Chapter 7 Strategies and Opportunities

7.1                   This chapter examines strategies for supporting research collaboration and opportunities for the Australian Government to provide assistance for the Australian research community. These strategies and opportunities consist of:

n  Research support

n  Science counsellors

n  Technology

n  Joint agreements

n  A national approach

n  An overarching body

n  Support for applications to overseas funding bodies.

Research Support

7.2                   The Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS) noted that grant application processes impacted on the ability of researchers, and reduced the amount of time they could actually spend conducting research. They suggested researchers should ideally be supported by specialist research managers and administrators.[1]

7.3                   There is merit to this view. Researchers should focus on their strengths where possible, and support should be provided to researchers where possible. Unfortunately for many researchers there is not the funding available to conduct research and to also retain support staff. While this does have an impact on time available for research,[2] it is an unfortunate reality.

7.4                   Monash University noted that this role was played by several professional bodies in the UK and US:

In the UK, and it is certainly true in the US, a number of organisations have jumped in to fill that void, and  again it is part of this integration – the peak bodies, for example, the professional bodies, and then there are externals and consultancies. There are a lot of people in the system who have taken up the slack of notifying people and then helping them manage through the process of accessing funds.[3]

7.5                   RMIT University identified the grant application process as an impediment to researchers, and informed the Committee of a process taken overseas through the United States’ National Institute of Health:

There has been a discussion about an American mechanism – through the NIH, I think – where you would put an application in, you work with a couple of advisers to your grant, until you get it to the stage where it is absolutely right, then you move forward; and it is an open application system. But our system is too small to be able to do that … [4]

7.6                   RMIT highlighted the potential benefits of research support coupled with long term funding:

… There is a five year established team that absolutely does innovative work and does not have to keep racking out a project or an application every year. There is no money for that at the moment in any of the systems.[5]

Committee comment

7.7                   The Committee believes that in an ideal world, researchers would be able to concentrate solely on their research and not have to focus too heavily on the mechanics of grant application aside from preparing their research proposals. Research managers and administrators have the potential to provide important assistance to researchers, but the reality in many cases is that funds aren’t available to both conduct and support research, leaving many researchers responsible for every aspect of their project, from grant application management to the conduct of research.

7.8                   The Committee encourages universities and research organisations to provide research support to researchers wherever possible, as by removing administrative responsibilities from researchers they have more opportunities to conduct research and to make breakthroughs.

Science counsellors

7.9                   In its submission, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) reported that an Australian science counsellor network located in several foreign missions had been scaled back:

Australian science counsellors located at overseas posts fulfil a vital role in international research collaboration: Under the previous Government, responsibility for these matters rested with the former Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). That department had inherited an overseas counsellor network from one of its predecessors. In the late 1990s the science counsellor network included full-time science positions in London, Washington, Tokyo, Seoul, Bonn, Brussels (EU), Jakarta, and Paris (OECD). Positions in India, China and Taiwan were added subsequently. DEST changed the nature of some of these overseas positions to put greater emphasis on marketing Australia’s education to overseas students and reducing their capacity to serve the needs of international science collaboration.

We understand that when the science responsibility was transferred to the present Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, most of these positions remained with the new Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and ceased having a science function. Whatever the reasons for this change, Australia is now seriously under-represented overseas. Australia needs science counsellors in our key embassies who understand the different elements of our national science and innovation system and can facilitate connections with counterparts in other countries.[6]

7.10               AATSE also noted the benefits of science counsellors located at embassies overseas:

n  Ensuring that Australia is appropriately represented in science-related activities in these countries;

n  Providing assistance to visiting Ministers, science and technology-related delegations, and other high level visitors;

n  Assisting links between Australian research performing and funding agencies and their foreign counterparts;

n  Representing Australia in various science-related activities including local science counsellor networks;

n  Assisting Australian researchers to obtain funding and other support from foreign sources; and

n  Supporting major Australian science projects such as the Square Kilometre Array and initiatives such as the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.[7]

7.11               At its appearance before the Committee in a public hearing, AATSE noted the importance of having expertise on the ground overseas to make the most of international opportunities:

At the level of head of institutions, it is really a very senior network, and that allows us to be able to get people into a country. You also need to be able to have the equivalent of DIISR, the bureaucracy of that country, also supportive, also putting in their matching funds to sustain that process. International collaboration is not a one-way street in terms of funding.

