This is the transcript of the Ralph Slatyer Address on Science and Society by President of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Chennupati Jagadish AC, at the Cooperative Research Australia 2025 National Innovation Policy Forum. The event was held at the National Press Club of Australia on Monday 3 November 2025.
Check against delivery.
Good afternoon.
Patricia - thank you for your kind introduction.
And thank you all for being here today
I, too, acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Ngunnawal People.
I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present.
It is an honour to be here and join champions for progress who've delivered this address over the years - from across academia, politics, business and industry.
I thank Jane O'Dwyer, CEO of Cooperative Research Australia, for this opportunity, and the Slatyer Family for welcoming me so warmly and encouraging me to speak as freely and boldly - as Ralph did.
I remember Professor Ralph Slatyer fondly.
When I arrived in Australia in 1990 and started at ANU, he was there, at the top.
I was at the bottom - but that's a great place to be when you have someone like Ralph Slatyer to look up to.
I admired him greatly.
He was widely regarded as the leader of Australian science.
I'd argue he still is, in our national consciousness. He set Australia's research capabilities in motion.
I recently spoke with his daughter, Judy, who is here today together with other members of the Slatyer family, Beth, Tony and Richard.
Judy's personal reflections matched her father's public persona.
He was kind, she said - and curious.
A true optimist, with a natural inclination to seek out solutions.
He was a teacher at heart, always sharing his knowledge with others.
And a born collaborator, too.
He had the knack for getting people onboard.
Judy recalled their family holidays in the Snowy Mountains when she and her siblings were children. They spent their days foraging and fossicking.
Only later in life did Judy realise these trips were a ploy by her father to continue his scientific studies over the school break.
Alpine trees were his specialty, you see.
I have my own memories of Ralph's inquisitive nature.
He met every challenge with genuine curiosity.
Every problem had a solution just waiting to be discovered.
And Ralph was always positive.
He believed science was the key to making the lives of Australians better - and our country greater.
That was when 'the clever country' entered the Australian vernacular.
Hawke was Prime Minister; Slatyer his trusted science adviser.
They set out on a quest to build a knowledge economy so that Australia could loosen its reliance on minerals and agriculture.
And on imported technology and borrowed research.
As one of Hawke's ministers, John Dawkins, said at the time, I quote:
"We cannot enter the next century rollicking on the sheep's back or creaking and swaying in some coal truck."
Collaboration was at the heart of this mission.
As you know, it was Ralph Slatyer who established the Cooperative Research Centres, bringing together government, industry and researchers in a way Australia had never done before to fuel what he hoped would be a seismic 'knowledge lift' into the next millennium.
I am acutely aware I now stand at a similar vantage point to where Professor Slatyer stood 35 years ago, surveying the complex landscape before us.
We gather at a moment of profound consequence - not just for our sector, but for our nation's future.
And for future generations, in whom we must instil hope and opportunity.
Today I'd like to share with you the strategic reality for science and technology in an era of massive disruption.
The world is being reshaped before our eyes.
We're witnessing what has been called the fourth industrial revolution: the technological revolution.
Near-daily advances in artificial intelligence, quantum science, robotics, autonomous systems, space technologies, genomics…. the list goes on.
These are not distant possibilities.
They are the currency of power and prosperity right now.
Change so rapid that legislators, regulators and analysts struggle to keep up.
At the same time, the geopolitical landscape is increasingly adversarial, fragmented, and contested.
The comfortable assumptions of international cooperation that shaped our past are being tested and - in many cases, shattered.
Multilateral institutions face unprecedented strain.
National security threats are no longer limited to factors that compromise our borders.
Rather, foreign interference, cyberattacks, threats to critical infrastructure, and rampant disinformation create a complex intelligence environment.
A world where R&D makes us more secure and more vulnerable at the same time. While geonomics and engineering biology make us healthier, they grow the risk of biowarfare.
Scientists are asked to rethink the freedom of their collaborations.
We are in a global race for STEM talent.
Major conflicts rage in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan.
The relationship between major powers is defined by competition.
There is a global reconfiguration of our energy systems, necessary to decarbonise our economies, while not weakening them.
And here's what matters for all of us in this room: science and technology sit at the absolute centre of these changes.
We are at the centre of these changes.
Not on the periphery. Not as an afterthought. At the centre.
What we choose for science today, will shape our destiny.
Last month's critical minerals agreement between the United States and Australia underscores this.
It wasn't simply a trade deal.
It was recognition that geopolitics now turns on access to the raw materials of the technological revolution.
Key pillars of the US-Australia alliance include critical minerals, new technologies, and technology transfer for defence purposes.
