Harry Robinson proposes an approach for the Federal Government to gee up deriving commercial benefit from science. There is a precedent.

Let's ---
Take a quote from an article by Melissa Marino in the Melbourne Age of 16 June:

Commonwealth science funding is due to double by 2003, but David Vaux, a head scientist with the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, described the sum as miserable, up marginally from pathetic.

Miserable---up marginally from pathetic. And that after a figure to double the current level.


Let's---
Face one certainty: no matter what happens in the country's party politics or in budget outcomes, that miserable level will not change materially in the foreseeable future. For various reasons, no federal government is going to make a massive increase in the money set aside for science. No matter how desirable, urgent or essential. Don't look for a flood of Canberra dollars.

So wotthehell, let's give up.

Let's---
Go to the movies. Let's forget the whole thing and get lost in flickering fantasy. But while we are sitting there, soaking up the entertainment, let our minds wander to how the movie got up on the screen. Multiple talents? Sure. Perseverance? Tons of it. And money? Right! If that is an Australian movie in front of us, chances are that some of the money came from the Film Finance Corporation (FFC), a successful outfit which followed a dismal failure. Since opening its ledgers in 1988, the FFC has been of solid use to movie makers.

No respectable scientist will recall what 10BA was and the damage it did. From the late 70s to the early 80s, 10BA was a tax clause which offered investors in a movie 150% deduction of their contribution. It was a roundabout way of trying to subsidise the industry. And it backfired. Some investors were cunning enough to go for the 150% deduction and to hell with the product. If it never got made, who cared? If it got made but never got a release, too bad. If it did somehow find a path to a screen near you and flopped--well, that was the way the racket crumbled. 10BA was a disaster for everyone except the crooks. Something better had to be done and eventually the Film Finance Corporation came into being. It doesn't cost the government more than a peanut or two and it does wonders to get viable screen products to the paying public.

It makes a small amount of money do a large amount of work.

Let's---
Get closer to the FFC. Originally, the idea was to establish a revolving fund. The government put up a sum like $25 million, not for making loans and not as subsidies, but for the Corporation to take shares in promising projects. As each movie or documentary went out to market and earned money, its profits would return pro rata to the FFC which could then re-cycle that lump of money in the next promising venture.
The FFC has grown since then and the terms and conditions of work have become more intricate but the original regime holds. Nowadays, the government tops up the fund every year with $50 million, the fund invests in projects one by one and ploughs the earnings back into the fund.
But with provisos. The FFC will not take more than a 50% or at most 55% bite of any one cherry. Movie producers who want to get FFC finance must present along with reputable investors who are likely to be cinema exhibitors, tv networks and others with incentives to push, shove and promote the product. In other words, the FFC will provide finance to projects that are Australian, creatively fresh and likely to appeal, and backed with sound business plans. And the FFC wants its money back. It can wait, but as an investor it wants returns.

One note from the 2000/2001 annual report:

"The FFC recouped $12.4 million from projects in the market place which has been re-invested in new film and television projects."

This is no mamby pamby do-gooding patron of respectable works. Among the titles which it has backed for the big screen are Chopper and Rabbit Proof Fence. For the small screen it has, among others, the scandal driven Secret Bridesmaids' Business to its credit and more and more. In the year 2000/2001 the FFC invested $61.1 million in 48 new projects.

Of course these figures are small but the effect on the industry has been splendid.

We can leave the cinema now except for one note: The FFC works at arms length from the government. It makes its own decisions about which film or tv show to back, or not to back. It picks winners and losers because it has expertise. It's a cliché that governments can't pick winners: the FFC saves the government the embarrassment of losing.

Let's---
Speculate. Suppose a company were set up in alliance with a known scientific body like FASTS (Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies).
    And suppose it were called the Science Finance Corporation--the SFC.
    Suppose government agreed to seed money of $50 million and top-up money of similar amount.
    Suppose the SFC directors had to include two scientists, one technologist, one corporate lawyer and one expert financial controller. And, of course, a savvy CEO.
    Suppose further that the new Finance Corp made it known that it was not in the hand-out business but that it wanted to invest in scientific/business projects which were thoroughly tested for likely profit.
    And suppose it told the world that it wanted commercial partners with an interest in promoting the outcomes of research project projects. As a frinstance, Qantas might join with a laboratory seeking improvements to jet outflows.

Suppose all that. Would the Science Finance Corp produce benefits in ways similar to those produced for screen producers by the Film Finance Corporation?

Given sound and imaginative management, it might make a similar difference.

We could speculate on that prospect all day and we could also sort out some objections. A Science Finance Corp could not answer the paucity of money for higher education. Only the Treasury can supply enough money for teachers of high quality. Nor could it make advances on pure research, the kind which might turn out an El Dorado and might equally come to a blind alley. That kind of exploration would still need to rely on the CSIRO, the universities, the ARC and so on. Those are limitations rather than outright objections.

On the positive side, a successful SFC could lift perceptions of the scientific community as a whole. At present, the community is in danger of casting itself as victim--"Here we are, potential creators of great intrinsic and commercial wealth and we are stymied, suffocated by the meanness and crudeness of governments." Victims do not win.

But if the role changes to--"Here we are, brimming with good ideas and going all out to create enterprises for profit. Here we are exerting ourselves for our own causes"--perceptions become much more favourable. Everybody likes winners. Ask the people who make screenplays.

Harry Robinson who for 25 years worked in television journalism in Oz and the US and who was for several years air media critic for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun-Herald.