Peter Calamai

Canada could profit from studying Australia's approach to innovation

By Peter Calamai

It is possible for a middle-ranked OECD country to craft a rational approach to research and innovation through open and informed consultation among scientists, government officials and the interested public. For the evidence, look to Australia.

That is what I have just done for eight days as one of four science journalists (two from Canada, two from the US) invited by the Commonwealth government at its expense to tour the country's leading research establishments and talk with top researchers from both the public and private sectors. There were many surprises, although I had visited Australia three times previously and reported on scientific research there.

The first surprise, and perhaps the most crucial to Australia's success in forging a coherent approach to research and innovation, was the high degree of openness, consultation and collaboration across the entire research-innovation spectrum. Start with the media. In Canada, it usually takes days — and sometimes approval from the Prime Minister's office — to be allowed to interview federal scientists about their research, including papers published in the open literature. Even then, a departmental public affairs minder" often listens in on the interview or demands written questions in advance.

In Australia, by contrast, our "Gang of Four" science journalists freely interviewed at length top scientists and administrators from agencies like the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO, the federal labs) and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) without a hovering "minder." The equivalent organizations in Canada are the National Research Council (although only two-thirds the size of CSIRO in total staff) and trouble-plagued Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Neither are known for adroitness in co-operating with journalists.

More importantly, this openness extends to forging national policies on key research and innovation concerns. Take Big Science. With its population of 21 million located mostly in cities dotted around the perimeter of an entire continent, Australia shares with Canada the need to carefully select the few fields where it can afford to build and operate world-class research facilities. And like Canada, these decisions have often rested more on political horse-trading than on technological considerations. That's how the third-generation synchrotrons wound up in Saskatoon and Melbourne.

But rationality has now prevailed in Australia, unlike Canada. Since July 2003 the nation's scientific establishment, federal and state governments and interested public have engaged in crafting a strategy that defines the priorities for developing and funding national research infrastructure projects. The first dozen priority areas of investment received $540 million for the period 2005-2011. A further $900 million for major infrastructure projects over this decade was announced in August as part of a Super Science Initiative.

The initial investments are already responsible for pushing Australia's Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) to 2.2% of GDP in 2008 from a low of 1.4% in 1998-99. By contrast, Canada's GERD to GDP ratio fell to 1.8% in 2008 after hovering around 2.1% between 2001 and 2005. In addition, the Super Science Initiative should ensure that Australia's GERD to GDP ratio remains healthy, while so far there is no similar R&D investment on the horizon in Canada.

Crucially, Australia's process for prioritizing Big Science was truly collaborative (the word was actually part of the formal title) with public consultations and fora which produced something akin to a national consensus. Super Science focuses on three themes — space and astronomy, marine science and climate, and future industries —which can be seen to grow organically out of Australia's geography, established research prowess and the need to evolve from a resource-based economy.

By contrast, in Canada over the past several years the discussion about Big Science priorities has been secretive in the extreme and highly politicized. Originally billed as MIST, for Major Investments in Science and Technology, the federal program was rebadged as MSI, for Major Science Initiatives, when the Conservatives took over from the Liberals. Unlike Australia, there has not been any public discussion of Canada's Big Science priorities, either for new research facilities or for allocating operating funds for existing ones from the $185 million over five years formally announced by the federal government October 22.

I don't want to appear Pollyannaish about the research-innovation picture in Australia. The Commonwealth government and the six states and two territories have not yet agreed on a national science and innovation strategy. But the current working plans are far more advanced than the vague S&T federal framework here.

In August 2008, a federally appointed panel produced Venturous Australia, a thorough and thoughtful review of the national innovation system (which wasn't any more of a "system" than in Canada.) The following year, the federal government responded with Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century, which far eclipses anything produced in Canada in both vision and scope. At the core lies a daring plan to fashion five world-class research "precincts," each containing more than 10,000 researchers and students, a combined annual investment of more than $1 billion by all the players and appropriate computing power.

Another Australian advantage is a well-established cadre of chief scientific advisors to both federal and state governments, who work collaboratively on national priorities and strategies. The full-time post of federal chief scientist has existed for two decades and has been recognized as vital to the country's welfare by both Labor and Liberal governments, unlike the partisan response by the Conservative government here in abolishing the post of national science advisor.

The top science administrators in Australia also struck me as far more attuned to the innovation needs of a middle-ranking, traditionally resources-based economy. Here's CSIRO CEO Megan Clark, whose PhD is from Queen's University in Kingston: "If our science is the best in the world, that's a necessary tick in the box but it's not sufficient. It has to be put to use for the benefit of our community."

Veteran science journalist Peter Calamai is a consultant in strategic communications based in Ottawa and a contributing editor of Cosmos, an Australian popular science magazine.