Home > Events > Lectures and speeches

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ADDRESS

Research priorities for Australia: Setting our future
26 June 2002

Professor Michael N Barber FAA
Secretary (Science Policy), Australian Academy of Science
and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation), The University of Western Australia

Thank you for this opportunity to address the National Press Club, as part of an important public policy debate that will shape the Australia we leave for our children. This debate is not about border protection, multiculturalism, or taxation but about research priorities for Australia: how they should be set and what they should be. I admit it is a debate that is rarely on the front pages of our newspapers, yet it is a debate that has penetrated to, and has the interest of, the highest levels of Government. As it should.

Before the last election, the Australian Academy of Science released a policy document [1] recommending that 'The next Australian Government should set broad directions for government research agencies and funding programs.' Thus the Academy welcomes and supports the recent decision by the Federal Government to set some national research priorities.

While the critical questions now are: What will be the process by which the research priorities are set? What are those priorities? How will they be implemented and monitored? I would like to begin by commenting on a few of the arguments [2] for research priorities.

Why should Australia set research priorities?

One argument is that Australia is a small economy. Consequently, in this global world, we must focus on our strengths and build upon them in niche areas. Certainly in terms of GDP we are a small economy with a GDP that is about 5 per cent of that of the United States. Australia is also a small player in scientific terms, but perhaps not as small as the GDP figures suggest. For example, 2.7 per cent of the world's scientific publications come from Australian institutions [3]. That corresponds to about 8 per cent of the American output – a figure that is greater than our relative share of GDP. This suggests that, at least on this measure, Australia's science community fights well above its weight.

It should not be a view in Australia that the Australian scientific community is too small to be an international player in this globalised world. If you go to almost any scientific conference anywhere in the world, you will find Australians and often they are giving plenary addresses. Yes, we go to North America more than Americans come here, but across the whole breadth of global science, Australian scientists are welcome, in many cases as the leaders of their fields. That 2.7 per cent is very important as our gateway to the other 97.3 per cent of world research.

This international presence just might be Australia's highest priority in research. Already one-third of all Australian scientific publications have at least one overseas co-author. Science, particularly at the leading edge, is an international activity. Indeed, in the larger OECD economies, one of the important reasons that business funds local academic research is to tap into the science networks. The international presence of Australian scientists should be an invaluable 'fifth column' for Australia, giving early warning of emerging technologies and picking up signals of novel applications. But that knowledge will not come free. As a recent UK analysis [4] of the economic benefits of publicly funded research concluded: 'No nation can "free-ride" on the world scientific system.A nation needs the capability to understand the knowledge produced by others and that understanding can only be developed through performing research.'

A second argument for research priorities centres on the 'large' amount of Commonwealth expenditure – $5.1 billion – committed annually to R&D and the need, to quote the Chief Scientist [5], 'to ensure that (this) investment.is made wisely and resources are not wasted by spreading them too thinly.' Yes, $5.1 billion sounds like a lot of taxpayers' money. However let me put this expenditure in context. It is less than the value of mineral reserves (estimated to be more than $6 billion) that have been discovered in Western Australia as a result of CSIRO's research [6]. It is less than twice the current capitalisation of Cochlear, which with its hearing implants is perhaps the current benchmark for innovative companies based on Australian science. It is less than four times the capitalisation of ResMed, which has pioneered internationally a whole new industry when medical wisdom didn't even recognise sleep disorders as a major health issue. It is about the amount lost in the HIH collapse – I know where I would rather invest! The $5.1 billion amounts to approximately $260 per head. In contrast, the US Federal Government spends $US250 per head on medical research alone [7]. This international comparison does not, of course, detract from the need to allocate 'wisely', but suggests that arguments for priority setting should not be based upon a perception that Australia already spends a disproportionate amount on R&D.

Nor should the argument for priorities be that Australian science is only of interest to scientists. The returns to Australia from past science have been considerable: the future returns from today's science are likely to be unimaginable. Think of it: if each year that $5.1 billion did nothing more than create the seeds from which, in time, grew two companies the size of Cochlear, I would think, as taxpayers, we should be rather pleased. And that doesn't value any of the other outcomes from that scientific investment. How do you cost the value of a little girl being able to hear? Little wonder that a former US Presidential Science Advisor once said [8]: 'federal investment in science and technology is as good an investment as you can possibly make with the American taxpayer's money.' It should be equally true in Australia.