We have always relied on posts to help us with those. In China we read about various territorial things, whether it is the Academy of Sciences or the Academy of Engineering in China that virtually run and host all of the research money – they are like the CSIRO really – yet different provinces have different protocols for how you would engage with them. We would always go through our post to smooth the way in there so that people know we are coming and that we do not offend by not going somewhere.

I think they play an important role. They used to always sort out visa issues for us, too, when we had people coming and going. Having someone in the country to assist with that and to alert us is very helpful. The Academy of Science has just recently published an analysis of the number of science counsellors that were in various posts, and you can see it continuing to go down.[8]

7.12               The Group of Eight observed the functioning of the science counsellors of the United Kingdom based in China and India:

The UK Research Council’s China office works at the funding-agency level to fill the gap between high-level ministerial ambitions for closer collaboration and the bottom-up drive by individual researchers and institutions to build productive links. It aims to enhance the capacity of research funders in the UK and China to work together, to shape funding opportunities so that collaborations involve the best groups in each country, and to enhance mutual understanding of research systems and national priorities so that collaborative activity can be built around complementary strengths and shared ambitions to tackle global challenges.[9]

Committee comment

7.13               The Committee was dismayed to learn about the fate of science counsellors over the years. These positions provided a valuable conduit between science ministries and research bodies in both Australia and their countries and regions of residence.

7.14               It is disappointing to learn that a role that maximised the exposure of Australian science and research at key posts overseas gradually evolved into positions that market Australian education to overseas students. While bringing students to Australia is of benefit to research collaboration, not all of these students are higher degree researchers; many are vocational education and training students.

7.15               The Committee heard that some European institutions and researchers were unaware of the culturally diverse nature of Australian research, and did not consider Australia to be a natural collaborative partner. To improve the knowledge of what Australia has to offer to Europe, reinstated science counsellors should promote the strengths of Australian science and to encourage European research organisations to consider Australia as a potential collaborative partner. Amalgamating cutting edge science, a change in lifestyle, reduction of bureaucracy in visa application processes and increased support for visiting researchers could increase interest in Australia as a collaborative partner.

7.16               The change of role for science counsellors has weakened Australia at a time when interaction with research hubs in Europe is at its most important point through the European Framework Programs. Science counsellors based in Europe, including the one specifically set aside for the European Union itself would be vital conduits in aiding Australian researchers to become involved in Framework Program projects and it is imperative that Australia addresses this issue as soon as possible to rebuild Australian research connections with Europe.

7.17               Many of the problems identified in making Australian researchers aware of collaborative opportunities overseas and of making overseas-based researchers aware of Australia and our areas of strength could be at least somewhat rectified with the reinstatement of science counsellors. The Committee believes a reinvigorated science counsellor program targeted at Australia’s most important and emerging collaborative research partners would have immediate benefits to Australia, increasing the exposure of Australian research and researchers and making Australian researchers more aware of potential foreign sources of funding.

7.18               An additional benefit of science counsellors based in emerging research partner states is a mechanism to address visa application difficulties. Having expertise in a researcher’s country of origin and being able to act as an advocate during the visa application process would smooth potential troubles and ease entry, especially for eminent researchers, reducing some of the potential for embarrassment that visa refusal has caused in the past.

7.19               The Committee believes there is clear support for a national direction in research development, primarily to support and promote Australian research, rather than to completely direct it from above. The Committee supports this view, as most research is primarily driven by researchers, and should continue to be so.

7.20               There is currently inadequate governmental support for international collaboration and revitalising a science counsellor program would go some way to addressing this problem. 

7.21               Such a program requires a balance to be struck between developed scientific powers and emerging nations that will be the powerhouses of the future to maximise the potential gains for Australia.

7.22               The Committee recommends that the science counsellor program be reinstated.

 

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the science counsellor program be revitalised, initially on a smaller scale than the previous program, with full-time science counsellor positions for the European Union, United States, China, and India. Additionally, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research should seek to expand the program to other relevant areas of significance to Australian research as is necessary.

