View From the Back Row |
Basic Research at our Universities -
Excerpts from the Hansard transcripts of the Senate committee hearings on The Capacity of Public Universities to Meet Australia's Higher Education Needs
[The numbers given below [pXX] refer to the PDF page in the particular transcript]
May 14th Melbourne
Senator Tierney (Liberal)
Other witnesses, particularly in Brisbane, have
complained about too many corporations putting money into universities. I would
argue that surely we have the opposite problem - there are not enough putting
money into universities. America, of course, has a culture where there is a lot
of this sort of investment. Can you suggest any ways in which we might further
interest the corporate sector in Australia in joint ventures with universities
in research and development? They exist, of course, but it is not on a very
large scale. How do you think we could expand that? [p335]
Professor Simon Marginson, Director, Monash Centre for
Research in International Education
That is a very good question that we have been asking now
for quite a while. I am very concerned about this area. I was surprised to see
that only five per cent of R&D expenditure in higher education was sourced to
industry in the 1998-99 figures. That has been the pattern really through the
1990s. Despite all the efforts that have been made to reset research policy to
encourage industry funding to the extent of distorting and limiting the capacity
of our basic research system in some areas - and that has occurred under both
governments - we still have not succeeded in creating a strong enough incentive to
get the industry money into higher education, supporting joint projects and
supporting useful commercial development of a knowledge intensive kind on the
scale required.
My view about this is that it needs to be tackled from the industry policy end
rather than in resetting incentives in higher education again. My impression is
that universities are very willing to pick up industry support in a range of
areas, not always wisely when you look at some of the training projects which
are going on, but I think wisely in the case of R&D. [p336]
Senator Crossin (Labor)
Professor Marginson, in the Canberra Times on 5 April,
there was an article that goes to a comparison between the increasing reliance
on commercial activities by universities compared to learning conditions and
working conditions within the universities. In the recent report on higher
education, for example, released by the government, the government characterises
universities - this article said - in their dependence on external funding as
increasing self-reliance. Yet at the same time we see support for academic work
having an influence on work patterns and you say on page 11 of your submission
that the declining learning conditions had implications for international
students as well as for domestic students. In your view is there a direct link
between working conditions of staff, conditions in classrooms and
student-teacher ratios, and the trend towards commercialisation and private
operations in universities? [337]
Prof. Marginson
I do not think there is a necessary link between the
growth of commercial operations and the basic resources settings in
student-staff ratios. We see a conjunction of the move to plural resources and
mixed funding and commercial activity with a straitening of resources and a
decline overall in the resources that are being settled on the classroom and the
rising ratios. Those things are not necessarily linked. It is the conjunction of
them that is significant in the way it pans out. In the situation where,
frankly, resources are very tight by historical standards, and perhaps by
standards of other First World university systems, universities face very hard
choices about whether they develop commercially and develop certain sorts of
income and spend it in certain ways or they sustain and improve the quality and
capacity of their basic research and teaching system. My submission - if you
simplify it - argues that they have been forced in the present policy settings to
concentrate too much on generating short-term revenues of the commercial kind,
with direct consequences then for the kinds of things that they have to do with
that money to sustain that competitive role and those commercial operations. In
the context of resource shortages and pressure on the public funding side that
then puts additional pressure on the public funding side. It is that
conjunction. It is historical rather than necessary, if you like. [pp337-8]
June 22nd
Canberra
Senator Allison (AD)
You mentioned training for scientists. Can I ask you to
comment on the new funding model for higher degree research students. Funding
has been reduced from five to four years for PhD students, and three to two
years for masters students. A significant number of submissions to the inquiry
have argued that an overreliance on completion in conjunction with reduced
funding time will distort the scope and style of research projects. That puts in
place very significant incentives for universities to focus on narrow, less
risky, less ambitious postgraduate research programs. Do you agree with that
statement? What do you think are the consequences for basic research of the
current funding model? [p520]
Dr Robin Batterham, Chief Scientist Commonwealth of Australia
...I think we need a balance between shorter term
drivers, such as completion, and longer term review, which I would argue be by
peer review.
Senator Allison
I am not sure, though, that you quite answered the
question about funding for five years going down to four and three years to two
for PhD and masters respectively.
