Kim Carr Gives an Interview to Australian Life Scientist. (March 18, 2008)

For its March/April 2008 issue Australian Life Scientist's editor Kate McDonald interviewed the Federal Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr.

The full article is available at: http://www.biotechnews.com.au/index.php/id;1330706287;fp;2;fpid;1

Some excerpts from Kate McDonald's article:

Federal science minister Kim Carr outlines his thinking and his philosophy to Australian Life Scientist.

KM: You hope to bring the public research sector closer to industry?

KC: While I have a very firm commitment to basic research, it is important to strengthen the relationship between the public and private sectors. Collaboration is a key theme running through the policy programs. We want to encourage not just new collaborations within the public sector - in particular on an interdisciplinary basis - but also between the public and private sectors. That's why our National Innovation Review is being established so that we can explore ways that that can be achieved more quickly.

KM: What do you think the priorities of the National Innovation Review should be in a broad sense?

KC: We need to align our national innovation priorities with our research priorities. At the moment there has not been a great deal of discussion about the connection, there certainly hasn't been much of a discussion about the appropriateness of our research priorities as they are currently constituted.

KM: If the Government is serious about reining in spending, where is the money for more research and development going to come from?

KC: In due course that will be an issue as well. We have promised an education revolution and I'm saying very much part of that is a research revolution. In terms of future budgetary commitments, that's an issue we need to work through.

KM: Regarding those charters of independence, you have said you believe that not only do researchers have a right but they have a duty to communicate their work.

KC: I do. I'm encouraging public debate. I think we will have a better informed public if we are able to communicate. In most areas of policy there is a contest for ideas and it's a myth to suggest that there are tablets of stone handed down. There are differences in interpretation and points of view and I want to see those discussions. We don't have to be frightened of new ideas. It doesn't mean that everything that is said will be right or for that matter that people don't have the right to be wrong. I would always obviously urge people to think about how they put a case because there are other points of view and under a peer review system, you would encourage people who have a difference of view. I'm not looking for a preordained truth - this is about encouraging the contestability of ideas.

KM: Despite a lot of time and money spent on it, you moved quickly to cancel the implementation of the Research Quality Framework (RQF). Why?

KC: ...[I]t was fundamentally flawed. It was badly designed, it had an emphasis on concepts that could not be identified in real terms, ...it was effectively a major distraction to the work of universities. I want...  a strategic approach where we can ensure that we get advice about longer term strategic directions of our research program...  I'm moving towards measures that streamline that approach... I want to use the next year as a process of consultation to reach agreement. We must have a rigorous, transparent and internationally credible system of evaluation.

KM: Are you going to continue with the previous Government's programs such as the Higher Education Endowment Fund and the Federation Fellowships?

KC: The Federation Fellowships are an area where we need to consider the direction... our whole research training area does need a fundamental rebalancing. We've got an ageing workforce in terms of our academic and scientific community and we need to look at ways that we can revitalise and refresh our talent base... we have to concentrate resources at the early and mid-career levels so the program emphasis will shift. There is a range of areas in which there needs to be significant reform. The fellowships we have announced will be worth on average $140,000 a year for four years with a $50,000 infrastructure support program. This is a new program ["Future Fellowships"], worth $175 million.