From the arm of the chair

K.Scott — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:44:16 +0000

Given the Olympics have just closed and they're always a time when Americans (well not only Americans) think that Australia is a small, mountainous European country represented by men in leather shorts carrying beer steins (actually, re-reading that I can see where the confusion might come in...). They then wonder why so many medals are won for swimming. To avoid confusion, I ask all readers to pay very careful attention to the following!

I recently attended a seminar in Canberra, ‘Success factors for the upgrading of a national research and innovation system: policy learning, institutional reform and innovation performance in Austria'. Dr Matthias Weber, Head of the Policy Technology Department of the Austrian Research Centres spoke to this topic under the auspices of FEAST, the Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology cooperation. The seminar was timely, given the Federal Government's current reviews of Australian research and innovation systems.

Recent trends in the research, technology and innovation sector in Austria have seen a steady increase in R&D expenditure since the 1990s to the current 2.6% of GDP per annum. This compares with the EU target of 3.0% GDP per annum which is yet to be attained by most member countries. Australia's figure of 1.6% per annum isstatic.

Since 2000 efforts have been made to correct a lack of coherence and organisational fragmentation in R&D in Austria. Main drivers have been institutional adjustment (for example, universities became independent legal entities in 2004 and now operate against performance agreements with Government); intervention instruments (for example, tax incentives to stimulate private sector investment in R&D), and building a learning and intelligence capacity (for example, the emergence of an ‘evaluation culture'). In 2006 Competence Centres for Excellent Technologies, modelled on Australia's CRCs, were introduced.

Dr Weber's conclusion was that the Austrian experience from the early 1990s to 2008 was one of continuous improvement and adaptation, and getting appropriate structures and basic resources (especially human resources) in place. Progress had been made against "fierce resistance to change". The key to future success is seen to be anticipation of emerging needs and the capacity to seize opportunities, not least, in capitalising on the outputs of R&D investment. Finally, despite recent change, R&D in Austria is, fundamentally, driven by economics. Societal engagement remains a challenge.

Readers will draw their own conclusions as to the parallels that may be drawn between Austria and Australia, two smallish countries with a strong commitment to R&D but, maybe, a poorer track record in delivery of outputs.

In the above context, the review of the CRC Program carried put by a panel Chaired by Professor Mary O'Kane was received immediately prior to the CRCNPB Board meeting in Darwin. The Board noted that the review favours continuation of the CRC Program; recommends the re-instatement of ‘public good' CRCs, but contains recommendations on governance which are likely to prove controversial in that they can be seen as reviving an ‘input focus' as against the emphasis on outputs and outcomes seen in recent CRC rounds.

The "fierce resistance to change" to which Dr Weber referred was in the context of the twenty-first century emphasis on performance, an imperative which is not yet universally accepted - even in Australia.

The R&D Olympics

As the Australian Government prepares to respond to the reviews of research, development and innovation which have recently been completed, 2007 data from the UNDP on national investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP have come to hand.

Top of the table are Central and South American countries, for example, Paraguay with 9.64%.

More often cited as a leader is Israel with a figure of 4.46%, followed by Sweden (3.74%) and Finland (3.46%). With a modest 1.70% Australia betters, at least, the 1.16% of New Zealand.

At the other extreme Lesotho and Zambia attain 0.01% and Zimbabwe 0.

Further information may be found at http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/128.html

CRC for Plant Biosecurity - r&d

From the arm of the chair

The R&D Olympics