Working with Universities - Discussion
Science Industry Australia Response to Green Paper “Venturous Australia”
SIA has read with great interest the Cutler Green Paper “Venturous Australia” and congratulates the Panel on producing a wide ranging report. Its response is as follows:
• SIA is supportive of the report’s recommendations for changing the tax concession for R&D and the extension of this program to overseas corporations operating in Australia.
• Whilst acknowledging that the report has called for greater collaboration between PFRAs and industry, SIA is disappointed that the report has not explored more comprehensive mechanisms to facilitate this, including examination of schemes trialled overseas. The proposed pilot linkage voucher scheme, though welcome, will not itself bring about the necessary cultural change in industry.
• SIA is supportive of the proposals to review patent law and to enable a more cooperative procedure to develop for the use by Australian industry of the outcomes of PFRA research.
• SIA supports the full funding of PFRA research and the raising of support for public sector research to the proportion of GDP allocated to it in the mid 1990s.
• SIA is concerned by the report’s suggestion that research block funding to universities should be based on success in winning national competitive grants and on publications in highly ranked journals. It does not believe that this will adequately reward universities that foster active collaboration with the private sector. Research funds received from industry and level of innovative activity (as measured by the “Proof-of-Concept” metric previously described by the SIA) should be part of the distribution formula, especially in the sciences, applied sciences and engineering.
• SIA is disappointed that the report has not specifically addressed the low number of STEM graduates presently produced. These graduates are at the heart of innovative developments in many areas of industry and Australia currently underproduces them on a per capita basis. A similar comment can be made about technicians with science and engineering backgrounds. The Science Industry’s growth is presently severely constrained by skills shortages.
• Though alluded to frequently throughout the report, SIA is disappointed that a School for Instrumental Science (or similar) being established at least one of our leading higher education institutions is not one of the recommendations. It is precisely the lack of such a focused curriculum that leaves our Higher Education system mired in the 1980s in terms of curriculum offerings whilst the economy is demanding (and not getting) graduates with skills and learnings based on current technology and techniques.
• SIA cautions that in identifying areas of national challenge for innovation, the report may encourage an overly narrow focus on R&D. It should be appreciated that making progress in the areas identified calls on complementary competencies, particularly those associated with scientific measurement.
29 September 2008
• SIA is supportive of the report’s recommendations for changing the tax concession for R&D and the extension of this program to overseas corporations operating in Australia.
• Whilst acknowledging that the report has called for greater collaboration between PFRAs and industry, SIA is disappointed that the report has not explored more comprehensive mechanisms to facilitate this, including examination of schemes trialled overseas. The proposed pilot linkage voucher scheme, though welcome, will not itself bring about the necessary cultural change in industry.
• SIA is supportive of the proposals to review patent law and to enable a more cooperative procedure to develop for the use by Australian industry of the outcomes of PFRA research.
• SIA supports the full funding of PFRA research and the raising of support for public sector research to the proportion of GDP allocated to it in the mid 1990s.
• SIA is concerned by the report’s suggestion that research block funding to universities should be based on success in winning national competitive grants and on publications in highly ranked journals. It does not believe that this will adequately reward universities that foster active collaboration with the private sector. Research funds received from industry and level of innovative activity (as measured by the “Proof-of-Concept” metric previously described by the SIA) should be part of the distribution formula, especially in the sciences, applied sciences and engineering.
• SIA is disappointed that the report has not specifically addressed the low number of STEM graduates presently produced. These graduates are at the heart of innovative developments in many areas of industry and Australia currently underproduces them on a per capita basis. A similar comment can be made about technicians with science and engineering backgrounds. The Science Industry’s growth is presently severely constrained by skills shortages.
• Though alluded to frequently throughout the report, SIA is disappointed that a School for Instrumental Science (or similar) being established at least one of our leading higher education institutions is not one of the recommendations. It is precisely the lack of such a focused curriculum that leaves our Higher Education system mired in the 1980s in terms of curriculum offerings whilst the economy is demanding (and not getting) graduates with skills and learnings based on current technology and techniques.
• SIA cautions that in identifying areas of national challenge for innovation, the report may encourage an overly narrow focus on R&D. It should be appreciated that making progress in the areas identified calls on complementary competencies, particularly those associated with scientific measurement.
29 September 2008
SIA
Post a Comment
PrintWhere’s new government’s science background?
Australia should be proud that 95 per cent of new Rudd Cabinetministers have undergraduate degrees. What is troubling is that nonehave tertiary qualifications in the science, technology, engineering ormathematics (STEM) disciplines.
More.....
More.....
Senator Carr - In Search of Research Excellence
Within its first 100 days, the Rudd Government made good its electioncommitment to the university sector to replace the flawed ResearchQuality Framework. The Howard Government's RQF has been scrapped infavour of Excellence in Research for Australia – the ERA initiative –launched in February 2008.
More.....
More.....
Australia trailing on innovation
The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, released recently, shows that Australia has slipped from 16th to 19th in the Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index – lagging behind comparable economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France.
Australia remains well behind other countries in rankings for infrastructure, innovation and the regulatory burden on business.
On innovation, Australia’s trails our major regional competitors, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.
Australia’s ranking on innovation came in at 22nd place overall – behind Iceland and Malaysia and only slightly ahead of New Zealand and Tunisia .
Areas identified as “notable competitive disadvantages” for Australia included:
University/ industry research collaboration (22nd).
Company spending on research and development (25th).
Government procurement of technology products based on technical performance and innovativeness rather than simply price (28th).
Capacity for innovation, or the degree to which companies conduct formal research or pioneer new products and processes (30th).
Availability of scientists and engineers (34th).
The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report can be downloaded here.....
Article courtesy of R&D Info Newsletter
Australia remains well behind other countries in rankings for infrastructure, innovation and the regulatory burden on business.
On innovation, Australia’s trails our major regional competitors, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.
Australia’s ranking on innovation came in at 22nd place overall – behind Iceland and Malaysia and only slightly ahead of New Zealand and Tunisia .
Areas identified as “notable competitive disadvantages” for Australia included:
University/ industry research collaboration (22nd).
Company spending on research and development (25th).
Government procurement of technology products based on technical performance and innovativeness rather than simply price (28th).
Capacity for innovation, or the degree to which companies conduct formal research or pioneer new products and processes (30th).
Availability of scientists and engineers (34th).
The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report can be downloaded here.....
Article courtesy of R&D Info Newsletter
Government falters in a science world
It has been clear for some years that Australia’s governments are no longer able to keep up with the pace of scientific progress.
Fast-emerging issues such as climate change, the water crisis, the internet, nanotechnology, gene modification, stem cells, extinctions and future energy are leaving our politicians and bureaucrats flat-footed. And, for all the election hype about “Australia’s future” there is hardly a whisper about science – the main means by which that future will be delivered.
More.....
Fast-emerging issues such as climate change, the water crisis, the internet, nanotechnology, gene modification, stem cells, extinctions and future energy are leaving our politicians and bureaucrats flat-footed. And, for all the election hype about “Australia’s future” there is hardly a whisper about science – the main means by which that future will be delivered.
More.....