Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia

Responses

Q1. How could the purpose in the ARC Act be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC?

For example, should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation:
(a) the scope of research funding supported by the ARC
(b) the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs
(c) the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia
(d) any other functions?

If so, what scope, functions and role?

If not, please suggest alternative ways to clarify and define these functions.

Adequate research investment across the entire spectrum of activities (from basic research to applied research to experimental development) is a critical part of any country’s innovation ecosystem. Supporting basic research is an important role for government, as it is at this end of research activities where the most impact and transformation can often be found. Solar panel technology is a fantastic example of basic research leading to world-changing technology. However, basic research is often a speculative endeavour, and unfortunately the industry appetite was offshore for this endeavour. Regardless Australian roof tops are littered with panels based on this basic research.

As recently as June 2020, it was reported that the share of research spending funded by industry partners is negatively associated with innovation impact productivity . It is hypothesised that this is because industry funding generally supports highly applied projects, which may then have fewer outputs across journal papers, patents, licences, and spin out companies, compared to projects focused on transformative basic research. This report also highlights their concern with university policies that focus on industry-sponsored research, as they are likely to create less innovative outcomes for the surrounding ecosystem.

Q2. Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

If not, how could governance of the ARC be improved? For example, should the ARC Act be amended to incorporate a new governance model that establishes a Board on the model outlined in the consultation paper, or another model.

Please expand on your reasoning and/or provide alternative suggestions to enhance the governance, if you consider this to be important.

Clear and transparent governance is critical to ensure public trust and recognition of the excellence of Australian research activities. For ARC programs with an applied and industrial focus, it is important that any review and assessment is done by individuals with a broad range of skills, expertise, and diversity both academic and industry based.

Q3. How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

As above, clear and transparent governance in key within the Act. It should ensure that funding decisions are open and transparent and remove the opportunity for political intervention following a transparent and rigorous peer review process. The means by which the ARC contacts with the research providers is the only overarching means that the ARC should strengthen its control. In the case of commercialisation of outcomes, research providers should demonstrate that they have the personnel and skills to conduct this endeavour.

Q8. With respect to ERA and EI:

(a) Do you believe there is a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?

(b) What other evaluation measures or approaches (e.g. data driven approaches) could be deployed to inform research standards and future academic capability that are relevant to all disciplines, without increasing the administrative burden?

(c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

(d) If so, should that reference include the function of developing new methods in research assessment and keeping up with best practice and global insights?

For many universities, the value of research commercialisation activities and creating impact from research translation is linked to the broader economic benefit of upskilling local companies, creating employment within their regions and overseas, as well as the actual value of the commercialisation revenue. This process is not necessarily a linear one and includes a large number of networks and connections to ensure impact is eventually realised.

Following the discontinuation of the National Survey of Research Commercialisation (NSCR), SCOPR™ was created. SCOPR™ is an established and trusted metric widely reference by government and academia as a measure of commercialisation output of publicly funded research organisations. This survey is conducted annually by Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia (KCA), the peak body representing technology transfer professionals and their organisations in Australia and New Zealand. Through its members, KCA has led best practice in industry engagement, technology transfer and entrepreneurship for research organisations since 1978. Conducting SCOPR™ is a core activity of KCA, and it is offered to members and non-members alike as a part of our contribution to enhancing the visibility and success of research commercialisation in Australia and New Zealand.

SCOPR™ is now in the fifth year of metrics collected from Australian and New Zealand universities, medical research institutes, rural research corporations and publicly funded research agencies. The metrics provide data on Normalising Metrics, Work Outcome Metrics and Commercialisation Outcome Metrics. These metrics enable national and international benchmarking by respondents and help to inform decisions by research organisations. The aggregated data demonstrates to the broader community the successful outcomes of the commercialisation of publicly funded research.

Broader research impact can be measured through existing economic development indicators. The difficulty is in how these are indicators are captured and reported by the knowledge generating institutions as the innovation is occurring at arm’s length from the initial research. Currently impact exercises use case studies to capture economic development activity, but these are a poor proxy for academic research impact. Emerging best practice from other countries in capturing this data are the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) in the UK and the and the licensee following approach by Knowledge Transfer Ireland (KTI). This unique approach follows announcements and social media postings of licensees/recipients of Irish university developed technology and tracks economic development/impact.

KCA has interacted with the ARC, the Department of Education and the Department of Industry in respect to SCOPR™. In the case of the Department of Education, we anticipate entering a cooperation agreement in 2023 to both add to the quality and range of participation of SCOPR™.

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

The benefit to Australia from the outcomes of basic research is a consequence of either Telling (publications), Selling (Licenses and spinouts) and/or Demonstrating (particularly in agriculture-based research). The commercialisation route i.e., Selling, is a legitimate means to get benefit to the community. In the current funding models, there are no means for organisations to access funding for such activities – it must be self-funded. This can lead to a shortfall of persons and a lack of skills in the persons involved.

Therefor for Australia to realise the benefits of Australian Government investment in research, further investment is required to improve capability, and increase research commercialisation capacity, across universities. Improving capability and increasing capacity of university commercialisation offices can be achieved through dedicated third- stream funding. Such funding would address the skills gaps across the innovation ecosystem, and provide appropriate resourcing for commercialisation offices, benchmarked to international standards. The UK addressed this issue with the introduction of bipartisan supported third-stream funding in their Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). This fund has been in place for more than a decade and has facilitated the development of a vibrant knowledge exchange sector in UK Higher Education Institutions. Not only have the discoveries been distributed to the community in an efficient means, over the period the HEIF has been in place, knowledge exchange income has increased by 80% from £2.2 billion to £3.99 billion and that £1 of HEIF invested results in £6.1 of gross additional impact. It has also led to the recent development of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) and the ongoing development of the Knowledge Exchange Concordat.

Finally, we would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the recently passed CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 in the United States. This Act invests US$280 billion to increase the US’s semiconductor capacity ensuring sovereign manufacturing and supply; drives research and development; aims to create high technology regional hubs to address key industry challenges; and directs funding to create a bigger and more inclusive STEM workforce. US$20 billion of this investment is directly into the National Science Foundation (NFSF) to create a new NSF Directorate on Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP).

Submission received

13 December 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.