Go8 submission in response to Australia's Draft National Science … – Go8

Dr Cathy Foley AO
Australia’s Chief Scientist
Dear Dr Foley,
As Australia’s research-intensive, globally ranked in the world’s top 100 universities, investing some $7.7 billion on R&D annually, the Group of Eight (Go8) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Draft National Science and Research Priorities.
Please note that this submission represents the views of the Go8 network and member universities may wish to make their own individual submissions. The Go8 also consents for this submission to be published in full.
In the Go8 submission to the Australian Universities Accord, we called for a National Research Strategy that incorporates the National Science and Research Priorities, supporting the Go8’s position that the Priorities have a principal role in determining the key directions for Australia’s science and research system.
They cannot simply be published and forgotten, thus – detrimentally for Australia – ceding way to other national priorities as convenient.
The Priorities are relevant not only to university and government research institution activity, but also in Australia’s industries and businesses which must be encouraged to look to the Priorities as a first indication of how to diversify their R&D. It should never be ignored that they are a key partner in delivering the productivity goals Australia so desperately needs to be a competitive nation; and a nation that delivers increasing living standards for its citizens.
Our recommendations therefore emphasise the need for appropriate authority and settings for the Priorities to be effective, noting that implementation should be within a whole-of-system context, not left to individual researchers, organisations or government portfolios.
The Priorities can be especially powerful in driving a rise in Australia’s R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP from a record low of 1.68 per cent for the nation. They will be even more powerful if they can influence business investment in R&D in a system that, critically, values and supports basic research.
Our submission notes the Go8’s support for the four Priorities themselves, albeit with some suggested adjustment.
The Go8 welcomes the acknowledgement of First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems and emphasises the need to establish concrete ways to bring these to bear on our future performance as a research nation.
We thank you for the opportunity for discussion at the May 2023 Go8 roundtable and subsequent joint workshops with the Australian Academy of Science in June-July, noting that many of the ideas, interests and concerns outlined in this submission were initially raised by Go8 participants at those workshops and roundtables.
Recommendations
Overarching considerations
The Go8 strongly supports national priorities for science and research and a National Statement to signal the criticality of science and research to Australia’s future, and to present clear parameters to guide the nation’s investment and direction.
Australia’s key allies and competitors, such as the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Korea, Singapore, China and New Zealand do articulate their focus on specific science, research and innovation. The OECD identified a decline in 2021 in health and defence R&D funded by governments and more emphasis on energy and environment[1]. The Global Innovation Index 2022[2] reported from its survey of 132 economies that ‘Research priorities have further shifted to public, environmental and occupational health (…), digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, (…), and environmental topics’, with the newly released Global Innovation Index 2023 subsequently highlighting strong technological progress in information technology, health, mobility and energy[3].
Authority for the National Science and Research Priorities
However, without clear authority, there may only be organic alignment of science and research activity in Australia to the Priorities. The Go8 would argue this has already occurred within the existing and past sets of national science and research priorities. Clear authority is necessary if the Priorities and Statement are in fact intended to provide direction to, rather than be haphazardly or coincidentally reflected in, our science and research activity and outcomes.
Authority could take the form of funding through a dedicated separate envelope to incentivise alignment of activity with the Priorities.
Alternatively, or additionally, the Priorities and the National Science Statement could be written in as a primary consideration, in most cases to take precedence, in developing new Government measures that depend on science and research activity. This would include those whichspecifically serve other national priorities.
Currently, the Priorities do not provide a compelling justification for new Government budget or policy measures involving science and research. Instead, decision-makers including Ministers have often pointed to external imperatives to drive investment in areas of science and research priority. For example, investment in COVID-19 vaccine development was largely considered in the context of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative priorities rather than in reference to the relevant National Science and Research Priorities[4].
A possible consideration is whether legislation is required for the priorities. There is a precedent for national priorities to be enshrined in legislation. For example the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities under the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) MRFF Act 2015, and priority areas of the Australian economy for the purposes of the National Reconstruction Fund (NRF) under the NRF Corporation Act 2023[5].