Perhaps the best argument for research priorities is that by appropriately focusing our scientific effort, we can sustain a broad Australian science base and transform a good science system into a great one. The right priorities should enhance interactions between different disciplines. They should break down barriers between organisations and thus build the partnerships that will enable Australia to prosper in what the CEO of CSIRO, Geoff Garrett, so aptly describes as that 'turbulent white-water world' of the twenty-first century.

Even more importantly, if the priorities are sufficiently visionary and their possible outcomes clearly articulated, they should enable the science community to engage with its major stakeholder – society. As important as international publication is to the validation of our science, it cannot be the only outcome of our endeavours as scientists. For our science to be sustainable it must lead to jobs, better health, a cleaner environment – in short, a better world. The right priorities can contribute to that vision and sustain the broad science system Australia will need in the twenty-first century.

How should R&D priorities be set?

Last February the Academy issued a statement [9] on research priorities, in which we laid out seven principles for a successful priority-setting process. While all are pertinent, I would like to comment specifically on two of them.

The first principle is that national research priorities should be established through a broad consultative process and carry the support of the scientific community. Such a consultative process has been the focus for the last month. The Academy would like to publicly commend the Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, and the Minister for Science, the Honourable Peter McGauran, for the way the consultative process has been conducted. It augurs well for a positive outcome for Australian research and for Australia.

One other principle for successful priority-setting concerns the need to articulate research priorities with industry policy. This principle has received less attention in the debate than it warrants. This is particularly critical in emergent areas of science such as nanotechnology, where there is limited Australian industrial activity and most of that in relatively small start-up companies. How such companies are nurtured requires a different industry policy than that required, for example, to encourage major service companies to utilise advances in information and communications technology. More radical ideas, such as the suggestion [10] by the Institution of Engineers, that the R&D tax concession be differentiated, are certainly worth exploring. However any discouragement of general investment in R&D by industry would not be in Australia's interest. Australia's OECD ranking on business investment in R&D is already woeful – nineteenth on the latest figures.

What should Australia's research priorities be?

My first priority would be to ensure a creative Australian scientific community capable of pursuing internationally significant science. Without that we can have no national research priorities of significance. The more I am involved with science and technology, the more I am struck by two observations: beautiful science is excellent science and beautiful science tends more often than not to be useful science in a myriad of ways, many of which cannot be easily predicted.

In early May the Academy of Science elected sixteen Australian scientists to its Fellowship. The fundamental criterion for election to the Academy is international distinction derived from the scientific impact of the Fellow's work. The disciplines of the new Fellows ranged from pure mathematics to electrical engineering, from cardiology to polymer chemistry, from palaeontology to the futuristic world of optical communications. While the excellence of their science was clearly evident, in every case, the work of the new Fellows either had already been of significant benefit to Australia or had the clear potential to be so.

Yet Australia seriously under-performs, in world terms, in a number of important disciplines, particularly in information and communications technology [11]. There are also disquieting signs that the rest of Australia's science is dropping off the international scientific pace. Last October the Academy published a report [12] which showed that the relative impact of Australia's publications, as measured by citations, continues to fall behind most other OECD countries. Proponents of very narrowly focused research priorities take this result as evidence for their case. But could it be that this decrease in impact is a result more of inadequate funding combined with an inappropriate allocation mechanism for the available funding? In contrast to Australia the citation impact of UK science has increased over recent years, [13] plausibly because excellence is the single priority that drives the allocation of block research grants to UK universities.

Some will argue that citations are not what the game is about – it's about patents! True, Australia and particularly Australia's universities do not have the patenting record that they should. Yet a strong link does exist between high quality science, as measured by citations, and patenting and thus innovation and commercialisation. Francis Narin, a notable American analyst, in a study of links between citations and patenting [14], found that the more often papers were cited in the scientific literature, the greater the probability that they were also likely to be cited in a patent. In biomedicine, for example, the most cited 1 per cent of papers are 23 times more likely to be cited in a patent than a paper in the bottom 50 per cent of citations. Narin concluded: 'There is no field in which mediocre research stands much chance of contributing to innovation.' It would be a bold experiment in public policy to try to enhance Australia's patenting and commercialisation record by weakening the science base, even if only inadvertently.

