|
|
|
|
The
Chance to Change, a
discussion paper Australian
Geoscience Council Response Summary Highest
priorities:
The Australian Geoscience Council welcomes The Chance to Change
discussion paper, agrees that there is an urgent need to revitalise the science
capability of Australia, and strongly supports the main recommendations. In
particular, we attach high priority to:
·
Increasing
the number of Australian Postdoctoral Fellows, particularly those linked to
industry;
Main
concerns
Apart from the specific recommendations we would like to highlight three major
issues that urgently require attention. The first is the
need for a cultural change in Australian attitudes towards science,
engineering and technology, their standing in society, and towards research
generally. This is particularly important for the geosciences where the need for
a better-informed community is central to this cultural change. In spite of the
fact that the geosciences are identified with the ‘old resource economy’
they make essential contributions to our exports. In 1999/2000, for example,
mineral export earnings rose by $5 billion to nearly $44 billion. The overall
health and effectiveness of this industry is in no small measure due to the
application of advanced high technologies during the exploration, extraction and
processing stages for most commodities. The resource industries have been the
backbone of the Australian economy for over a hundred years and should continue
to make a substantial contribution. We will still need a geoscience sector that
is strong across many sectors of science achievement to maintain our place in
the global economy. Our
second key issue is the need for a major overhaul in Earth Science education
and teacher training. We
believe that a sound Earth Science education is essential in Australian
schools, not only to provide the feedstock for future
geoscientists, to maintain our resource industries, but also to improve
people’s ability to have informed opinions on a range of scientific,
environmental and social issues. Our third main concern is that,
although the paper emphasises the university sector of Australian science, in
this country, geoscience capability is spread across universities, industry,
CSIRO, and the State and National Geological Surveys. We assume that the
emphasis on the universities in the report is due to the fact that they are
probably more in need of attention than other parts of the SET environment in
Australia. However, we feel that a more balanced approach could have been
achieved by increasing the emphasis on industry and government research
institutions in the report. Introduction About the AGC.
The Australian Geoscience Council (AGC) represents approximately 10 000
geoscientists, embracing professionals who work in a diverse range of fields,
such as earth resource exploration and use, environmental monitoring and repair,
geohazards, geotechnical investigation, groundwater monitoring and geohydrology,
secondary and tertiary teaching, public-sector research and academia. Our eight
member societies have a common goal of supporting geoscience in Australia. Key
beliefs.
Investment in science and technology is the key to Australia’s success on the
global scene and to a sustained high quality of life for Australians. If sound
strategies are not put in place now, the long-term wealth of the nation will be
jeopardised. It is time to act and The Chance to Change offers an
excellent blueprint for action. Role
of Geoscience.
Geoscience has made major contributions to the national wealth in the last fifty
years, particularly through the resource industry. Industries in mineral
products and energy commodities rely on pure and applied research in geoscience.
Collectively, these industries provide over 50% of Australia’s commodity
export-earnings. These resource industries have performed well lately, due to
technical advances made in exploration, extraction and processing of mineral and
petroleum resources. It
is vital that these advances continue so that Australia does not lose its
competitive edge. A strong geoscience sector within Australian science is
essential to maintain and enhance our nation’s position in the global economy. A
second-tier contribution to exports comes from agriculture. The sustainability
of land and water resources has emerged as a national concern. In this sector
the geosciences have the capacity to contribute to dryland salinity control and
the discovery of new water resources. It is vital that our agricultural
industries are sustained. In
this context we would like to comment on the specific recommendations in the
discussion paper. Comments
on Recommendations Culture
Recommendation:
Provide 200 HECS scholarships for students undertaking combined
science/education qualifications and 300 for students of the enabling sciences
– maths/physics/chemistry. Comment:
The AGC identifies this recommendation as a high priority. Science and
technology are ubiquitous in everyday life, especially geoscience, mathematics,
physics and chemistry. Australia needs to ensure it has a well-educated,
well-skilled workforce that appreciates the technological issues facing society.
