The release by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, of the Review of Closer Collaboration Between Universities and Major Publicly Funded Research Agencies has prompted this evaluation by the acting secretary of the CSIRO Staff Association, Pauline Gallagher.

Overall comments

While the report makes some positive findings in relation to the way the scientific community interacts and collaborates, it poses some real threats to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in proposing the removal of triennial funding arrangements and reducing the agencies’ block appropriation funding in favour of a competitive regime open to the universities and private research institutions.

It applies unquestioned the principle that increased competition equals increased scientific excellence, a concept that may fit with curiosity-driven research carried out in the universities and research institutions but has limited applicability to the directed research and large scale scientific programs of the public sector science agencies.

It promotes the perception that CSIRO, ANSTO and AIMS are secure in their funding, to the detriment of quality, despite all the evidence to the contrary: for example, CSIRO’s steady flow of job losses, CSIRO’s record of performance and credibility with the Australian public, its international citation rate and other accolades.

The report appears internally inconsistent in the way it makes its recommendations:

• It is very complimentary about the level of collaboration among scientists yet seeks to impose more pressure on them by increasing the competition for research funding.

• It recognizes the importance of regional facilities to the Australian community yet recommends relocating them as the default.

• It acknowledges the struggle scientists and their institutions are having dealing with current work loads and work pressures and the extra cost of increasing the level of collaboration yet seeks to impose more on them by forcing partnerships and increasing the competition for funds.

• It recognizes the value of Collaborative Research Centres (CRCs) in collaborative research ventures yet seeks to set up an alternative and very similar collaboration fund.

• It acknowledges the problems faced by both universities and publicly funded research agencies with respect to leverage of their core funding and calls for fully funded research. Yet it proposes that the Research and Development Corporation (RDC) funding approach be the model for the proposed Collaboration Fund, even though the RDCs are champions of leveraging the funds of the institutions to which they contract research.

• It applauds the new directions and actions CSIRO is taking in its research, yet conveys an implicit assumption that CSIRO needs an injection of excellence to facilitate better outcomes.

The report fails to deal with:

• the low level of funding for scientific research overall as a major impediment to collaboration,

• the insecurity of contestable science funding driving talented researchers from careers in Australian science,

• the multiple functions the public sector research agencies have to meet in delivering their outcomes,

• the inability of Australian business to contribute substantially to research efforts and collaborations,

• and most of all the immeasurable value of having scientific activity and science workers as part of Australian communities.

Some Positives

The report documents how well the science community is performing despite the current pressures placed on it.

It addresses considerations with regard to opening up intellectual property more for public access and applying standard principles to the management of publicly funded intellectual property.

It proposes a research fund, open to the whole scientific community, with the primary objective of supporting excellence in Australian collaborative research.

The Recommendations

Regarding collocation of publicly funded research agencies with an appropriate research provider as the default.

    Collocation is valuable where scientists are not too overloaded chasing funding to talk with one another. It is important that regional laboratories be maintained where they are relevant to the industries and communities where they are located. They provide an important social contribution to the community in addition to the research outcomes they generate. Examples of this include the Centre for Arid Zone Research in Alice Springs, NT, the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality in Rockhampton, Qld and the beef production capital of Australia, and the irrigation research based in Griffith, NSW.

    If relocations are to proceed, they must be adequately funded to allow for the additional infrastructure and personnel costs. Communities must be compensated for the loss of research facilities.

Establishment of a Strategic Research Council.

     Is an additional body really needed to provide such advice? Mightn't it be carried out just as well by existing arrangements through or within the Department of Education, Science and Training?

Introduce a performance measurement framework for science-based organisations and funding programs.

    This is appropriate. However, the framework must take account of the public as a stakeholder and include measures of public awareness and satisfaction as well as benefits to the Australian community. The framework should recognize the role of science in our society.

Establishment of a contestable Collaboration Fund for Centres of Excellence

    Such a fund would be welcome if it is established with new money. It would be a worthwhile approach to ensuring continuation of scientific excellence in the face of increasing expectations for commercialising outputs from research.

    It could also provide new opportunities to support young researchers so long as it is genuine new money, not funding clawed back from scientific employers in the public sector. It will not act as a source of growth for the public sector science agencies if the fund takes from their block funding in the first place. The public sector science agencies are important employers of young researchers starting out in science.

    The scientific research industry is already struggling to provide careers for newly qualified researchers. The 2003 DEST report on Mapping Australia’s Science Capability documented a slide in young talent taking up postgraduate research -- short term contracts are a prominent and growing feature of working in science. This insecurity is one unfortunate manifestation of contestable funding affecting the upcoming generation of innovators and their families.

    A significant consideration for the value of such a fund would be if it were subject to free trade requirements on research services as under the new round of GATS negotiations or bilateral free trade agreements such as the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

In Conclusion

The report should not be considered in isolation from other reviews affecting  the public sector science agencies.

Any reduction in block funding for CSIRO ANSTO and AIMS is unwarranted as is the phasing out of triennial funding arrangements for these science agencies. Performance measures instituted for the science agencies must include the value of their work for and in the Australian community.

Finally the Government should look to develop mechanisms for increasing job security for researchers to attract more new talent into the scientific effort.

The is an edited version of a briefing prepared for CSIRO Staff Association members.

http://www.cpsu-csiro.org.au