Pathways towards continued healthy scientific innovation in Australia

Even in commodity industries, and we have plenty of those in Australia, companies that have had more rather than less technology and better science have 30 per cent better market-to-book ratios. Some very recent analysis of performance of companies listed on NASDAQ has shown that even the so-called new economy companies, those that have products based on top science, have a far better chance of growth. We have to concentrate on leading-edge excellence. When taxpayers are footing the bill, I suggest we should be prepared for that excellence to be publicly observable.

The third focus is new products in the marketplace. Finland is a great example of a country that recognises the importance of education, R&D and linking its science and engineering base with industry. But, before you can get products in the marketplace, it does not matter whether you are talking microwave ovens from way back or anti-flu vaccines or whatever, the researchers need to link with a company or individual who can visualise the product in the marketplace and get it there. The process is commercialisation.

Australia's performance in this area is not bad. It is actually on a par with the average for North America, and some would look at that and be very satisfied because they are one of the world leaders. But when I look at the detail in North America, I find there are some universities who are five to 20 times higher in their level of performance per dollar of R&D spent in commercialisation. The great challenge is how we are going to bridge that gap. I would look at changing the current incentives to encourage researchers to commercialise their ideas. I would look at rewarding academics much more for entrepreneurial spirit as much as for the number of their research publications; fostering a culture that rewards those who take risks; and profiling an entrepreneurial career as attractive and rewarding, one that adds value to the economy. Moving around the universities in the discussion phase for my science capability review I didn't see too many Porsches.

We really ought to be seeing our students who go through science and engineering, for example, coming out at the end not just with competency in those areas but also with the ability to read a balance sheet, to understand the basics of financing and bringing something to market. Equally, I think those in our business schools should regard it as a tragedy if you can get through to an MBA and not have trawled through the science or engineering faculties for a project that looked interesting enough to take through to market. Similarly, if the university concerned hadn't put up at least one or two prizes of about $50,000 for the best planned, to take something through so that you could actually give it a try, as has been very successfully done at MIT over many years. We have some excellent initiatives heading in the right directions here, the Cooperative Research Centres program and the like, but we need a lot more. The take home message on commercialisation is this: for a small economy such as Australia, better linkage, even better than what we have now in our science to the marketplace, is an absolute imperative. Changing personal incentives to me seems a fairly clear way to go.

Finally, I would like to say a bit about science literacy. Science literacy is essential to a society where we are interested in and are able to understand the world around us. Where we can talk a bit of science, where we understand the scientific method so that we can express our scepticism and we can draw evidence based on conclusions to make our own informed decisions. Everyone needs to be able to do that, not just research scientists.

So if literacy is important, the question is: how well are we performing? Some recent surveys are illuminating. This one goes back a few years (and is from the UK), but I do not think the results have changed. When asked if the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes round the earth, would you believe 30 per cent of people polled got it wrong? Of more relevance but equally concerning was a survey of aspects on gene technology.

This has been done across a whole range of countries. A majority of people thought that GM tomatoes had genes but that non-GM tomatoes did not have genes. If it is any consolation, in this survey Australia has fared better than most European countries. Science literacy is an important challenge - it is an underlying foundation of a knowledge economy.

The challenge is as always to provide inspirational teaching that has its focus on relevant and current curricula, experiential learning and so on. There are some great high spots - I have to give praise to CSIRO's Double Helix program and its national awareness program. The icon in this area in the ABC is Robyn Williams. National Science Week is a most important step, as are the science centres through the country such as Questacon, and the Primary Investigation Series by the Australian Academy of Science. There is a lot there that is good, but more is needed.

Challenge every scientist in the country to go and talk to their local schools, the Rotary Club, their MPs, the bowls dinner or the like. Just get the message out a lot more. Challenge every academic to add a preface to their next paper in a style able to be understood either by their parent or their child. Bring together practicing scientists in industry and government institutions with school teachers and students to encourage new relationships to excite and inspire both students and their teachers. It requires action to increase public awareness, involvement and finally trust. We scientists have a greatly increased role here to help improve literacy and earn the trust of our communities.

I am utterly convinced that science creates the ideas that can transform our lives, grow our exports and enable new markets. It is pivotal in contributing to sustainability, environmental concern and our social wellbeing. I have mentioned four take-home messages: Literacy is absolutely critical and we have to do a lot more. Excellence, to me unarguable, that is what we have to target; and our preferred path should focus on collaboration. The Innovation Statement with its doubling of competitive R&D funds is a great start with its strategic focus on excellence and collaboration and commercialisation. It is an investment of the sort that I applaud. Hence, I see a real chance that the brain regain will in the future exceed the brain drain.