While additional Commonwealth funding will probably be required to achieve the science system that Australia needs – after all the US Federal Government supplies 90 per cent of Stanford's annual research funding [15] – reforming the mechanism by which block research funds are allocated to Australian universities would be a useful start. Both the UK and the US offer alternative approaches that could be adapted to Australia so as to give greater encouragement to excellence, impact and outcomes. But that is a story for another time. Suffice it to say for now that the consideration of research priorities should not be divorced from the wider and concurrent debate on Australia's higher education system.

Let me now turn to possible thematic priorities. In the Academy's October policy statement we advocated: 'National research priorities should be aimed at optimising the socioeconomic wellbeing of the nation within the context of good international citizenship. That good citizenship acknowledges the responsibility of the nation for stewardship of one of the world's most fragile continents, with unique fauna and flora.'

On the basis of these principles, and consistent with our view of the need to enhance Australia's science base, the Academy has nominated three broad thematic priorities for Australian R&D. These are, in essence, to be healthy, wealthy and wise, or more formally to focus on population ageing, wealth generation and environmental sustainability.

Population ageing is suggested because the mental and physical health of an ageing population will be a critical determinant to Australia's future socioeconomic wellbeing. Australian researchers have a competitive international edge in the development of medical technologies, such as human stem cell research, and devices that could have a significant impact on future treatments of degenerative and other diseases. Cochlear and ResMed could be the first of a long line of internationally competitive companies whose products bring a better lifestyle to millions.

Wealth generation is unashamedly on the list for its future economic impact but should specifically include biotechnology, nanoscale material science and information and communications technology. Basic research in these areas is rapidly advancing so strategic investments can be expected to result in substantial returns.

Finally, environmental sustainability is suggested because we must recognise that Australia is a high-energy, high-waste, high environmental impact economy that is not sustainable in the longer term. Research into prevention and remediation of environmental degradation, into salinity and into greenhouse gas abatement should be of national importance. Research should be aimed not only at the sustainable management of the terrestrial environments that have been so important to wealth generation in the past, but also at the sustainable development of the marine resources of our extended economic zone – one of the largest in the world.

Such priorities, particularly when combined with more specific strategic actions, are sufficiently narrow to have deliverable outcomes, yet sufficiently broad to encompass and enhance a broad Australian science base. They would also position Australian science globally in a distinctive way.

Choosing priorities so that collectively they sustain and enhance Australia's science base is vitally important. I find it very difficult to identify any significant scientific disciplines that Australia could do without. For example, consider medical research. Perhaps we could focus attention on one or two prevalent diseases, such as breast cancer, or on child health or indigenous health – a moral priority for the nation. However, even then, Australia would need a world class base in virology, cell biology, human genomics, and so on.

Moreover, new threats can suddenly appear. Australia's response to HIV/AIDS is a good example. On a global scale that response has been recognised as close to best practice. It resulted from the fact that Australia had already built up a strong public health system supported by internationally competitive epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists who were able to quickly address the new scientific challenges posed by HIV/AIDS. Ironically, in an early attempt to consider research priorities for Australia, an ASTEC workshop in 1981 concluded [16] that immunology and virology warranted very low priority 'by virtue of their R&D contribution to national objectives over the next five to ten years'. A sobering historical warning! Two years later, the AIDS pandemic hit Australia and those very disciplines were at the cutting edge of our response.

How should R&D priorities be implemented and monitored?

Let me now turn briefly to the key questions of implementation and monitoring priorities. Whatever we decide, it is vital that the priorities are sustained over time. Priorities in science can not be chopped or changed at whim. It is no accident that one-third of the world's biotechnology companies were founded out of the University of California. A key factor was the university's world dominance of the fundamental basic sciences, a dominance which took decades to establish [17] and preceded any concept of the commercial opportunities. The University of California, primarily with Federal and State Government support, built world-class research teams, whose only aims were to solve challenging scientific problems. Industry came later.

Implementation of the agreed priorities should take account of Australia's geography and our system of federation. For this reason, if we need an overseas model, Canada may be a better one than Finland or Singapore. It is not West Australian parochialism to say that biotechnology cannot be restricted to Brisbane and Parkville, or information and communications technology to Sydney. Consequently we need to develop infrastructure and mechanisms to bring together geographically disbursed groups to generate a critical mass of expertise. Where centralisation is warranted, for example, where Australia needs only one item such as a radiotelescope, nuclear reactor or synchrotron, access from all of Australia needs to be a design criterion.

