Research and Development is a national asset, “weaved into key industry and application policies.” But so far, not so good, announce Robyn Denholm, Ian Chubb and colleagues in a context-setting paper for submissions to their planned “strategic examination,” of the state of the system, commissioned by Industry Minister Ed Husic.
In particular, the paper points out,
- research priorities “have not significantly influenced” the national research profile;
- research-industry programmes, “have barely changed the dial,” business is “largely indifferent;”
- the R&D system is “siloed and “barely engaged with the national need;” and
- connections between start-ups and universities “are weak” and SMEs are all very well but overall R&D will depend on larger companies and public research.
So who is to blame? Everybody it appears.
One finding is that, “Australia is a high performer in research (but much of it) rarely addresses the needs of the main users of research and innovation in Australia – industry, government and the community.”
Another is, “the high proportion of applied research investment by Australian universities reflects their efforts to translate their output. However, industry needs to meet this investment to seize commercialisation opportunities across all parts of the R&D ecosystem.”
And there is one big finding that is not what it seems – the paper proposes “that stronger manufacturing is critical” but when it states “manufacturing” it means government funding of it. “Initiatives such as Future Made in Australia can support the growth of manufacturing sectors. This can be done by leveraging Australia’s strengths in R&D to foster globally competitive industries and value-add to exports.”
From there the paper gets into the funding weeds – universities rely on international students to fund research and industry ducks out (53 per cent of R&D here compared to 80 per cent per cent in South Korea). And in a statement the public sector science lobbies will use in a flashing neon sign, facing Parliament House, “Commonwealth R&D is spread broadly and thinly.”
And inevitably more money is needed, an extra $25.4bn a year to meet the OECD standard, the paper points out.
Overall, it provides ample opportunities for lobbies with cases to make. But the many examples it cites of how the Australian R&D system is stuffed suggests a key question that needs to be answered first.
Is the culture divide between researchers and business people / community is beyond bridging?
It looks like it, despite the best efforts of Coalition and Labor ministers down the decades. The University Research Commercialisation Plan was only released three years ago, almost to the day – and yet a starting position of this new review, sorry, examination, is that research and industry need to do more together
So if research and industry are still not talking to each other, why will another report make any difference?
Still there is a bit of luck for Mr Husic in the paper. The size and allocation of the Research and Development Tax Incentive is the biggest policy problem on his patch and it is not mentioned. Funny that.