 

Technology

7.23               The Committee heard from witnesses and submitters that advances in communication technology had negated some of the disadvantages of Australia’s distance from potential collaborators, and had other benefits for researchers,[10] but the Committee also commonly heard that modern communication technologies primarily helped existing collaborations,[11] and were no substitute for face to face contact in establishing collaborations.[12]

7.24               A witness reported that though he had established his collaborative network via face to face contact, technology enabled them to keep the collaboration going:

To achieve anything now with any colleague, between me and that colleague is only a phone call and email really, and that goodwill is so important. I cannot stress that enough.[13]

7.25               Some research disciplines benefited greatly from collaboration via e-research facilities. AMSI reported that with facilities designed for e-research, Australian mathematicians were able to collaborate in real time with colleagues in the next building, or on the other side of the world.[14]

7.26               The Committee also heard that technology had enabled Australian researchers to take data from facilities overseas, and to analyse it in Australia.[15] It was also told that technology had allowed an international partnership to function in a similar manner to a local collaboration.[16] These examples serve to illustrate the decentralised nature of modern research. 

7.27               The Committee also heard that e-research facilities were comparatively cost effective,[17] and were especially useful for theoretical disciplines, and that Australia should continue to develop its e-research facilities.[18]

Committee comment

7.28               The Committee is pleased to hear that some disciplines are taking full advantage of e-research facilities. E-research facilities and e-research techniques should be utilised as much as possible where actual physical travel is impossible for researchers. Additionally, e-research has proven to be beneficial to sciences like mathematics, which requires minimal extra facilities.

7.29               Theoretical disciplines should do their utmost to access and develop e-research facilities as a comparatively low-cost strategy to improve their links to their colleagues. While e-research is no substitute for face to face contact to facilitate collaboration, as technology improves, it will play more of a role in supporting research collaboration and Australian researchers should look at building their e-research capacity.

Joint agreements

7.30               Another technique for supporting international collaboration is formal agreements with overseas institutions or research groups. A witness observed that while these links were useful, to be truly successful, they required a lot of effort to establish:

It also takes a long time to foster a lot of these collaborations and links and therefore we need to be nimble in terms of being able to take advantage of these opportunities, but we need to be out there fostering these links on a continuing basis. Even to get a major link with an overseas institution at a research group level often takes a number of years to get it to the stage where you have got good exchange of staff and students and joint grants and things. It is quite a major effort just to get it to that stage. If you are then trying to build links across a number of different institutions in a certain area then that is an even bigger task.[19]

7.31               Related to joint agreements, several witnesses suggested that template agreements may prove to be useful in fostering collaborations. One witness observed that Cooperative Research Centres had developed template agreements and they had made it easier for groups to reach agreement because there was already an agreed format for discussions.[20]

7.32               The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) noted the success of formal agreements entered into by the CSIRO:

It is where the CSIRO have been quite successful, because of their partnership linkages, and they involve end users in their research as well. I was surprised – I knew they did a lot of international collaboration, having roughly a thousand international collaborative activities in any one year. It is the scale of it that has allowed them to, I think, really focus.[21]

A national approach

7.33               A large number of contributors to the Committee’s inquiry indicated that government could play more of a role in supporting international research collaboration. The level of governmental involvement varied, but the desire to see government provide more support to researchers and institutions through a national approach[22] was a common theme.

7.34               Several witnesses and submitters noted there was a lack of a strategic national direction in research development,[23] while others suggested that there needed to be a national approach to supporting and promoting Australian researchers, rather than the current fragmented[24] or ad hoc approach.[25]

7.35               James Cook University noted the current state of play regarding government involvement in research collaboration:

… most research conducted in Australia has an international character but it is fair to say that government support for international collaboration in research, in the recent past, has been limited and this has been a constraint upon the realisation of opportunities for transnational partnerships.[26]

7.36               Monash University extolled the virtues of a national approach:

… at a larger scale, the sort of one-nation approach to science I think is still lacking a bit here. That involves projecting your national networks and your national approaches to things. The fact that a number of universities can sit in a room together and work collectively and project that message externally is a great win. It really does excite external players to know that you are doing it in this very coordinated way.[27]

7.37               Monash University noted the difficulties scientists faced in projecting their ideas outside of a scientific environment:

Good scientists will do good science; they are not necessarily great leaders. They are also not necessarily the best at projecting their own ideas nationally and internationally. That junction is, I think, the one that culturally is a little bit disconnected here.[28]

