- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
RESEARCH FUNDING IN AUSTRALIA: A VIEW FROM THE NORTH
Abstract
This paper seeks to contribute to the continuing controversy in Australia on the best way to deploy that country's scientific and technological research and development (R & D) resources. It puts forward and discusses some policy options relating to the ‘restructuring’ of the Australian R&D system currently underway, for the consideration of the research community and those responsible for the research policies. In particular, the paper comments on how overall objectives and priorities for R&D can be set, the need for evaluations of the research and development that is conducted, the need to develop a dialogue between the public and the scientific community over the setting of research and development directions.
Content
Author and article information
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Harvey Averch, A Strategic Analysis of Science and Technology Policy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985, p. 9.
Basic research is “orginal investigation with the primary aim of a more complete knowledge or understanding of the subject under study”. It is sub-divided into pure basic research (or fundamental research), which is research carried out for the advancement of knowledge without positive effort to apply the results to practical problems, and strategic research, which is “basic research carried out with an expectation that it will provide a broad base of knowledge necessary as the background for the solution of recognised practical problems”. Experimental Development is systematic work drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience that is directed to producing new materials, products or devices, installing or substantially improving new processes, systems or services. For further definition see Jarlath Ronayne, Science in Government, Edward Arnold, Melbourne, 1984.
Unless otherwise indicated, the figures in this section are taken from the Department of Science, Science and Technology Statement 1984-85, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, May 1985; Science and Technology Statement, 1985-6, AGPS, Canberra, November 1985; and from Australian Science and Technology Council, Public Investment in Research and Development in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1985, Appendix B.
Department of Science and the Environment, Project Score: Research and Development in Australia 1976-77, AGPS, Canberra, 1980.
Department of Science, Science and Technology Statement 1984-85, op. cit., p. 48.
Business Council of Australia, Comments on National Technology Strategy Draft, 1984, mimeo, p. 10.
Jan Kolm, ‘Universities and industry: potential for and impediments to interaction in a small economy’ undated, mimeo, p. 8. Jan Kolm, ‘Science and technology transfer to Australia’ in A.T.A. Healy (ed.), Science and Technology for What Purpose?: an Australian Perspective, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1979, p. 292.
Jan Kolm, ‘Science and technology transfer to Austral ia’ in A.T.A. Healy (ed.), Science and Technology for What Purpose?: an Australian Perspective, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1979, p. 292.
See the recent report of the Australian Science and Technology Council, Future Directions for CSIRO, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.
National Technology Strategy: Revised Discussion Draft, Department of Science/Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Canberra, 1985, p. vi.
“I firmly believe that a country's scientific effort should include a proportion of basic research of the highest quality. To endorse basic research, however, is not necessarily to say that it has to be at the same level as at present, nor that every basic research endeavour or area presently in progress is unquestionable.” Senator John Button, speech to National Meeting of Concern on Science and Technology, Canberra, April 1985.
When government departments have tried to be more specific in what they perceive national objectives to be, their perceptions have not been greeted with enthusiasm. In particular, from my interviews it was clear that those responsible for university basic research were unclear as to how universities and the granting agencies that support research in them are expected to re-orient their activities to meet them. For example, the list of ‘Priority Areas of National Interest’ produced for the consideration of those seeking National Research Fellowships came in for criticism. The NRF list was compiled by asking individual government departments what they deemed to be of ‘priority’ in the research field; they were definitely not negotiated within any priority-setting overview body. As a result, they are insufficiently defined to be of much use in identifying basic research directions. For example, the priority topic ‘Provision of services; e.g., welfare, transport, health care’ is a very broad category and one could be forgiven for believing that almost any research project in aspects of service provision, however esoteric, could be made to serve it. Further, there was some disquiet as to whether the list of ‘national priorities’ matches what Australian researchers actually can do. For example, in its Annual Reports, the ARGS states where it considers Australian research strengths lie. It was put to me that it might be useful to develop more workable national priorities for basic research funding from these strengths.
Paul Wild, speech to Australian Industrial Research Group Symposium, Canberra, 1985.
ASTEC, Basic Research and National Objectives, AGPS, Canberra, 1981.
Jarlath Ronayne and Bruce Middleton, ‘Priority identification in science and technology policy: an Australian experiment’ in Department of Science and Technology, Proceedings of the Australia/China Science and Technology Policy Symposium, DST, Canberra, 1984, p. 202.
ibid.
Jarlath Ronayne, The Allocation of Resources to Research and Development: A Review of Policies and Procedures, report to ASTEC, 1980.
John Irvine and Ben Martin, ‘What direction for basic scientific research’ in Michael Gibbons et al. (eds), Science and Technology Policy in the 1980s and Beyond, Longman, London, 1984.
John Irvine and Ben Martin, Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, Frances Pinter, London, 1984.
John Irvine et al., Research Evaluation in British Science: a Science Policy Research Unit Review, SPRU, University of Sydney, 1983, mimeo.
Irvine and Martin, Foresight in Science, op. cit., pp. 117–8.
ibid., pp. 141–2.
ibid., p. 143.
OECD, Reviews of National Science Policies: Australia, Report, Paris, 1985, mimeo, paras. 67-8.
OECD, op. cit., para. 69.
See Ron Johnston and James Hartley, Formulation and Development of High Technology Indicators: Final Report, Centre for Technology and Social Change, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, June 1985.
OECD, op. cit., para. 88.
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, University Research 1982, AVCC. 1982.
Thus, the Australian Research Grants Scheme's ‘Case for the ARGS for 1985’ seeks to justify basic research expenditure in Australia by referring to recombinant DNA which, it claims, is a ‘spin-off from a grant of $5,500 from the United States National Science Foundation to Max Delbruck to study bacterial genetics in the 1950s. This general proof of the ultimate economic value of basic research is of little help in deciding the level and project distribution of basic research funds in Australia.
For an Australian discussion of the debate over the relevance of bibliometric indicators see Jarlath Ronayne, Australian S & T Indicators: Feasibility Study, DST, 1983.
See Ben Martin et al, ‘The writing on the wall for British Science’, New Scientist, 8 November 1984, pp. 25–9.
For a brief account of what is happening in the UK see New Scientist, 18 April 1985, pp. 10–11.
PA Management Consultants, The Community's Perceptions of the CSIRO, report to the committee reviewing CSIRO's external communications activities, December 1984, mimeo.
CSIRO External Communications Review Committee, Report, CSIRO, Canberra, June 1985, para. 4.8.
ibid.
See National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Report of the Committee of Review of its Organisation. Functions and Membership. NMHRC, Canberra, 1984.
Gabriele Bammer, Ken Green and Brian Martin, ‘Who gets kicks out of science policy’, Search, 17, 1-2, 1986, pp. 41–6.
CERI, The University and the Community: the Problems of Changing Relationships, OECD, Paris, 1982.
Geoff McAlpine, Co-ordination in Science and Technology Policy, Department of Science and Technology, Canberra, 1982, mimeo. For further discussion of coordination see Ron Johnston, Mechanisms for the Co-ordination of Research, Department of Science and the Environment, Canberra, 1979; and Geoff McAlpine and Rod Badger, Bases for Science and Technology Policy, Department of Science and Technology, Canberra, 1981.
OECD, op. cit., para. 33.