The
AGC recommends that geoscience be included in the HECS scholarships, within a
‘physical sciences’ classification rather than the ‘enabling sciences’
umbrella. Similarly,
a sound geoscience education is essential at school levels, not
only to provide future geoscientists, to address salinity problems, future water
needs and resource discovery, but also to assist all citizens, and especially
community leaders, in developing informed opinions on a range of scientific,
environmental and social issues. The importance of geoscience is recognised in
New South Wales, where a new Earth and Environmental Science syllabus started in
2000. The
AGC recommends the nation-wide introduction of similar secondary school Earth
Science syllabi. Recommendation:
Increase the number of Australian Postdoctoral Fellows – doubling would be
appropriate Comment:
Better support is needed for the best newly trained researchers, particularly in
applied research, which addresses the needs of society. Postdoctoral fellows are
arguably at the most productive stage in their careers as far as research
outputs are concerned. Consequently it is very important that sufficient avenues
are available for high quality Australian Fellows. The
AGC recommends that an appropriate Postdoctoral fellowship scheme should provide
for international experience, be competitively based over the whole S & T
research sector, and closely linked with industry. The
link with industry is crucial because it ensures that the research is responsive
to market pull. This point reinforces the recommendation under the
Commercialisation heading of the discussion paper. Recommendation:
Redesign and expand R&D Start Graduate Scheme. Comment:
This recommendation would strengthen the links between universities and
industry. The AGC agrees that partnerships between industry and the university
research-community are essential to ensure efficient and appropriate investment
of scarce research funds. AGC
recommends that the Scheme should be structured so that smaller, cutting-edge
companies are encouraged to participate. Ideas
Recommendation:
Over five years, significantly increase funding for the Australian Research
Council’s competitive grants and related infrastructure activities, consistent
with the commitments already made for increased funding of health and medical
research. Comment:
The ARC and the NHMRC are the main bodies in Australia for funding basic
research. The government recently announced a doubling of the NHMRC budget over
the next five years. We believe there are grounds for increasing funds to the
ARC in a similar manner. If Australia wants to take part in cutting-edge
research we must have equal footing with other nations, by offering attractive
research facilities and salaries at the very least. Other countries have
recognised this, and they have announced significant increases in the level of
their public investment in research. Australia cannot hope to compete in the
international arena, given that funding to the ARC has remained approximately
constant in recent years, and the percentage of successful grants and the value
of each grant has declined. The ARC is the key to a strong applied-research
sector and it is essential to nurture the funding of basic research. There may
be scope for redirect current funding, but the provision of new funding should
remain a primary aim. AGC
identifies this as high priority recommendation for implementation. Recommendation:
Expand the funding for university research infrastructure (Research
Infrastructure Block Grants) Comment:
AGC supports this recommendation, because research cannot be conducted
effectively without adequate infrastructure. Cutbacks in recent years mean that
current funding does not address basics such as standard depreciation of
equipment, let alone finance new paths of research. A cursory inspection of our
tertiary institutions reveals that buildings, equipment, libraries and
databases, computing and communications systems, and administrative support are
in urgent need of new investment. AGC
supports this recommendation and proposes that other research institutions such
as AGSO, CSIRO, AIMS and the State/Territory Geological Surveys should be
reviewed under the infrastructure umbrella. Recommendation:
Commonwealth fund 50% of the cost of creating new major research facilities on a
competitive basis in conjunction with the States/territories, universities and
commercial interests Comment:
The AGC regards this as a high priority. There is a real need for a national
scheme to fund new major research-facilities. These facilities should not be
restricted to single pieces of equipment or specialised laboratories. AGC
recommends that funding should also include collections and less-tangible
facilities, such as information systems and databases, with the information
available to researchers at universities and other research institutions for
free or at a minimal charge. In geoscience there is an urgent need to develop a
national online-facility for geoscience information. It would be possible to
develop this as a major national facility by using the data sets and databases
that are currently housed in AGSO, CSIRO, and the State and Territory Geological
Surveys. These data sets are used to encourage mineral and petroleum
exploration, improve land-management strategies and address land-degradation
issues. We comment that some proposals for basic research will not be able to
achieve 50% funding to match the proposed 50% from the Commonwealth; therefore, AGC
recommends that the level of Commonwealth support should be up to 75
percent, which allows flexibility in the funding arrangements. Recommendation:
Libraries – develop a pilot scheme to test a national site licence concept
between higher education institutions and publishers in an attempt to keep the
price of journals down. Comment:
It is important that the cost of data and information be kept as low as possible
so that it is readily available to anyone undertaking research. The price of
journals and some important data sets (e.g., AGSO’s geophysical data sets) is
prohibitive to all but the major research institutions and companies. Thus, this
proposal to make information and research results more accessible is strongly
supported. Commercialisation Recommendation:
Expand the CRC program to encourage greater SME access and to facilitate
stronger networks between the SET base and industry, nationally and
internationally. Comment:
The connectivity between industry and public-sector research must be strong to
maximise the benefits of national research efforts and to ensure that the
research programs are market driven. The Commonwealth Government has a central
role in nurturing partnerships between industry, universities and other public
sector research organisations. The Cooperative Research Centre Program has been
successful in contributing to this process. CRCs
provide an avenue for nationally-relevant strategic research between partners
who may not work together normally. Furthermore, postgraduate students trained
within the CRCs are often highly employable in the collaborative industries.