Similarly, the Prime Minister's recent engagement with China focused on agricultural innovation, steel decarbonisation, green iron, and renewable energy technology - all questions of scientific and technological capability.
These aren't isolated examples.
They are illustrations of a new strategic reality.
A reality where Australia's alliances and therefore our national security and prosperity are determined by our country's scientific and technological strength.
It is therefore a matter of strategic national interest that we have the strongest possible science and technology capability we can possibly muster.
What we choose for science today, will shape our destiny.
The pathway is not straightforward, but nor is it beyond the wit of our people.
There are concerning macrotrends.
The environment that scientists operate in today has become more crowded and more opaque than in the past.
Today, the private sector is a significant and growing actor in the scientific and technological landscape.
The extraordinary growth of a small number of massive global technology companies means their economic strength and international influence now exceed those of many nation-states.
Let me put this in perspective.
In 2024, the National Science Foundation reported that due to significant growth in R&D funded by businesses, the share of total US R&D funded by the federal government decreased from 30% in 2011 to 19% in 2021.
This was before the funding cuts implemented under the current administration.
In the US today, the business sector now funds 36% of basic research.
Not applied research. Basic research.
That is nearly equivalent to the 40% share of basic research funded by the United States federal government.
There may be some in Treasury and in the Department of Industry who would be pleased to see that level of private investment in basic research.
To them I say: watch what you wish for.
This presents a serious and significant shift away from open science and away from public good research, and towards research funded for private use.
Basic research only contributes to our collective foundation of knowledge if it is able to be shared.
And shifts away from it being shared reduce the levers available to government to shape our destiny.
This is our reality.
And it is the reason why it is a matter of strategic national interest that we have the strongest possible science and technology sector we can muster.
It is also one of the motivators for the Academy's recent proposal to create an enduring source of public funds to support basic research in the form of a Research Fund that's not dissimilar to the Medical Research Future Fund but for basic research across all disciplines.
Thereby leaving basic research funding for the public good in government hands.
We propose that the Research Fund be established through revenue earnt by the application of a temporary R&D levy on low-R&D-intensive businesses that generate more than $100 million dollars in annual revenue.
Nations across the globe have sought to strengthen their science and technology capability.
European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, in her Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, calls for research and innovation to be placed at the heart of their economy.
Former Prime Minister of Italy, Enrico Letta, recommends that the EU add a fifth freedom to the original four freedoms that underpin the European Single Market.
To the existing four - being free movement of goods, services, people and capital - he calls for the free movement of research, innovation, knowledge, and education.
Why? Because the first four fall short of what is needed in today's world.
He identifies the need to support R&D public-private partnerships, to align funding strategies, to share research infrastructure and to pool data in an open science approach.
And what would this achieve?
He argues it will drive economic competitiveness and ensure research-driven advancements that benefit society as a whole, not just a few.
So everyone - from entrepreneurs to established businesses - can leverage the latest research to develop transformative solutions.
It is deeply democratic and deeply visionary in troubled times.
Another former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, as chair of the Wellcome Trust, recommends that the UK Government doubles down on its strengths in research and puts its research asset into full use by:
- strategically using it to support diplomacy and global influence
- being a regulatory innovator rather than an adopter - it isn't only about developing new technologies, but who sets the rules for their use
- by recognising that health security is as paramount as defence security and that research is central to both.
They argue that by flaunting the UK's track record in research excellence and international collaboration, they can position the UK as the global partner of choice for R&D.
In short, they value the global exchange of people and ideas.
The Wellcome Trust argue and I quote:
"Investing in R&D will bring growth and prosperity in the UK. Combining investment in R&D with a new approach to how the United Kingdom partners with the world will improve its global standing, make it safer and help find its leadership role in a changing world."
Science diplomacy is at its best when we fuse our scientific strengths with our diplomatic expertise deliberately, and strategically.
When we recognise that international science collaboration is not just about advancing knowledge - it's about building influence, establishing norms, and creating opportunities that serve Australian interests.
In this area Australia has the essential ingredients but has failed to turn this into a national strategic capability.
So, as other nations seek to strengthen their science and technology capability in response to a changing world, we need to ask whether Australia's scientific and technological sector and assets are strong, secure and strategic enough:
- to fuel our economy and productivity
- to provide national security
- to strengthen our trade negotiations
- to support our foreign policy objectives?
I do not believe this is the case.
And I struggle to imagine how anyone could argue otherwise.
I will not rehearse the current conditions of our R&D sector at length.
You all know them:
Our quarries are deep and brimming.
The quality of our science and scientists is exceptional.
R&D investment is now so far behind the average OECD as a percentage of GDP invested in R&D, it would take an additional $33.4 billion dollars per annum just to get to parity.