7.38               The Australian International Thermonuclear Experimental (ITER) Forum highlighted the fragmentation of responsibilities between government agencies when it came to large-scale international scientific engagement, and proposed a remedy:

… responsibility is fragmented across the Australian government – across the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, the Department of Climate Change, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Such splintering creates a disconnect between the domestic and international research community and the Australian government. What do we propose as a solution? We propose the solution to major international engagement is to evolve the International Science Linkages scheme to create a new program to assess and support projects outside the scope of existing programs. The new program would cater for small-to large-scale international engagement and enable small projects to evolve to large-scale funded projects, act as the single contact and legal engagement agency between the Australian government, Australian scientists and international consortia and coordinate policy response from the Australian government and have an advisory function to government.[29]

7.39               Several witnesses, including the Group of Eight also observed this fragmentation and called for sole Ministerial responsibility for research collaboration.[30]

7.40               The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia also supported a ‘whole-of-government’ approach,[31] with Research Australia noting that a national approach may yield a more effective use of international philanthropy.[32]

An overarching body

7.41               In its submission the University of Sydney suggested that a single Minister be placed in charge of international research collaboration at the intergovernmental level:

A unit within the responsible Minister’s department could then act as the key source of expertise and advice to all other Government departments, agencies and research organisations about Australia’s international research strategies, priorities, agreements, programs and processes.

… it could also work closely with all government departments (including Immigration and Citizenship) the research funding councils, universities and other research organisations, industry groups, and our embassies to make high quality information available about relevant visa rules, intergovernmental agreements, programs, intellectual property opportunities, and the location of research expertise in Australia.[33]

7.42               The University of Sydney suggested that an interdepartmental committee be given stewardship over driving the mechanisms to support research collaborations:

I suggest an interdepartmental committee that would keep to strategic guidelines and would put options for instruments that catalyse international partnerships.[34]

I was thinking more that this could be with very strong academic participation, and therefore quite practical, but with participation from the lead departments in international engagement. So it would be very much content driven rather than systems driven, and maybe it could be a fairly short lived committee, which would lend urgency. I think these issues are urgent.[35]

7.43               The Australian Catholic University and Professor Adrian Baddeley saw this interface between government and academia as a way of resolving some of the visa and immigration problems that had been experienced.[36]

7.44               ARMS also saw a body similar to an interdepartmental committee as a useful model:

I am thinking of an administrative or management committee here that is compromised of people from the various government agencies that are offering international funding opportunities and having them manage those international collaborations.[37]

7.45               The University of Melbourne supported the idea of more coordination,[38] but cautioned against anybody having tight control over the research agenda:

I think there can be danger in trying to too-tightly control the research relationships that go on, so you need strategy and support. But I think we have a tendency in Australia to try to dictate too specifically what needs to be done.[39]

Support for applications to foreign funding bodies

7.46               One method identified to ensure Australian researchers continued to secure more funding from foreign research organisations and philanthropic organisations was a proposed national support body to assist researchers with information on funding opportunities and to assist with funding applications.[40]

7.47               The University of Melbourne supported the concept:

An office that would be a single source of advice to universities and research in Australia and the coordination of our presentation to the rest of the world would be an enormous practical step forward.[41]

7.48               The Group of Eight advised the Committee that they had a European Liaison Officer based in the Australian Embassy in Berlin who also played a similar role.[42]

7.49               The benefits of application support were also canvassed. The University of Sydney reported that they had staff based in Europe to search out funding sources and to assist researchers in applying for funding from those sources:

[The University of Sydney has a] representative in Europe, and here, who gain intelligence around all the funding systems and assist our colleagues to put grants together in the correct way. It is hard work, especially the first two or three times. But I think we need to understand that, because the sums are huge.[43]

7.50               The Committee was informed that CSIRO had an office with a similar function:

CSIRO has an international office and actually does a pretty good job of being aware of those opportunities and liaising with the EU and liaising with US bodies.[44]

7.51               ARMS saw some benefit in government informing researchers of opportunities overseas:

If I start with the offshore funding that potentially researchers here in Australia and New Zealand are trying to tap into, my experience to date is that every research organisation ends up going through the same terrible process of learning about how to access those funds. They all have to go through the same administrative nightmare even to register to be able to start allowing researchers to put submissions in. I am sure there is a better way for us all.[45]

7.52               In its submission, Victoria University noted that Australia could increase its global bargaining power if research institutions acted cohesively rather than competitively.[46]

Committee comment

7.53               The Committee notes the fragmentation of responsibility for Australian scientific collaboration and believes this fragmentation has resulted in Australia somewhat falling behind its colleagues in supporting research collaboration. There needs to be a clear ministerial responsibility for international research collaboration to prevent this important issue ‘falling between the cracks’, and the Committee believes the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research is the logical choice for this role.