Under the present guidelines only large well-resourced companies can afford the
up-front costs to prepare bids and make lengthy financial commitments for the
seven-year period of a CRC. Consequently, only those companies with strong,
steady cash flows have the opportunity to tap into the significant government
funding associated with a CRC. Small innovative companies are not usually in a
position to make any bids let alone commit funds for the full seven years. Small
and medium enterprises, particularly those in geoscience, are generally excluded
from participating in a CRC. According
to CSIRO’s response to The Chance to Change ‘In Australia 64% of
business enterprise R&D is performed in firms of less then 500 employees,
with only 24% performed in firms with greater than 1000 employees. Thus, for the
majority of Australian firms, longer term research is very difficult to carry
out within the firm unless it expends considerably more than the industry
average on R&D. In contrast, in the United States 54% of industrial R&D
is carried out in firms with greater then 10 000 employees, with only 18% in
firms of less than 500 employees. Thus, in the USA there is a large number of
firms with the scale that enables them to carry out longer term research
in-house.’ Australia
is missing out on new applications from cutting-edge research because of this
situation. The
AGC recommends that the guidelines for CRC applications be changed to reflect,
not so much the total contribution from industry participants, but a percentage
contribution that relates to size of the contributor’s business turnover. Recommendation:
Establish a small number of Innovation Centres to provide universities and
government funded agencies with support in commercialising research. Comment:
Clearly, there is a need to demystify the process of commercialisation. The
roles and functions of the Innovation Centres outlined in the discussion paper
are to be commended. However, it is unclear how the centres will be managed and
how they will be funded. The CSIRO and several universities have established
marketing or business organisations, but these bodies have not been successful
generally and some are in financial difficulty. A devil’s advocate would state
that there is no need for another layer of bureaucracy. Thus, the AGC supports
the principle behind the proposed Innovation Centres, but until a feasible model
is developed we cannot assess this recommendation fully. Recommendation:
Establish a pre-seed capital fund for universities, Innovation Centres and
government funded research agencies, such as CSIRO, RDC’s (Rural Research
Development Corporations) and CRCs. Comment:
The AGC welcomes the proposal for a pre-seed capital fund and supports this
recommendation. If this link in the R&D chain is successfully managed, the
flow-on benefits should be enormous. By definition, ‘pre-seed’ funding
occurs very early in commercialisation and is a high-risk area. The success of
this recommendation relies heavily on creating an environment that is acceptable
to the innovator. We
see the success of this recommendation relying heavily on the flow of high
quality ideas and an environment where the innovator does not feel threatened by
a range of lawyers, accountants and the like, which he/she may perceive to be
taking over the ideas and inhibiting innovation. Innovators
must be free from feeling overwhelmed by a barrage of lawyers and accountants,
and free from concerns that people with a low appreciation of scientific and
technical issues are externally controlling their research. AGC
considers that pre-seed funding must be coupled with access to expertise in
marketing, management, and company creation. Perhaps the Innovation Centres
could supply this expertise. Recommendation:
Universities and government research agencies review opportunities for
researchers to better share in the benefits of commercialisation with particular
encouragement for the formation of start-up and spin-off companies. Comment:
Institutions generally own the intellectual property created by their employees.
This practice should change so that innovators share in the financial rewards.
Recognition for innovation should be given where it is deserved and financial
reward is a part of this process. If Australia is to maximise the fruitfulness
of scientific innovation, we need every appropriate driver in place. Financial
reward, although not the only motivator, is a significant component. However, we
must be careful how the rewards are to be distributed. Most scientific advances
are made through teamwork and unless the distribution process is done properly
it could lead to divisiveness within the organisation. AGC
Recommends that patents and other rights to innovation should be shared between
the creative scientists and technicians, and the funding employer.
|
The Australian Geoscience Council Inc. © 1999 - 2003 |