Dr Batterham
I will be more direct in saying I think it is a trap to
push too hard in that direction. I cannot comment that this proposed step is
worth while without, on the other hand, seeing in parallel some measurement of
quality based on the quality of the research that is being produced - exactly
the point that you made: will this push it towards short-term, easy research? -
and the way you assess that is to look at the journals it is published in and
assess it by peer review. So my response is really quite pointedly to say that,
if we are going to push on the shorter term efficiency pedal, I think we need in
parallel a bit of pushing on a longer term quality peer review process. [p521]
July 4th Adelaide
Mr John Byron, President, Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations
The RTS (Research Trainee Scheme) does nothing in terms
of supporting basic or enabling research. In the long run, this will lead to a
decline in the quality of postgraduate research output because good research
cannot continue to be produced without a solid foundation. This is as much an
academic quality issue, or an issue about the health of disciplines in the long
term, as it is about the research being undertaken today. The failure to support
basic research is akin to cutting the hose off at the tap end to make it longer
at the squirty end. It will work for a little while but will be an abject
failure before too long. In terms of applied research, the RTS heavily motivates
people to choose truncated projects rather than speculative or possibly lengthy
ones - that is, the RTS formula insists on picking winners. Continued inadequate
funding will do great damage to the reputation of Australian postgraduate
degrees in the global market. [p762]
Ms Angela Maree Pratt, Vice-President, Council of Australian Postgraduate
Associations
The RTS's insistence on backing winners at the expense of
basic research will result in a reduction in the disciplinary and methodological
diversity of research and research education. The combined effect of these
policy changes is massive declines in the number of postgraduate students at
regional universities equivalent to the loss of one whole regional university
since 1996. Declining social and methodological diversity results in a decline
in the quality of the overall education experience and much poorer quality in
the actual content of many disciplines, particularly those in the humanities.
This normative tendency in the provision of both postgraduate coursework and
research education will result in a decline in Australia's knowledge base and
innovationcapacity in the short, medium and long terms. [p764]
Professor Anthony Thomas, Chair, National Committee for Physics, Australian
Academy of Science
The success rate in gaining research funding from ARC is 19 per cent;
this is for basic research [our emphasis] which
underpins all of science and technology. I have said those who are 'stupid
enough' to try and I mean that, because when the success rate is 19 per cent you
have got to be pretty optimistic about your chances of success. A lot of people
do not bother to apply. Physicists are a bit more practical than those from some
other disciplines: they realise pretty quickly when the case is stupid, and do
not apply. If more physicists applied, more money would go into it, because with
the way things work the amount of money allocated depends on the number of
idiots silly enough to apply - when they have got no hope of getting the grant.
Student to staff ratios in physics
departments in the country - and probably in others - are bigger than those in
secondary schools. They have the additional load of trying to conduct original
research and trying to lead future developments in science and technology. If
you look at the Oxford and Cambridge physics departments - at the staff that you
can see and not the ones hidden away in colleges - there are seven students per
staff member. Here it is 16 or more. If you would just picture how much extra
time you have got to engage in research or to exploit that research, you can see
why the innovation process does not work well here. If you take funding per
student as a measure - it is not necessarily a good measure but it is one that
is available - in the United States the top 30 universities have more than
$US100,000 per student in total funding. In Australia most have less than
$20,000 per student, if you add the university grants and the research money
they receive.
What are the reasons for the crisis in physics? I said in my
submission that it is collateral damage - it is just happening. Why is it
happening? At the tertiary level it is because staff in Australia are employed
primarily for service teaching. They are teaching engineering physics, medical
physics, physics for poets - that is a typical title for a US course. In the
United States those courses are allocated to physics departments because people
realise they need physicists doing basic research. Without it, the whole
enterprise of science and technology does not have that engine room.[p794]
The total number of academic physicists in the country is now
240. In 1994, it was about 360. It is a very small number, it is not seen and
nobody reports on it. We need somebody who has a responsible watching brief -
plus the resources to do something about it - on a crucial area like that. In
the United States it would be the DOE. The officer in charge of physics at the
DOE and NSF would immediately, when things like this start to happen, warn the
government, and things would start to happen.
You need to get expert advice, not short-term economic views,
about the importance of basic research. I did not go through the examples, but
there are enormous boosts in support particularly for basic science in Canada,
the United States and the UK. If other advanced countries are serious about it,
why not us? One of the difficulties is that, if you try to just throw more money
at the university system, sooner or later the plug will be pulled and we will be
back where we were. I cannot see any way that the overall funding for tertiary
institutions in Australia will be increased significantly overall in any future
I can envision in this country. It is quite clear that sooner or later Treasury,
economic rationalists or somebody will say, 'Where's the money coming from? You
can't afford it.'
