SIA Blog RSS

Science Industry Australia Response to Green Paper “Venturous Australia”

SIA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:10:24 +0000

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

Where’s new government’s science background?

SIA — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:02:58 +0000

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.....

Senator Carr - In Search of Research Excellence

SIA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:03:47 +0000

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.....

Australia trailing on innovation

SIA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:26:13 +0000

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

Government falters in a science world

SIA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:33:15 +0000

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.....

2008 National Science Week Grants - opening today for applications

SIA — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:30:10 +0000

The 2008 National Science Week Grants Round opened today (September 17) and will close on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 17:00 AEST. Individuals or organisations can apply for between $2,000 and $40,000 to run a science-themed activity during National Science Week 2008 (16 - 24 August 2008).

For more information about the grants round and the online application process click here.....

Comments on the Working With Unis paper

SIA — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:07:17 +0000

Over the next week or so I will be posting comments we received when this paper was first widely circulated in February/March this year.

I would like these comments to start a conversation. Please feel free to add your thoughts and critiques.

From Stuart Wallace - Australian Institute of Commercialisation:

I have a had a good read of the document and see it as an honest appraisal of the issues presented when dealing with PFRA’s.

The issues I have encountered that are not addressed are:

Over valuing of research based knowledge with no industrial application tested or exercised.
Seasonal workload versus access: Access to universities is limited in periods when staff are fully committed to student priorities, ( this is at least 50% of the year) and when they are free, business is least able to resource involvement between November and February.
Business fears the management of their IP is not strong enough when it is experimental, considered of high value or is pre patent. Universities do not offer secure information / knowledge management practices.
Business often goes to Universities when unable to solve or validate a commercial potential. The comment regarding time delays and appropriateness of RO,s in urgent circumstances ( Section 6) is very valid and one not often enough communicated when business approaches RO”s for assistance.

It should also be clearly communicated that business should go thru the front door of Universities (and any PFRO) , when seeking a commercial relationships and deal with the commercial arm in the first instance. Most every bad experience I see involves a business seeking help from an individual operator at a Uni / PFRO who enthusiastically helps out on a personnel ( time free) basis. When the time comes for a transaction to be negotiated, the expectations of the commercial entity greatly exceed the value proposition that is offered by the Uni / PRFO.
This issue is not solely the fault of the Uni / PFRO. Business often profers the direct early access as it sees a way to get quick solution. The universities in my mind need to educate and enforce their operatives of the need to do U2B deals up front to avoid wasting anyone’s time and effort.

Australian Technology Network of Universities

SIA — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:41:31 +0000

September news and issues paper available here.....

Working With Universities- A partnering guide for everybody

SIA — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:35:08 +0000

A Guide to Establishing Efficient Working Relationships with Australian Universities

Emeritus Professor Chris Fell
Chair, Implementation Group
Science Industry Action Agenda
Professor Hans J. Griesser
University of South Australia

1. Introduction
2. Characteristics of university research
3. Motivation of university researchers
4. Intellectual property considerations
5. Effective ways of engaging with academics
6. Costs and expectations
7. Support mechanisms
8. Conclusions
9. Table – Intellectual Property Policies Of Australian Universities

Click Here to download!!