We are excellent international collaborators.
Our STEM talent pool is exceptional, but too small to meet our national needs.
Thanks to an 18-month investigation by the Academy published in September, we know we suffer shortages in data scientists, geologists and material scientists.
Our economy is over-reliant on few industries and has the complexity of Botswana.
The successful businesses we do have are mostly reluctant investors in new-to-market R&D.
And our industrial and manufacturing sector is having a significant, albeit snail-paced, makeover.
Fragmentation prevents efficiency and scale.
And Australia has no overarching science and technology vision or strategy.
Sadly, I can say with both confidence and despair, that science and technology is neither positioned nor valued as the national strategic asset it is at the heart of our ability to trade, make deals, boost productivity and navigate geopolitical complexity.
While nations across the globe seek to strengthen their science and technology capability in response to a changing world, Australia has not.
These are the reasons the Academy fought so long and hard for a comprehensive root-and-branch review of the R&D system.
To make the science and technology sector fit for purpose in our rapidly changing world.
And that is why the Academy has taken bold steps to establish Australia's Global Talent Attraction Program, recognising that we are in a global race for STEM talent, so urgent that it cannot wait for reviews.
We cannot make good on our critical minerals promises when the number of geologists we attract, train and retain is in freefall.
Nor can we rely on importing talent when the International Union of Geological Sciences says other countries are experiencing similar declines.
We can't fully adopt and exploit AI capabilities when only one in four year 12 students is studying maths.
What we choose for science today, will shape our destiny.
The time to get serious about recasting Australia's science and technology assets was 35 years ago, as Ralph Slatyer understood.
The next best time is now.
Thankfully, I'm an optimist like Ralph Slatyer.
I believe we can get there - if we have the courage to act.
We have a choice.
We have a choice to position and prioritise science and technology.
We have an obligation to recognise that in an era of geopolitical, technological and environmental disruption - science and technology are not luxury investments.
When productivity is declining, our research and innovation unlock industrial diversification and economic growth.
We have a need to vastly mature our approach to science and technology.
We have an urgency to make the necessary policy and structural changes and investments - even if they are hard. Especially when they are hard.
That is why so much is riding on the outcomes of the Strategic Examination of Research and Development - also known as the SERD.
And why so much is riding on the Government's willingness and courage to implement its recommendations… provided they are sensible!
The Academy will measure the SERD's success by measuring how it stacks up against the following principles.
These are the principles that underpin a future R&D system - the vehicle - that shapes Australia's destiny in an increasingly complex and contested world.
The SERD's recommendations must reflect the following:
- Recognise that science, technological development, industrial competitiveness, societal challenges and innovation form a continuous network and cannot be tackled in silos or be allowed to cannibalise each other.
- Double down on what works, apply focus and align resources and polices.
- Reduce program duplication and fragmentation.
- Fund and promote excellence in collaborative discovery research.
- Stimulate partnership between the public and private sectors locally, internationally and across disciplines across the value chain from discovery through to mass industrial use.
- Enable mobility of researchers locally, internationally and across the value chain.
- Accelerate and enable research and innovation via provision of capabilities and tools like technology infrastructure. Key among them is high-performance computing and data. And provide for collaborative research infrastructure.
- Scale up investment by incentivising alignment and greater contribution of R&D funding from private sources and public sources - including from state and territory governments - as well as philanthropy.
- Back discovery research and risky applied research.
- Unleash the power of government procurement.
- Attract, train and retain STEM talent, especially where gaps exist.
- Collaborate widely and strengthen sovereign capability by developing a risk-informed international research collaboration approach that recognises any country or institution can be a collaborator, a competitor or a rival at any given time. And sometimes at the same time.
- Build nuanced and savvy science diplomacy capability by strategically using science and technology to support diplomacy and global influence, and by improving our science intelligence network.
- Create conditions that make the exchange of knowledge, data and technologies as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
- Create conditions and regulatory environments that support innovation, security and safety.
- Tend towards a culture that promotes academic freedom with responsibility.
- Build and treat our linguistic and cultural competency as a sovereign capability.
- Create mechanisms to draw on all knowledge sources.
- And never, never forget the value of the sacred contract been science and society.
I acknowledge that it is a long list. But for good reason.
This is not a trivial exercise. But it is an essential one.
Technically, we have a choice.
But actually, we have no choice if we want to prosper in an era of geopolitical, technological and environmental disruption.
Australia's scientific and technological capability must be strong, secure and strategic.
I believe we can get there - if we have the courage to act.
We owe it to the next generation. To create hope and opportunity.
It is often said that to govern is to choose.
What we choose for science and technology today, will shape our destiny.
The moment to act is now.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you.
-Ends-