On the other hand, we have a serious crisis. That means you
have to spend money selectively. It means you have to make real quality
judgments and put the resources where they are really needed and where they can
do something. [p796]
Professor Ian Davey, Pro Vice-Chancellor, and Vice-President, Research and
International, University of South Australia
I might point out the ARC special research centres were a
coup for the university which built on a research institute that has about an $8
million budget, of which 50 per cent comes from industry, 30 per cent comes from
government including the ARC, and the other 20 per cent from the university. The
ARC special research centres are basic research centres and that is why they are
funded. They are the most difficult research centres to win and the fact that we
won one last year - and we were the first post-1987 university to win one in its
own right - [p817]
Senator Tieney
What field was that in?
Prof. Davey
It is in particle and material interfaces. Do you want me
to describe it?
Senator Tieney
Just basically.
Prof. Davey
It is basically about surface science and technologies,
building on smart ways of surfaces interacting. [p818]
July 12th
Townsville
Senator Tierney
That is a very interesting idea. You mentioned the
importance of blue sky science, and this leads me to basic research and the
funding of that. The federal government has recently announced, through Backing
Australia's Ability, the backing of ARC grants, for example. Would you see that
as a major boost perhaps for what you are talking about - that is, basic
research and the possibility for a better chance for blue sky science to happen
in Australia?
Professor William MacGillivray, President, Australian Council of Deans of
Science
It has the potential. It depends on how ARC utilise that
money, because they have two sections to their programs. They have the discovery
program, which is the fundamental blue skies area, and they have the linkage
section. I know that Professor Sara is very keen to enhance the linkage side by
completing the symmetry of the personnel career path, which currently only
exists on the discovery side. I know she is very keen to introduce a career path
on the linkage side as well. I am not privy to her and her council's thoughts.
The impression I get is that probably a higher percentage of the new money will
go onto the linkage side rather than the discovery side. [p858]
August 13th Canberra
Dr Graeme Laver, ANU (private capacity)
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. [p1218]
Senator Carr (Labor)
My understanding of the proposition that you are putting to us is that you are
opposed to the commercialisation of basic research programs but not to the
commercial exploitation of research discoveries. [p1220]
Dr Arno Mullbacher, ANU (private capacity)
Exactly.
Senator Carr
That is the thrust of what you are saying to us?
Dr Mullbacher
Yes; that is absolutely true.
Dr Paul Waring, ANU (Private capacity)
We are concerned about how that basic research is being
commercialised, the mechanism by which it is being commercialised.
Senator Carr
So how do you respond to those that argue that Australian
universities and the Australian parliament have a responsibility to ensure that
discoveries are not shipped offshore and exploited offshore by foreign
multinationals? Do you have a proposition to put to us that would prevent that
occurring, without the development of what you see as the unethical practices
that have occurred in this particular case?
Dr Laver
I think all universities have commercial arms set up,
like Anutech at the ANU, to
deal with these discoveries. If a discovery made by the basic research in the
university can be
identified as having commercial value, then I think that Anutech should see that
it is
commercially dealt with. [p1221]
Senator Carr
Could I just take that a bit further? You are saying that
the current shortfalls in research funding have basically distorted the research
profile of the John Curtin Medical School.
[p1225]
Dr Mullbacher
I would say that is true.
Senator Carr
Can you explain to the committee in what ways that has
occurred? Give me some examples.
Dr Mullbacher
For instance, with the ... project initially there was
basic research which Professor ... undertook. Now all that research, rather than
being curiosity-driven research, is to try to find a drug. That really is a
pharmaceutical kind of thing, to go through one drug after the other to see
whether they could block it. It is that kind of applied research.
Senator Carr
So you are saying it has had an effect on the level of
discovery?
Dr Mullbacher
In the long run it certainly will.
Dr Laver
Yes, because you cannot do this kind of research in secret. You have got to talk
to people overseas and around the world - and everybody knows what you are doing
and you get ideas back again. It is the only way to do basic research: openly,
and without all these secrecy restrictions.
Senator Carr
It is often put to us that the commercialisation of
research has actually led to a broadening of opportunities. You are arguing that
it has led to a contraction.
Dr Laver
Yes, probably.
Dr Waring
It may have led to the broadening of commercial and
financial opportunities, but I cannot see how it could possibly lead to the
broadening of scientific opportunities.