Once the priorities are set, their sustenance will require investment to achieve their objectives. Backing Australia's Ability and its $2.9 billion is a start – yes, a very significant start – but only a start. For the selected research priorities to succeed in their ultimate goal – a better Australia – we will need strong universities, a vibrant scientific base, adequate infrastructure and supportive industry policies. The Academy of Science believes that Australia can afford to make the necessary investments to achieve these goals and to ensure Australia has a healthy future. A future that uses our 2.7 per cent of research output to ensure that Australia has access to the other 97.3 per cent of the world's research. This will give us the ability to respond to our own opportunities, threats and emergencies.

Since the States now have a greatly increased capacity for direct investment in R&D, their role in sustaining national priorities warrants further consideration. A useful development would be the upgrading of the current Commonwealth, States and Territories Advisory Council on Innovation to a Council of Ministers of Science and Innovation. Such a body could give an annual report from a 'whole of Australia' perspective on progress in the priority areas. The Academy would be pleased to play any role that it could in furthering such an initiative.

Finally, it is important to realise that monitoring the priorities and their outcomes will require flexibility and the recognition that we will almost certainly need to change direction as time passes. By definition, targeted research has a target or end-point. One of the dangers in targeted research is that the target set depends upon a current assessment of what is achievable and what we currently know. To quote the Nobel Laureate and co-inventor of the laser, Arthur Schawlow: 'Everybody always wants to know what's next. I always say that what I can imagine is rather dull. What I can't imagine is what excites me.' Even as we set research priorities for Australia we need to expect, and exploit, the unexpected. Science remains, in the immortal words of Vannevar Bush, 'the endless frontier'.

In summary, the Australian Academy of Science supports the decision of the Commonwealth Government to set research priorities for Australia. These should be broad thematic priorities that encompass and enhance the science base of Australia. They must articulate a vision for Australia. We hope the Government will resist the temptation to be very specific and in particular will resist identifying specific disciplines. The 1981 ASTEC exercise should be a timely reminder of the danger in doing that. It is important that the identified priorities do not focus on short-term targeted research at the expense of longer term more fundamental research with potentially greater benefits. In regard to implementation, we feel that the Government's touch should be light with an emphasis on coordination from a 'whole-of-Government' perspective – indeed, from a 'whole-of-Australia' perspective. If, in the next few months, we set the wrong priorities or implement them inappropriately, we may look back at 2002 and say it would have been better not to have set research priorities. If we set the right priorities and implement and monitor them sensibly, it will not only be the Australian research system that will benefit, but all of Australia and all Australians.

[1] Priorities in research and innovation for the next Australian Government, Australian Academy of Science, October 2001, www.science.org.au/reports/priorities.pdf.

[2] For a more complete summary, see Developing national Research Priorities: An issues paper, Department of Education, Science and Training, May 2002, www.dest.gov.au/priorities.

[3] L. Butler, Monitoring Australia's Scientific Research, Australian Academy of Science, October 2000, www.science.org.au/reports/butler.htm.

[4] A.J. Salter and B.R. Martin, The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy 30, 509-532 (2001).

[5] R. Batterham, The Chance to Change, Commonwealth of Australia, November 2000, www.dest.gov.au/chiefscientist/reports/chance_to_change/Documents/ChanceFinal.pdf, p.60.

[6] B. Collis, Fields of Discovery: Australia's CSIRO, Allen & Unwin, 2002, p.442.

[7] J. Rosenberg, Telstra Address, National Press Club, June 5, 2002.

[8] Neal Lane, quoted in The Chance to Change, p.22.

[9] See www.science.org.au/reports/arcfunding2.htm.

[10] Research and development: Which direction?, The Institution of Engineers, Australia, March 2002, www.ieaust.org.au/policy/res/downloads/publications/IOERADpdf.pdf.

[11] B.D.O. Anderson, Australia and the ICT revolution, Telstra Address, National Press Club, July 2001, www.science.org.au/events/npc2001.htm.

[12] L. Butler, Monitoring Australia's Scientific Research, Australian Academy of Science, October 2000, www.science.org.au/butler.

[13] J. Adams, Research assessment in the UK, Science 296, 805, 2002.

[14] F. Narin, CHI's Research, Vol VIII, No.1, July 2000.

[15] L.R. Mejia, Innovation – Observations from Stanford University, Inaugural Ericsson Innovation Awards, Canberra, February 2001.

[16] National Objectives and Research Priorities, Australian Science Technology and Technology Council, September 1981.

[17] T. Barlow, Science friction in the knowledge nation, Australian Financial Review, 23 March 2001.