 

Recommendation 17
	The Committee recommends that the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research be given full ministerial responsibility for supporting international research collaboration.

 

7.54               Further, it is clear there should be an advisory body to support and encourage international research collaboration, overseen by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Minister for Science.

7.55               The overwhelming weight of evidence supports more involvement from the Australian Government in supporting research collaboration. It is clear that the research community does not wish to have the government take a heavy handed approach, dictating the direction of Australian research from above. Rather, the research community has overwhelmingly called for a body to be established to centralise the knowledge surrounding research collaboration and to develop strategies to support Australian researchers in establishing and maintaining research collaboration.

7.56               A governmental role in assisting researchers greatly complements a revitalised science counsellor program. An advisory body chaired by government can provide the link between researchers and science counsellors and the Committee believes that a conduit in this area is greatly needed.

7.57               Additionally, the Committee is of the belief that a research support body could play an important role in Australia to prevent bureaucracy and visa and immigration concerns from acting as a disincentive to research collaboration.

 

Recommendation 18
	The Committee recommends that the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research seek the funding to establish an International Research Collaboration Office to consult with stakeholders in Australian research and to act as a conduit between Australian researchers and overseas research organisations and funding bodies.

 

7.58               The Committee believes that the International Research Collaboration Office should serve as an organisation to direct Australian researchers to relevant offshore bodies, rather than to act as a permanent ‘middle man’. Its purpose should be to connect Australian researchers and research bodies with relevant overseas groups.

7.59               Further, the International Research Collaboration Office should seek to support Australian science counsellors and provide them with the information and resources necessary to act as advocates for Australian research overseas.

7.60               The Committee envisages the International Research Collaboration Office having close contact with the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, and believes these major funding bodies should keep the Office engaged with the projects they are supporting with funding.

7.61               Additionally, to be at its most effective, the International Research Collaboration Office needs to familiarise itself with opportunities for Australian researchers through overseas research foundations and philanthropic funding schemes. These sources of funding have the potential to greatly improve the financial standing of Australian research, and to enhance international research collaboration,  and the Committee is of the opinion that Australian scientists have to be better informed about offshore funding opportunities including philanthropy.

7.62               The Committee is of the opinion that the establishment of an International Research Collaboration Office will also enable more Australian researchers to access European Framework Program funding. Access to these projects requires a collaborative partner in Europe. Locating an Australian science counsellor in Brussels at the EU will enable the counsellor to remain up to date on cutting edge European science and able to connect Australian researchers to their European counterparts. The great strength of the Framework Program is that it enables all who contribute to a project to share in the results, and to improve Australian access to world class science we must involve ourselves as much as possible at the cutting edge.

7.63               Science counsellors and an International Research Collaboration Office will enable Australian researchers to maintain some knowledge of what is happening in the emerging research powers of India and China. Collaborative agreements with these states give Australia a head start on their western counterparts, and research in the emerging science powers is also more cost effective due to shorter travel distances and lower costs for research. Further, the desirability of Australia as a destination for Chinese and Indian researchers creates a natural collaborative relationship that should be maximised for mutual benefit.

7.64               The Committee does not envisage the International Research Collaboration Office as a large body requiring a high level of funding. It should be modestly staffed, and use information communication technology to its maximum potential. Further, it should regularly consult with the university and research sector to remain abreast of developments in Australia and to relay overseas developments to Australian researchers.

7.65               It is clear that Australia needs to project its scientific strengths and to actively find collaborative partners and to forge links with states seeking to do the same. In the long run, this saves Australia money and assists it in achieving its scientific and research goals. Quite often Australia is described on the international stage as ‘punching above its weight’. The Committee believes it is time that Australian researchers were given the support to step up to the next weight division.

 

Maria Vamvakinou MP
Committee Chair
June 2010