe, or the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program for exploring the ocean floor. These are part of man’s exploration of his universe, participation in which provides major intellectual challenges and participation in tomorrow’s science. But they also provide the early access to the latest technological developments that, as the history of science has shown repeatably, have potential applications in other areas of science.

Failure to participate risks a future in which only the crumbs of S&T applications remain available.

Examples of past experience

Here are a few examples of the benefits that flow from international participation in science. The first is:

The Australian Synchrotron

The synchrotron adventure started from early experiments by Australian scientists in England and France and by the mid 1980s, this had developed into a pattern of ‘suitcase science’ in which a growing body of Australian researchers were funded to go overseas to become familiar with the power of synchrotron science and to acquire the expertise and confidence to argue for and develop specialised beamline facilities in Japan and the US and later the Australian Synchrotron in Victoria.

The important lesson is that the Australian Synchrotron is regarded as one of the most flexible facilities in the world. This hugely successful project could not have been achieved without the international collaboration at all stages: in setting up the early contacts; in facilitating access to the overseas facilities; in the overseas training of graduate students; in accessing leading-edge technology and in recruiting leading scientists and engineers to Australia; and in attracting overseas partners to the facility.

It is too soon to attempt to assess the direct economic impact of the facility. What can be said is that Australia’s R&D capability across diverse fields, from medical research through engineering, would be the poorer if not for the programs that facilitated the international linkages at every step.

Ocean forecasting

Another instructive example comes from an area of space technology where early exposure to the US space program produced young Australian researchers able to use satellite radar altimeters for understanding the dynamics of the ocean surface. This led to short-term visits to France and to the appointment of Australian investigators to the US-France altimetry Topex-Poseidon mission, and to the development of a radar calibration system that established the subsequent integrity of the satellite systems.

Independently, collaboration with other overseas agencies led to a home-base competence in a number of complementary areas that gave the foresight and the experience to integrate the components into an ocean forecasting capability: the Bluelink forecasting system of CSIRO, Bureau of meteorology and the Royal Australian Navy.

Thus out of seed money grew a system that provides real-time information for maritime and commercial operations, defence applications and safety-at-sea. The challenge for Australia now is to use this experience as a springboard to buy into other satellite missions; to ensure continuity of these services and to influence the design and operations of new observing systems.

The China example

In the above examples, the collaboration grew from a deep knowledge of each other’s capabilities. With the developing countries the historical link is often not there and effective collaboration requires foremost the development of an understanding of not only the scientific and technological capabilities of the developing country.

This does require a different approach to the early stages of international collaboration, necessitating more fact-finding missions and scoping workshops to lay down the foundation for long-term mutually beneficial collaboration.

The China experience is constructive where many of the current collaborative programs have their origins in exploratory missions, by scientists, between the respective academies of the two nations. In the past five years at least eight agreements have been signed from which significant collaborative projects are to emerging in areas, involving the universities, CSIRO, CRCs and industry.

One involves a partnership on clean energy technologies, where an investment in 1991 of one airline ticket by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a similar Acadmey of Science investment for in-country costs, have led to joint R&D funding of nearly $5 million.

How has Australia benefited?

I noted earlier that other countries engage in bilateral and multilateral collaboration not altogether for reasons of altruism. Thus we may ask what has Australia gained out of its past collaboration?

Statistical evidence for the economic benefits from international science is poorly understood. But I do know that the government’s investment in the Academy’s bilateral exchange program has been leveraged by a factor of 7.7. (3)

But the real economic outcomes are less readily evaluated. The accurate ocean forecasting of internal waves across the Northwest Shelf provides information for operators of drilling and production platforms. But how are benefits of this, in terms of reduced down time, traced back to the original scientific collaborative work?

If, as a consequence of long-standing collaboration between the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of medical research and the Institut Pasteur, there are 14 French nationals working at WEHI today, do we evaluate the benefits in terms of education and training costs that Australia has not had to meet? Or do we measure it in terms of new opportunities, new ideas and new skills that will hasten the translation of research to clinical outcomes?

So I have abandoned any attempt to measure the returns in terms that the Treasury and the Finance officials understand and focus on the economically less tangible, but ultimately more important benefits that have come from past collaborations.