Promoting strategic alignment with the Priorities
A clear mechanism is needed to promote strategic alignment of Australia’s science and research activity to the National Science and Research Priorities, to ensure they remain relevant. The Draft Priorities document does not directly discuss the purpose of the Priorities, how they are to be used, or their role in Australia’s science and research system. The introduction notes that they ‘set out the “what” and “why” for Australia’s science and research efforts over the next decade’. The guiding principles note they have a time horizon of 10 years with the critical research associated having a 5-10 year horizon, and that they signal to industry and the research sector the direction over the coming decade. The Draft notes a five-year interval for review of the Priorities.
Three key elements would seem essential to bolster the role that the Priorities would ideally play in shaping the system:
These three points could form part of the National Research Strategy the Go8 has called for as part of the Universities Accord. All three should also take account additionally that:
Clarity of purpose and intent will also support more accurate monitoring of how the Priorities are met and implemented. This would assist informing both the research sector’s future investments and efforts, as well as Government policy. While acknowledging the complexity of arriving at useful indicators and metrics, there must be more transparency around how the Priorities are implemented.
Given the absence of discussion of R&D in the Measuring What Matters framework[7] (which is proposed in the Draft to be utilised to measure progress), the Go8 recommends further consultation with stakeholders to determine key ways progress can best be monitored. This process should inform the development and publication of a regular Statement of Progress which discusses in detail the relevant progress made by Government, academia and industry, against the Science and Research Priorities.
Currently there is no specific funding program or dedicated funding attached to Australia’s national science and research priorities. Research funding is often tied to other national priorities, such as the National Manufacturing Priorities, or more recently the National Reconstruction Fund Priorities. The ARC’s Industrial Research Transformation Program priorities are based on Industry Growth Centre themes. Nor currently do the science and research priorities have legislative or policy authority, unlike for example the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Priorities[8] or the National Reconstruction Fund priorities[9].
Importance of First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems
The Go8 commends the intention to elevate and recognise First Nations knowledge systems and perspectives on science. While acknowledging the complexity of doing so, the Go8 strongly supports the University of Melbourne’s call to elevate First Nations knowledge systems alongside the current western sciences approach[12]. This approach extends beyond equity and inclusion, to transform Australia’s and the world’s approach to consider how the two systems can together create a future paradigm for science and research.
While the intent is welcomed, more could and should be done within the released Priorities document to describe the potential of recognising First Nations knowledge systems. It is also imperative that there be minimal lag in pursuing direct ways to achieve the intent, in consultation with First Nations communities. Suggestions for considerations as the basis for moving forward include:
Basic research must be supported
The Go8 understands from direct discussions with the Chief Scientist that basic research is a major priority to which the Government is committed, but that the science and research Priorities will focus instead on the practical outputs and shorter-term considerations arising for the development of the new set of Priorities.
We emphasise, as many contributors to discussions have done, the extremely critical importance of basic research to underpin and expand all science and research, and we continue to advocate for a higher fiscal commitment by Government to basic research. Basic or fundamental research is not merely an enabler as unfortunately described in early drafts of the Priorities.
The role of basic research extends to advancing the frontiers of human knowledge; to introducing new and unexpected paradigms, and to potentially overturning and reshaping the tenets of our existence. Basic research is non rivalrous as discussed in the Go8’s paper, Basic Research: The Foundation of Progress, Productivity, and a More Sovereign Nation. This means that it can be used by multiple parties simultaneously, with increasing returns to scale. Given that basic research does not necessarily lead to immediate or direct tangible applications, a systematic and reliable approach to investing in it is essential.
Go8 response to the listed Priorities
The Go8 agrees that the Priorities identified are largely reasonable, expected and consistent with the discussions in which the Go8 participated. To assist in refining the Priorities and as final advice to Government, the Go8 notes:
Go8 Comment on critical research areas against the draft Priorities
Overall
Ensuring a net zero future and protecting Australia’s biodiversity
Critical considerations for this Priority
Supporting healthy and thriving communities
Critical considerations for this Priority
Enabling a Productive and Innovative Economy
Critical considerations for this Priority
Building a stronger, more resilient nation
Critical considerations for this Priority
In addition to advice provided above regarding how the Priorities can be supported, which may be addressed in the National Science Statement, the Go8 re-states its position that the National Science Statement be renamed the National Science and Research Statement. This would assist in reconciling the different perceptions of what science means within both the academic and broader communities, while signalling acknowledgement of the Government’s own distinct science and research portfolios. As noted in our letter to you of 11 July 2023, views vary even within Go8 academe from regarding science as the set of immutable natural rules and research as the mechanism to achieve knowledge, to agreement to the understanding of science as the practices that use knowledge and apply it, to resistance to including all disciplines in ‘science’.