Senator Tierney (to Dr. Laver)
But you could also do it with strings attached, couldn't
you? Surely, with all that research, Stanford was not no-strings-attached.
[p1229]
Dr Laver
The strings were that, any discovery made in the basic
research, the company funding it has first option on it.
Senator Tierney
What is wrong with that?
Dr Laver
There is nothing wrong with that. It may be the way to
go.
Senator Tierney
It is not like how patents work, anyway, is it - have a bit of a run if you
discover it before anyone else does?
Dr Laver
Not many companies in Australia would fund basic research
in that way.
Senator Tierney
But you seemed to indicate that we should not allow that
anyway. You said, 'No commercial funding into basic research.' I wonder what
that will do to the quantum of basic research if we take that line. You seemed
to indicate that it should all be back on the government - the government should
fund all of this.
Dr Laver
In Australia that seems to be the only way to go, because
no companies, I imagine, would provide large amounts of money for basic research
to universities without strings attached.
Senator Tierney
But you seem to have a philosophical position: even if it
were not available, we should not do it. [p1229]
Dr Waring
The report titled "Commercialisation of public sector
research" produced by the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation
Council actually states that, of 100 projects that are potentially
commercialisable, only one or two will succeed. You cannot pick those winners.
If we are going to try to commercialise basic research carte blanche, we are
going to get into trouble, and that is what we are concerned about. I do not
have any problems with the photonics success story. [p1230]
Senator Tierney
Do you mean like any private company that takes risks in
the marketplace?
Dr Waring
They are the kinds of risks that can damage the
university, though. What
happens if the company goes broke, goes bust, and the shareholders of the
company lose all
their money? You could say, 'Okay, they take risks and that is life,' but in the
case of Biotron
the scientists could still make some money out of it. They may not lose any
money, but they will lose esteem in the eyes of the public, I believe, because
that divide has been breached. We have
to keep the basic research separate from the applied research. That is the
problem, I think. It is
great that there are fantastic success stories. We did say that we were not
opposed to
commercialisation of basic research; it was the way in which it was being done.
[p1231]
Senator Carr
Dr Waring brings to our attention that:
the swing to commercialisation of scientific research has the capacity to irreparably damage basic Australian science. This move for research groups to seek more and more commercial funding is driven by the gross under funding of public Universities ...
I presume you would agree with that component but would not necessarily agree
that there would be irreparable damage to 'basic Australian science'. Is that
the case? Would you say that there is a possible threat from this model to basic
Australian science?
Mr Peter Scott (Private capacity)
Not in the model that I propose. I propose that basic
research continues as it does now, with no change. What I propose is that, when
they come to a project having a commercial potential, if the scientists and the
university agree to the change, they go through the change into intermediate
research. That change brings two things at that point: if they want to go ahead
and commercialise it because they cannot get funding in any other way, then they
have to develop some commercial sense - they have to go through the change of
being commercial. Their research for that work has to be focused on commercial
outcomes. [P1239]
Senator Carr (to Prof. Sara)
Are you able to advise us as to whether or not that
increase in funding, as you put it, from 2002 makes up or recovers the ground
lost due to previous cuts in research funding?
Professor Vicki Sara, Chairman Australian Research Council
The ARC funding has not been cut over the last eight
years. In fact, very small amounts have increased over the last couple of years.
Senator Carr
That is in real terms, isn't it?
Prof. Sara
Yes.
Senator Carr
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.
[p1320]
Senator Carr (to Prof. Chubb)
What particular responsibilities and obligations do you
have that other universities do not have? How are they carried out? How are they
to be visible to the public? What additional educational benefits do you think
that a national institution like the Australian National University brings to
this country's education system? [p1329]
Professor Ian Chubb, Vice Chancellor, Australian National University
We have a bit of work to do and there are a lot of
questions there, so if I forget one or two come back at me. First of all, to
illustrate: a couple of weeks ago we announced that we were going to establish
some virtual institutes called national institutes. One of those is in science.
I believe we actually have an obligation, as a national university, to ensure
that our country's capacity in basic science does not disappear. You could argue
that if you simply extrapolate trends and gradients from where they are now in a
number of universities - not every single one, but in a number - then some of
the important enabling sciences are likely to get down to a point that is at
much too low a level for a country that has to find its place in the world. I
saw some figures recently that show that the number of academics in chemistry,
for example, in Australian universities is declining annually at quite a sharp
rate. I think a national university could be expected to say, 'Some of those
basic and enabling sciences are here.' [p1330]