AUSTRALIA: Research tail wags industry dog

Successive Australian governments have demanded the nation's universities focus on research that has money-making possibilities. 'Pure' research has become a lost dream for many academics as the emphasis has increasingly been on the commercial applications of research discoveries, especially those likely to generate export income. But, as critics point out, by forcing universities to deliver commercially and economically-relevant research, the R&D 'tail' is expected to wag the 'dog' - the innovation capacity of Australian business and industry.

More than any other previous administration, the former conservative government of Prime Minister John Howard forced universities to become more commercially conscious. Not only were they required to generate increasing proportions of their own income to fund their operations, in a multi-billion dollar package of measures in the early 2000s labelled Backing Australia's Ability, the government used its funding powers to make academics concentrate on economically relevant research, and to encourage partnerships between researchers and business.

Its focus was on science and technology research, especially in biotechnology and information and communication. The government also set out four national research priorities which the research funding councils were expected to follow in allocating grants: an environmentally sustainable Australia, promoting and maintaining good health, frontier technologies and 'safeguarding Australia' (against terrorist and other forms of attack).

The effect on the arts and humanities was disastrous as it was the science and technology disciplines that received most funding. But the scheme also failed to create an effective national innovation system, the need for which had been obvious for years, because it ignored the role of business and industry.

In a submission to a senate inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs, Dr Graeme Laver, a senior academic at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, expressed the view of many when he declared:

"I am totally opposed to the commercialisation of basic research programmes in Australian universities. Commercial companies do research to make money. University research should be there to make new discoveries. But I am not opposed to the commercial exploitation of these discoveries."

As Laver argued, trying to force economic gains damaged "the integrity of the basic process of discovery through research... because economically productive innovation must primarily emerge from organisations focused on market demand - rather than from those focused on the technical issues of research".

"Undertaking R&D is an indicator, not in most cases the source, of successful business innovation," he said. "Likewise, having an effective system to commercialise publicly funded research is an indicator or component, not the prime cause, of an economy-wide innovation capability. It is moreover unlikely to constitute more than (say) 10% of any properly developed innovation system."

The alternative was to stimulate changes in the economic system directly - in the innovation system as a whole, for example, rather than just in 10% of it. Laver had to admit, however, that innovation was seldom a key element in any business strategy and he described Australian business investment in R&D as "miserably low" by international standards.

To overcome this reluctance to invest in R&D required stimulating systemic changes in the mainstream economy and in the ability of companies to profit from innovation. In turn, this might encourage companies to do their own R&D and to value publicly funded research, he said.

A report prepared for the federal Education Department two years ago by consulting firm PhillipsKPA took a wider and markedly less commercial view of how the knowledge generated by academics as a result of their research might best be applied. The report used "knowledge transfer" in lieu of the term "commercialisation of research" and described the former as "the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance material, human, social and environmental wellbeing".

"Our mapping of existing programmes demonstrates that current public policies are providing some support to universities in their knowledge transfer activities. We conclude, however, that there is justification for the views of many stakeholders within higher education that current funding arrangements and programmes do not support the full range of actual and potential knowledge transfer activities," the report said.

"In particular, funding programmes have focused mainly on knowledge transfer for commercial benefit rather than knowledge transfer for other human, social and environmental benefit... The emphasis of most higher education stakeholders in their input to the project was on the deficit of support for knowledge transfer targeted at human, social and environmental outcomes, rather than any shortfalls in existing support for knowledge transfer for commercial benefit."

That situation may no longer apply, given that a transformation could be occurring in how the Australian government views university research and the need for it to be open to commercialisation. After nearly 12 years of conservative administration, a Labor government took office last November and one of its first, surprising, decisions was to remove science and innovation from the Education Department and establish it as a separate portfolio with its own minister for innovation, industry, science and research.

In January, that minister, Senator Kim Carr, announced a review of the national innovation system. The review, headed by an independent group, subsequently attracted more than 600 submissions and will lead to the production of a green paper shortly, to be followed by the government's response in a white paper later this year.

Carr also announced the government would create a charter to protect scientific debate. He said the capacity of public researchers to contribute to public debate in their areas of expertise had not been accepted by everyone.

"The Howard government was subject to repeated accusations of political interference with scientific research, especially on controversial issues," he said. "It is often in matters of contention and sharp debate that the knowledge and expertise of the scientific community is most valuable. This is why it is so important to protect the right of scientists to speak out about their research and discoveries."

But whether academics will be any freer to follow their interests wherever they might lead, and have funding to do so, is a question yet to be answered.

geoff.maslen@uw-news.com