Like any ecosystem, the health of Australia’s research and development sector is determined by both external and internal factors. The resources we’re founded on, the political climate, the rocks we come up against – these are somewhat outside our control.
To function, we – the organisms, if you like – forge connections, understandings, interdependencies, so that we can all live, create and thrive in a way that none of us could alone.
But as the panel conducting the Strategic Examination of R&D outline plainly in its final report Ambitious Australia our system is instead fragmented and underperforming.
“Australia’s RD&I system has stifled our ability to achieve coordinated, large-scale RD&I impact in areas of national need and global opportunity,” it said.
At a time when the nation desperately needs sovereign science capability, we are holding ourselves back from being able to reach our potential.
As the report lays out, our sector has more than $14 billion in expenditure across 150 programs. It notes that we can’t simply add more funding to such a system and expect different results.
We shouldn’t expect to receive greater support if we can’t demonstrate that we are using these resources in the most efficient and effective way possible, to achieve the greatest benefit for the community.
The challenge we must solve as a sector is one of alignment.
Across the ecosystem, we have the capacity to make incredible discoveries and create the kind of impact that will strengthen Australia’s sovereign capability, protect our environment and boost productivity.
Yet across publicly funded research agencies, universities, research institutes, industry, government and investors, our definitions of success, measures of impact, our goals and our incentives vary wildly.
There is not a singular definition, of course. Impact might mean anything from productivity gains to environmental protection, or one small step on a path to discovery. The impact of our research is also not always immediately identifiable.
But we should, at a minimum, be able to agree on what we’re aiming for and what achieving it looks like.
Our desire to collaborate is not in doubt, we have the will to work together, in fact many of us often do. What we need to start developing is a shared framework, one that gives us a clear and common language around the impact of the work we do and what we’re striving to achieve.
At Industry Innovation and Science Australia (IISA) and CSIRO, there are a couple of ways we are starting to think about it.
Impact planning
By identifying the impact we want to achieve as a sector, we can start to set the ambitious goals we need to be focused on, and get a clearer picture of how we work collectively to achieve them.
When we plan, monitor and evaluate our research with impact in mind, we ensure everything we’re doing is aligned to that ultimate purpose
Across the sector, we often report on output. We need to be thinking more about outcomes and impact. There is existing data that can help us measure this, but we need to actively look to it.
We need to identify those better measurements of outcomes and use them to inform program design and targeting
Planning and reporting in this way also increases our transparency and accountability to the community, at a time when we need to work to build and maintain trust.
A system that encourages collaboration
Australia has some great examples of collaborations that have delivered incredible national benefits. The 15 Research and Development Corporations, pillars of our agricultural research and innovation system, are excellent case studies of the impact we can achieve when we work together.
Similarly, Cooperative Research Centres, funded by the Australian Government, are designed to bridge the gap between scientific research and real-world commercial application, with 26 currently in operation.
Successful collaborations occur in other ways but are too often piecemeal or happenstance. We need mechanisms to ensure that collaboration is happening extensively and by design.
Perhaps that means being funded in a way that brings teams together, rather than driving them apart, setting incentives for broader impact and systemic-wide objectives.
Our challenges are not unique to Australia, other nations face similar issues of fragmentation, rising costs, and a tight fiscal environment.
There are also some we can look to where an RD&I sector is functioning under a holistic, coordinated model, fuelling productivity and creating widespread benefit for the community, local industry and the economy.
Since 2006, Singapore’s R&D ecosystem has operated under its National Research Foundation. A department of the Singapore Prime Minister’s office, the foundation sets the national direction for research and development, funding strategic initiatives, nurturing research talent and identifying flagship challenges for the nation that this year became the world’s most competitive economy.
Ambitious Australia lays out a holistic picture, and we welcome the measures the federal government has announced so far including establishing the National Resilience and Science Council to better coordinate investments with Australia’s economic objectives. We acknowledge too the further consideration the government is giving to the report and its implications.
Ecosystems thrive through the strength of their connections. Our sector is no different. As a strong, coordinated, deeply collaborative system, making the best of our resources together, we will succeed. We will improve translation from research to impact, boost productivity, and create a stronger future for the nation.
Peter Rossdeutscher is the chair of the federal government’s advisory board Industry, Innovation and Science Australia (IISA). Doug Hilton is chief executive officer at the national science agency, CSIRO.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.