Basic Research, the Public University and the
ARC
Professor Graeme Laver (FRS) is at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National
University, Canberra. He and two of his colleagues were called as witnesses to
speak to their submissions before the Senate committee charged with the task to
determine "The Capacity of Public Universities to Meet Australia's Higher
Education Needs." On August 13th he opened with this view of the role
and place of basic research in Australia's universities.
The relevant term of Reference
(b) the effect of increasing reliance on private funding and market behaviour on the sector's ability to meet Australia's education, training and research needs, including its effect on:
iv. the maintenance and extension of Australia's long-term capacity in both basic and applied research across the diversity of fields of knowledge[B]asic research in Australian universities should be funded
by the Australian government - that is, by taxpayers - and not by commercial interests. We say this not for any ethical or moral reason but rather because we believe that commercially funded basic research is simply downright inefficient. The three of us are in broad agreement on the damage that commercialisation of scientific research does to basic research, its adverse affects on postgraduate students and the increased secrecy and loss of independence of scientists.
I think we first have to say that we are not opposed to the exploitation of basic research results by companies for profit, providing it does not compromise the integrity of that basic research and the scientists involved. We are not out of touch or dinosaurs, as some of our critics have said. Our concern is not just the ethical and professional implications involved in some forms of commercialisation of basic research; we also say the commercialisation is an inefficient way to make significant scientific discoveries. We recognise that the current drive for commercialisation, like many of the problems in Australian universities, is a direct result of cuts in funding to basic research programs in universities. As we are mainly associated with the research aspects of universities, our concerns are focused on the effects of commercialisation on that research.
Without sounding trite, I think we can say that basic research in science aims to elucidate the laws of nature. By definition, it is not goal oriented and it is value free. You cannot predict what discoveries will be made. In 50 years, the John Curtin School of Medical Research has produced many scientific prize winners. Rarely has any of the research besides these awards been marketable. It has not led to marketable products. There have been no commercial gains from the work of Doherty and Zinkernagel, who were awarded the 1996 Nobel Prize, or the work of Fenner in the eradication of small pox which was carried out at public expense.
Nevertheless, this scientific research led directly to the recognition of the John Curtin School, and by extension the ANU and Australia, as a world leader in medical research and the confidence or admiration of the general public for the science and scientists in the ANU. The same can be said for many research institutes throughout Australia.
Basic research forms the backbone of any centre of higher learning in terms of new knowledge created for the training of young minds, students and particularly graduate students. It is also required for applied research to build on, but it is essential that the two be separate. We cannot allow market forces to dictate the direction of basic scientific research, and there is a very real possibility this will happen if we continue along present paths. Market values are not the same as scientific values, and we are concerned at the blurring between applied and basic research.
The business of university scientists is to discover new facts. The business of companies is to make money. Companies are not good at producing the basic research upon which so much applied research depends, and to deny universities funds for their basic research programs is as short-sighted as it is stupid. The relationship between basic research and applied or commercialised research is simple. Margaret Blood [representing the Senate committee] asked me to explain what we saw as the difference between taxpayer funded, curiosity driven basic research and commercially oriented research. There are many, many examples of this, but we have chosen as a good example astronomy - the study of the universe, stars, planets, black holes and so on. This is basic research. I doubt if there is any commercial company researching black holes, but if this basic research discovers something about black holes which had commercial value, a company could exploit this discovery. This we feel is exactly how it should be done. There are many other examples. Another is the accidental discovery of penicillin as a fungal contaminant which led to the discovery and commercialisation of one of the most useful classes of drugs. Another example is the discovery of the structure of DNA. No company would ever have been set up to determine the structure of DNA.
Five and a half hours after Graeme Laver made his statement the CEO of the Australian Research Council, Professor Vicki Sara had this to say. But first -
Senator Carr [Labor]
What then can you say about the balance between pure and applied research? What was the trend in that regard? Are you able to advise us on that matter?Prof. Sara
Firstly, let me say that on a personal note, and not representing the views of the council, I do not believe that there is in today's research paradigm a distinction between basic and applied research because of the speed of research and the interaction between users and researchers. From a council perspective, the balance between our two programs, discovery and linkage - and I remind you that discovery is about ideas with long-term or no outcomes that have yet been targeted and linkage is to link users of research - is 60 per cent to 40 per cent, and it has been that way for the last three or four years.
This reply did not come from the head of IBM's research
division or that of Lucent Technologies but from the head of the Australian
Research Council, the body charged with distributing the public's money for
basic research programs. She sees no distinction.
Furthermore, Prof. Sara makes the point to Senator Carr that 40% of ARC funding
is "to link [research to] users of research and it has been that way for three
or four years."
In Australia almost all funding for non medical pure research
is provided by the ARC, and that includes biological research which is deemed
not to be in the province of the National Health and Medical Research Council
(NH&MRC). Putting it another way, of the increase to ARC funding outlined in the
Government's Innovation Action Plan, pure research, if the current schedule
continues, will get 60% of it.
Australian basic science appears to lie in a pretty short-sheeted bed.
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web