On 5^th May, a day before the government's release of "Backing Australia's Ability II", The Australian reported the reservations of Jim Peacock, President of the Australian Academy of Science, about pressures to shorten the path to commercialisation of research in Australia.  "If you attempt to lay unique emphasis on innovation in industry without taking care of the discovery process," said Dr Peacock, "it's a short-term view."

He is far from alone in his views.  Some scientists working for companies with strong reputations for research-driven commercial enterprise lament the increasing emphasis being given to short-term, immediately commercial goals.  The May 2004 issue of Fortune magazine, that authority on commerce and wealth creation, discusses the commercialisation of a range of new technologies.  It notes that one of Hewlett-Packard's research leaders attributes a significant part of his company's success to "fundamental research that happens mainly when scientists aren't constrained by the fickleness of venture funding or the need to come up with a product quickly" (Varchaver, 2004).

Stan Williams, director of quantum science research at HP, is not enchanted by the short horizon within which commercial returns on investment are sometimes demanded of scientists. In the context of HP's application of nanotechnology to improve the performance of computer chips, his lab is reported by Fortune as "bankrolling [the work] for nine years" before obtaining results with satisfactory commercial potential.

It is interesting to contrast Dr Williams' views with some of those implicit in the Commonwealth government's "Backing Australia's Ability II", released on 6^th May.  For example the "stronger commercial focus" of the revised Cooperative Research Centre program will inevitably put researchers under still greater pressure to produce quick commercial returns.

The debate over the funding split between fundamental and commercial research always reminds me of the multifaceted career of Isaac Newton. Of course, Newton was as highly regarded as a mathematician, particularly for his development of the differential and integral calculus, as he was as a physicist.  However, his attempts later in his career to convert alchemy into a science, and find a way of turning base metals into gold, met with much less success.

Let's consider what might have happened had Newton applied to the Australian government for funding for these programs.  Newton would have had to confess, in the National Benefits section of his grant proposal on the calculus, that no commercial outcomes would be realised for many years.  On the other hand, he could write with pride in his second proposal, describing his project for turning common substances into gold, that the work would involve distinctly tactical research.  It might generate immediate commercial returns.  Which grant proposal would have been supported, do you think?
 

^†VARCHAVER, N. (2004).  Is nanotech ready for its close-up?  Fortune vol. 149, No. 8, p. 65.

*Professor Peter Hall, Mathematical Sciences Institute, The Australian National University, Canberra

E-mail : Peter.Hall@maths.anu.edu.au