These are some of them:

  • Through access: to the frontiers of science and to technology, facilities and data sets too expensive to replicate in Australia in the first instance.
  • Through training: of researchers in emerging areas of S&T through the two-way flow of researchers and students. One of my favourite examples is the no-doubt unforseen benefit of the US National Science Foundation program of visits by young researchers to Australia where a survey indicates that some 10 percent of the US participants have returned to Australia for postgraduate work or because of relationships formed during their initial visit.
  • Through benchmarking: of our scientists and their research to the scrutiny of the international community, providing an assurance that Australia’s scientists are indeed performing to the highest standards.
  • Through influence: of international and regional programs as platforms for directing efforts at particular Australian problems.
  • Through geopolitics: by providing S&T aid to developing countries to contribute to their social and economic development.
  • Through security: including opportunities to work on exotic species and pests, or on natural phenomena to facilitate our ability to deal with disease breakouts or natural disasters that could otherwise lead to social disruption with direct consequences for Australia.
  • Through facilitating bilateral and multilateral commercialisation: that benefit the economy through increased business.
  • Through visibility: of Australian science and demonstrating that Australia is more than a source of raw materials or a convenient observation platform.

So, what should Australia be doing?

In asking this question I am not suggesting that Australia is doing nothing. Minister Kim Carr, in Powering Ideas (4) , has expressed the

‘Commonwealth’s ambition to increase international collaboration in research by Australian universities and public research agencies over the next decade.’

and that

‘The Australian Government will continue to promote Australian participation in international research partnerships and networks.

And there has been the commitment to the large super science projects of the Giant Magellan Telescope, the Square Kilometre Array, and the replacement of the Southern Surveyor. But where is the recognition that this requires investment in more than equipment and at a level that is greater than what is available today?

Are the ambitions consistent with the removal of the science presence at almost all our overseas missions? Are they consistent with the budget failure to address the renewal of the International Science Linkages program? It smacks of a St Augustine syndrome!

I recognise that in the present economic times opportunities for new funding are limited. But I must stress that any loss in momentum of current efforts will have long-term effects on maintaining credibility in networks that have been painstakingly built up over many years, let alone building now ones.

Thus the Academy believes that there is urgent need for some stop-gap measures, as well as a compelling need to develop an integrated plan of action for enhancing Australia’s involvement in the globalisation of international science, technology and innovation.

This plan would recognise that there are long- and short-term objectives; that there are different partners to consider within Australia; that a diversity of scales of operation will be required; and that there will be a range of overseas partnering through bilateral, multilateral and global linkages.

I sketch out the elements of such a plan below. Each would have common characteristics that include:

  1. Competitive access by all R&D institutions in Australia, subject to a broad alignment with national aspirations and quality criteria.
  2. Flexibility to respond in a timely way to emerging issues.
  3. Mechanisms for priority setting.
  4. Two-way activities but with options of one-way activities if this is in Australia’s interest.
  5. Encouragement of both basic and applied research as well as the bringing of outcomes to market.
  6. Targeting developed and developing countries alike.
  7. Placing emphasis on early- and mid-career researchers.
  8. Engaging with industry to maximise links between academic and industrial research and innovation.

Starting from the bottom up, the scheme would include:

  1. Two-way student exchange programs at honours and higher levels with recognised overseas universities.
  2. Bilateral exploratory programs for short periods to serve as the seeding grounds for new initiatives that can lead to tomorrow’s R&D priorities.
  3. Longer period, 1 to 2 years, overseas research positions that focus on early-career researchers. These would include industry participation.
  4. Support for Australian participation in planning meetings of international science directed to the resolution of regional and global problems.
  5. A pro-active role in global observation programs when these are particularly relevant to the Australian region.
  6. Funding suitcase science programs to leading edge facilities with equitable cost sharing.
  7. A process for prioritising and funding Australian participation in specific large-scale international infrastructure development and the associated science.
  8. A significant increase in the presence of S&T at Australia’s overseas missions.

A concluding set of words

The current international science activity has mostly been done on shoestring budgets, funded through different programs by different agencies, without a coherent picture of the activities, their funding, and their benefits emerging. As a result, some of the components become vulnerable to razor gangs and departmental efficiency dividends.

So, in one paragraph, what would I recommend to government? An urgent overhaul of the current piece-meal process of supporting the access to international science; to develop a coordinated, across government, process that will increase our global engagement at all the stages identified above, directed to the short and long term national benefit.

The Australian Academy of Science, since its origins, has played a major role in developing the international links that have secured Australia’s S&T position internationally. But ‘times they are a changing’. More substantial efforts are required if we are to contribute to the global resolution of the challenges that will have profound effects on this nation. The Academy, through its international networks is, well position to contribute to the requisite overhaul and we look forward to work with government to achieve this.

Notes

(1) The White House: April 27, 2009. Remarks by The President at The National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC

(2) Research and Development Aspects of the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget. Statement of Dr John P Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United States, to the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, 14 May 2009. )

(3) Program of International Scientific and Technological collaboration funded as part of DSIR International Science and Technology Networks: A Review. Australian Academy of Science, 16 March 2001

(4) Powering Ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st century. Commonwealth of Australia 2009..