It was Paula Taylor who summed up the heartbreak of the CSIRO declaring it would have to sack 350 research staff. The news broke late on Tuesday. That night I received a message from Paula, the recipient of this year's Prime Minister's Prize for excellence in science teaching in primary schools. "How do I make a case for students to pursue science?" she asked me.
I wish I had an easy answer for her. But that remains one of my biggest concerns. Where will Australia find its future science leaders? Headlines about scientists at Australia's national science agency losing their jobs do not make an encouraging story for our next generation of scientific trailblazers.
And of course, the CSIRO funding cuts are a terrible Christmas present for the staff who will be let go. But it's not just about the human cost. When Australia loses talent and research programs, we lose the opportunity to make life-changing discoveries.
The CSIRO has been responsible for breakthroughs such as Wi-Fi, a transformational technology that brought high-speed wireless internet to the world, but started with radio astronomy research. The CSIRO was responsible for inventing the original formula for Aerogard, developed to protect troops from malaria during World War II. More recently, it developed a world-first barley grain with an ultra-low level of gluten. These kinds of discoveries are simply much less likely to happen with a smaller research and development capability.
We know the CSIRO will shift its priorities from some research and place emphasis on inventing and deploying technological solutions to tackle national problems. But where does that leave the unplanned, serendipitous discoveries? Or the capabilities we don't think we need now but may need in years to come?
Take the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation as an example. Budget constraints have led to ANSTO announcing a series of proposed changes that could close parts of the Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne. That's the same facility used to combat the COVID-19 virus and develop treatments for malaria.
The cuts at the CSIRO and ANSTO are just the tip of the iceberg of Australia's declining research and development investment. It has been going backwards for more than 15 years. Our overall national investment in R&D is only 1.68 per cent of gross domestic product. That's way below the average of 2.7 per cent among OECD nations. Meanwhile, South Korea invests 4.9 per cent of GDP in R&D, the United States and Japan 3.4 per cent.
This does not mean a blank cheque for scientists, and we need to be prudent in the context of real pressures that governments face. But let's not tie our hands behind our backs in a global competition for ideas, industries and future jobs.
The federal government this year held an Economic Reform Roundtable. The STEM sector - covering science, technology, engineering and maths - was largely overlooked. Our greatest productivity shifts in history have all been driven by technology and industrial revolutions underpinned by research and innovation, and that's where our next productivity jump will come from.
Each dollar invested in R&D returns $3 to $6 for the economy, so there's a clear case for putting R&D at the heart of economic reform. If you don't invest in R&D, you don't innovate and you don't create new products and services. You lose your best ideas to overseas and productivity will collapse. A decade of decline in national investment has flattened the batteries of the economy.
Before the end of the year, the federal government will receive a report from the independent panel tasked with undertaking a strategic examination of research and development (SERD). The government's language around this, focusing on budget neutrality, reflects the penny-pinching that brings us the CSIRO and ANSTO dilemma, rather than boosting investment in the kind of discovery research that drives knowledge and innovation.
We need investment in the next steps along the R&D pathway, the applied and translational work, but without proper investment in foundational research we will have no ideas to translate and potentially commercialise. The nation needs the SERD process to deliver strong and actionable recommendations to government that deliver for our R&D sector. We need the government to listen - and act.
The sector has called for SERD to deliver transformational change to deliver a more cohesive, co-ordinated system that supports research all the way from discovery through to economic benefit to the nation. We've also called for a strong focus on the sophisticated research infrastructure that scientists depend upon to do their work - another component of our R&D system that needs long-term, sustained funding.
I come back to my sad call with Paula Taylor. We know there are already declining participation rates in higher level maths and physics in Year 12. Our children need role models and to be inspired by our science leaders - and aspire to be one themselves. That's why Science and Technology Australia runs the Superstars of STEM program, supporting young scientists to be the next big thinkers. Where will they come from in the future?
Science doesn't need a short-term bailout. It's not enough to lurch from funding crisis to crisis. Australia needs long-term strategic investment with a clear vision that harnesses our strengths. We have so much talent and a long history of innovation, of which the whole nation can be proud. It's time for the federal government to turn the backwards slide around and seriously support the depth and strength of our scientific capability.
Ryan Winn is the CEO of Science and Technology Australia.
This article was first published by the Sydney Morning Herald. Read the full story here.
.
