David Mark reported this story on Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:42:00

ELEANOR HALL: The Australian Academy of Science has rejected the Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane's proposal that science research funding should be tied to patents rather than scientific papers.



In a speech yesterday, Mr Macfarlane said the grant allocation scheme should drive the creation of jobs but the secretary of science policy with the Australian Academy of Science says this is a flawed approach, as David Mark reports.



DAVID MARK: Ian Macfarlane is floating the idea of a fundamentally new and different way of awarding grants for research. For years, funding has been tied to a scientist's track record, which is generally based on their record of getting papers published in credible journals.



In a speech to the Queensland media club yesterday, he offered this alternative that begins with a caveat:



IAN MACFARLANE: I am freelancing a bit here, but I'm just painting a picture. We may think about realigning block grants to commercial outcomes, and rewarding them to universities not on the basis of how many papers they've had published, but actually on the basis of how many patents they've had registered. Look this is not rocket science. I hate to tell you, but just about every other country in the world is doing it. We need to do it here in Australia, so watch this space.



DAVID MARK: Asked to clarify, Mr Macfarlane said the existing grant system was working OK, but could work better.



IAN MACFARLANE: It's also based - and this is a fact - on the number of papers they produce, which are great if you're into producing papers, but I'm into producing jobs, and I'm into producing products that are commercialised from the IP that that scientist or researcher may have developed.



So I think that we need to ensure that commercialisation of IP and the registration of patents is part of the process of giving taxpayers' money to researchers generally, not just universities.



DAVID MARK: Professor Les Field is the secretary for science policy with the Australian Academy of Science, and the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) at the University of New South Wales.



LES FIELD: I think tying grants to patents is simply the wrong way to go. One really has to recognise quality research and research excellence, and recognise that there may well be a commercial outcome to this and you need to facilitate that or make it as easy as possible, but some of the best developments in fact probably will come from the research which at the moment is what I call 'blue sky'. It's looking into the unknown, trying to tackle problems that perhaps we haven't even identified yet.



DAVID MARK: Well no doubt you'll be meeting with Mr Macfarlane and the Education Minister Christopher Pyne and discussing these ideas with them. What will you be saying?



LES FIELD: Look, I would be encouraging particularly mechanisms to try and get the university sector, the research sector more generally, engaged particularly in the earliest stages of R and D. One of the things that impacts most on the translation of research and research ideas into industry is that period that everyone calls the valley of death, where you've got a great idea but it's not yet at the stage of being able to attract venture capitalists or people who might want to invest in it.



I actually think trying to put more resources and more effort into that early stage research - getting things out of a laboratory into industry laboratories or places where that research can be developed into real products and real initiatives is the place that we should be focusing a lot more effort.



DAVID MARK: Professor Warwick Anderson is the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council.



WARWICK ANDERSON: In medical research, there are other you know practical outcomes that you'd be wanting to get out of research as well as patents.



DAVID MARK: But isn't it the case, particularly in medical research, that the breakthroughs are almost always built on the shoulders of giants? Don't you need to maintain pure research for research's sake?



WARWICK ANDERSON: You need a rich mix of approaches in medical research, there's no doubt about that. From you know the most basic understanding of cellular events - let's remember Liz Blackburn, the Australian who won the Nobel Prize for her work on telomeres, those esoteric ends of chromosomes that of course now, 30 or 40 years on, is having you know really profound influence on the way we think about stress and the health effects on that.



You need a rich mix, but you know I guess I am trying to emphasise that there are lots of outcomes from research. I think where there are opportunities to patent and to develop commercially, they should be taken up.



DAVID MARK: Ian Macfarlane wasn’t available for comment today.



ELEANOR HALL: David Mark reporting.