Universities should focus on research

The Productivity Commission is conducting a research study on public support for science and innovation.  Submissions to the study can be found on the commission's website.  University submissions should be central to the study.  After all, they educate those who may become scientists or innovators.

Where, for example, is the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee going?  And will the universities follow?  It looks as though the universities may be diverging from their vice-chancellors.  Not only has the AVCC put in a 91-page document but the Group of Eight and the Innovative Research Universities Australia have also made (shorter and more reasoned) submissions.

The vice-chancellors open the batting with the "chronic underfunding" of universities, while showing how well they perform against a selection of indices.  Some would see this as a measure of great value for money.

The vice-chancellors believe that international comparisons of research and development are valid and our low performance cannot be explained solely by industry structure.  They are correct that the explanation is not simple.  History, size, acquisitions, capital and markets have all shaped us.

The usual suspects, including Finland (with Nokia), are paraded.  All we need is an Intel-like corporation or two and we would be well away.  News Corp is an Australian-born success that has thrived on new technology applications but how much R&D does it perform?  Our low R&D funding "retards" our growth.  Yes, we finished a decade of growth, second highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but still behind Ireland.

The government is invited to put up high-risk capital for seed funding of start-up companies and somehow create a "stronger technology-focused business sector with which universities can partner".

This is an echo of the ritual rhetoric of the Dawkins era.  It is also extraordinarily condescending.  What it suggests is that business, which spends 3 per cent of its R&D funds in the higher education sector, must shape itself to the wishes of the universities.  But universities are not for innovations, they are for educating innovators.

The Innovative Research Universities Australia approach makes a number of good points that stress the need for university independence in strategic research planning, the full support of excellence wherever it is found and a recognition of the long-term nature of much research.  Worrying is the "first-tier innovator nation" target as a variant of the old "sunrise industries" or "clever country" slogans.

As a contrast, the Group of Eight approach is refreshing.  It acknowledges the complexities of innovation and stresses the importance of people, first-class research and the broad contribution of many fields to innovation.  It also points out that universities cannot expect to derive significant revenue from commercialisation activities.

ADVERTISEMENT