The references to ‘science agencies’, ‘science infrastructure’, ‘Australian Government science programs’ and ‘Domestic and international science relationships’ in Consultation Question 5, raise immediate questions as to whether this question and the intent and scope of the National Science Statement (and Priorities) are limited simply to these agencies, infrastructure, programs and relationships within the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. As noted previously, the Go8’s view is that the Statement and Priorities – being national in nature – should have broad coverage across all relevant Australian Government portfolios and activities, including those supported under the key research funders in the Education, Science, Health, Defence and Environment portfolios. The use of the term ‘science infrastructure’ in preference to the commonly used ‘research infrastructure’ is puzzling and may suggest a schism between the relevant portfolios when it comes to describing these facilities.
Our response:
ATTACHMENT: Go8 paper ‘Basic Research: The Foundation of Progress, Productivity, and a More Sovereign Nation’
[1] OECD (2023). “OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators. R&D and related highlights in the March 2023 Publication”, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation. http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti2023.pdf
[2] https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/2022/
[3] https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-2000-2023-section5-en-gii-2023-economy-profiles-global-innovation-index-2023-16th-edition.pdf
[4] E.g. 2020-21 MYEFO measure titled COVID-19 Response Package — vaccine security — manufacturing capability and capacity, later 2021-22 Budget measure COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturing Capabilities (https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-06/mrna-approach-to-market-questions-and-answers-21-may-2021.pdf)
[5] Other examples include the National Health and Medical Research Council’s health priorities which derive from the NHMRC’s CEO responsibilities under the NHMRC Act 1992 to provide an assessment of the major national health issues likely to arise in the period of the corporate plan and the Infrastructure Priority List which derives from a requirement in the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 for Infrastructure Australia to develop such Infrastructure Priority Lists to prioritise Australia’s infrastructure needs. See https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/research-priorities/nhmrc-health-priorities and https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/infrastructure-priority-list.
[6] That 81 per cent of the ARC’s funded research projects between 2004 and 2021 align with the National Science and Research Priorities, as noted by the 2023 ACIL Allen report on Impact Assessment of ARC-funded Research, does not provide a strong picture of how priorities are being met, simply what projects have self-identified at application stage with a particular priority.
[7] Measuring What Matters cites ‘innovation’ as a metric with a sole associated metric ‘Number of patent and trademark applications’.
[8] Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00052)
[9] National Reconstruction Fund Corporation (Priority Areas) Declaration 2023 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2023L00716)
[10] An example of highly impactful research that was noted as not specifically aligning with the current National Science and Research Priorities is the work by Professor Heather Douglas (University of Melbourne; previously University of Queensland) on Changing the law to Protect Survivors of Domestic and Family Violence, the case study of which was included in the 2023 ACIL Allen report on Impact Assessment of ARC-funded Research
[11] ARC 2019, Snapshot Research Priorities in Australia (https://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/snapshot_research_priorities_in_australia_march2019.pdf), showed that there were at least 11 such lists from a review of initiatives funded by the Education, Health and Industry portfolios alone; and an additional 13 linked to specific programs or research agencies.
[12] See submission by University of Melbourne Pro-Vice Chancellor Indigenous to Stage 1 consultations on the National Science and Research Priorities (https://consult.industry.gov.au/sciencepriorities1/survey/view/149)
[13] ABS 2023, Business expenditure on R&D, by fields of research, 2021-22. This compares to around 81 per cent of Higher Education Expenditure on research and development (HERD 2020) being focused on 12 FoRs, including these three that business focuses on.
[14] Speech by Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic 20 September 2023 at the Mindfields Automation Summit, ‘Unlocking the potential of AI for Australian industry’, https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/speeches/unlocking-potential-ai-australian-industry

source