The Academy invites comments on the Discussion Paper, preferably by September 13th , allowing them to be addressed in the final report. The AAS' Research Infrastructure Project is funded by the ARC.

At the end of May, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) issued a ten page "Scoping Note", Defining policy options for the provision of research infrastructure in Australia and ensuring adequate access to overseas facilities. The author is Mark Matthews the Academy's recently appointed Science Policy Advisor.  The Scoping Note sets out the interpretation of the terms of reference to be used by an AAS' eight member "Steering Group" in vetting the Draft Discussion Paper (see sidebar) issued on August 20^th, Providing the Machinery of Science: Defining a whole-of-government strategy for securing access to critical research facilities. Paragraph (9) of the Scoping Note sets the tone:

Public sector investment in research facilities (i.e collections of research instruments together with the infrastructure that allows them to operate) is consequently an investment both in scientific advance and in the potential to generate commercial outcomes.

So far the Academy has hidden its effort under a bushel. To date not even the Nation's science reporters have referred to the discussion paper let alone the journalists who populate the opinion pages of the broadsheets.

Yet in language seemingly more direct than we're used to reading from august bodies dependent on governmental funding, it sets out some stark realities:

The policy challenge is to achieve... R&D efficiency and effectiveness gains by both leveraging global R&D investment (thus avoiding the limitations of our own R&D budgets) and by ensuring that our domestic investment is adequate. Inadequate domestic investment will limit our capacity to access leading-edge facilities & equipment overseas because we will lack the necessary skills and experience in using advanced scientific instruments. Consequently, accessing overseas facilities is not a substitute for adequate domestic investment in research facilities and equipment -- these two paths to scientific progress are complementary. Pursuing an approach of this type would however require a major increase in our capacity to coordinate access to, and investment in, research facilities. The required level of coordination could be facilitated by defining the set of critical research facilities (CRFs) that are crucial to meeting Australia's research objectives. (¶ 9)

That said, two paragraphs later the Discussion Paper lets the Government off the conceptual hook saying:

This Discussion Paper assumes that overall science and innovation budget levels are fixed. It focuses upon the rationales for, and structure of, funding for research facilities & equipment (RF&E) with a view to identifying the areas in which policy improvements could be made. R&D and its commercialisation are areas in which the potential demand for funding from different quarters vastly outstrips the practical realities of Commonwealth and State government budget constraints. (¶ 11)

While the Coalition Government proudly emphasises that its financial commitment to research and development is upsides with its OECD cohort, it neglects to mention that its support for basic research has decreased 16% from 1996 - 2000 (latest available figures). In addition the Government's incentives to interest the private sector in significantly increasing its investment in R&D have had little salutary effect. So while the EU nations, Canada and the US get serious about raising the support for R&D from about 2.2% of GDP to 3% by decade's end, our Government is content to having it remain at just under 1.4% of GDP.

The AAS' Scoping Paper makes the interestingly couched and cogent observation:

The risk of making large periodic funding allocations for major research facilities, with high uncertainty over whether such funds will be available in the future, is that bids will tend to be made when it suits the funding round not when it suits actual need for investment in a research facility. In addition, there is a risk that adequate funds will not be available to operate, maintain and upgrade a facility once it has been built.(¶ 17)

One way of thinking about these problems is to consider discount rates [where] a discount rate reflects perceptions of time preference, risk and uncertainty. A low discount rate means that benefits in the future are valued more highly than they are with a higher discount rate -- leading to longer term time horizons in decision-making. Scientists characteristically (by choice of career) prefer low discount rates (i.e. they tend to value long-term benefits relatively highly compared to short term benefits) --  research training takes time and the rewards take a long time to arrive. 'Ad hoc' funding for major research facilities may have the effect of driving up scientists' subjective discount rates -- forcing them to become more short-term than they would otherwise be. For instance, to seek funding for building facilities even though they are aware that there is a high risk that this investment will not be effective over the long and medium term because there is a high chance that the facility cannot be operated and/or upgraded properly. This results in a 'feast and famine' funding cycle that reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s stock of research facility 'capital'. (¶ 18)

While the Discussion Paper emphasises the point from another aspect:

In research areas in which facilities & equipment play a critical role in determining the rate of advance of knowledge the policy option always exists to use funding for R&D capital formation as a catalyst for achieving a wide-range of objectives. This is exemplified in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)... By stimulating the establishment of new and upgraded research facilities and equipment governments are able to create 'research foci' or 'magnets' that attract leading scientists from around the world, retain key researchers and facilitate inter-disciplinary and inter-sectoral research collaboration. (¶ 34)

It goes on, however, to make the following misleading observation:

It is highly plausible that Australia's strong international performance ('punching above its weight') in scientific publications is due to Australia's high level of international collaboration with leading researchers and research groups. Every R&D dollar spent by Australia (though not necessarily within Australia) has the potential to leverage the far larger R&D investments being made overseas -- particularly in advanced research facilities. As a result, Australia's relative level and intensity of R&D investment may appear to be low, but this should be viewed partly as an advantage of possessing a strong basic research capability that generates scope for international collaboration rather than as a problem in itself. (¶ 37)

The lack of a holistic approach to upgrading and maintaining Australia's research infrastructure is a serious omission from the Academy's Discussion Paper.

Why misleading? Because from 1990 - 1999 in an analysis of the relative prominence of cited scientific literature, Australia had dropped from 9^th to 14^th place. It should be noted that relative prominence is calculated on the basis of literature citations as a proportion of a nation's scientific papers to that of the rest of the world. On that basis, for example Switzerland (gold medal) leads the US (silver) and the Netherlands (bronze).
    There is little reason for complacency. The government can place all the spin it likes on the matter but it does not alter the point, Australia is not keeping up, but there is no unalterable reason that it is not. It is up to the nation's political rulers in true dialogue with the nation's researchers and educators to begin to set the matter right. However, if the government has no intention of bringing additional resources to the table, we shall witness yet another empty rhetorical exercise.

In the first half of this year the British Government released two reports that dealt with the scientific infrastructure of British universities (commissioned from JM Consulting, Ltd) and the professional well being of Britain's scientific community, the "Roberts' Report" (see the UK government's response in Investing in Innovation). Nothing comparable has been undertaken in Australia.

The AAS' Discussion Paper alludes to the void, at least in part, saying:

A significant impediment to decision-making over the implementation of Australia's research priorities is that we do not have a comprehensive data-set on the nation's stock of larger RF&E [research facilities & equipment] and networks/clusters of RF&E or a set of estimates of the future life-cycle costs of this stock of R&D capital. This makes it difficult to make coordinated decisions over what we have, what we would like to have, and what it will cost to keep it up to date. This contrasts with the information available to US policymakers, which draws upon surveys of the ‘health’ of US research facilities and equipment and anticipated new investment requirements. (¶ 57)

Quite simply, policy is being determined in a knowledge vacuum. Nobody really knows what they're talking about and matters of determining research priorities and revamping (or not revamping) the higher education system will be considered and determined in this perpetuated state of ignorance. Quite apart from any other consideration, we can only hope that the Academy's Steering Committee, which is to work on the final draft of the Discussion Paper, will at the very least consider the matters analysed in the two UK reports to be worthy of consideration and comment.

The AAS' draft Discussion Paper is very much an artist's sketch, staying clear of specifics. It remains for the Academy to commit a finished work to "canvas", taking account of suggestions from an actively interested community, before putting its finished effort on exhibition for viewing by the general public.

As for the "actively interested community", whinging in departmental tea rooms isn't effective lobbying of either the Academy or anyone else come to that.
 

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web