Embedding research translation modules in doctoral programmes would be overkill, because many PhD students do not have the aptitude to be ¡°bench to boardroom scientists¡± ¨C and it would overlook commercially inclined early career researchers who already have their doctorates, according to representative body Science and Technology Australia (STA).

In a submission to the federal government¡¯s?university research commercialisation discussion paper, STA argues against making technology transfer part of every scientist¡¯s skill set. Rather, translation should be the responsibility of a relatively small band of specialists with the ¡°aptitude¡± to be ¡°linchpins¡± of university-industry liaison.

¡°We don¡¯t need every researcher to become a commercialisation expert,¡± said chief executive Misha Schubert. ¡°We should focus instead on equipping up to 2,000 leading researchers with the specialist skills and remit to champion the translation of technologies.

¡°They would be a small proportion of the research workforce with the potential for vast social and economic impact. Turning more of Australia¡¯s ¡®nearly there¡¯ research into ¡®really there¡¯ products and services would generate vast economic and social benefits from a relatively modest public investment.¡±

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

But it would require cultural change in universities, she added. ¡°The nature of innovation is that some failure is inevitable. Researchers [must be] supported¡­to fail fast and move on, just as they need to be applauded for success.¡±

Like other groups, STA backs the idea of a new ¡°mission-driven¡± and ¡°stage-gated¡± fund to finance the development of promising innovations, but it says the plan requires ¡°smarter incentives¡± as well as specialised skills.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The submission highlights anomalies in current policy settings that encourage ¡°in-house¡± rather than collaborative research. For example, the research and development tax incentive ¨C the government¡¯s principal mechanism for stimulating industry investment in research and development ¨C contains no requirement for cooperation.

Collective research should attract a ¡°collaboration premium¡±?that boosts the tax offsets available through the scheme, STA says.

Its submission says that the Australian Research Council¡¯s Linkage Projects scheme, which is supposed to encourage research collaborations with industry, assesses funding applicants using ¡°traditional research metrics¡± ¨C such as journal publications ¨C rather than commercial successes like patents and new products.

This means researchers who put effort into translation risk derailing their careers by diluting their publication track records, the submission suggests. ¡°Any attempt to invigorate research commercialisation must come with a close look at how researchers are able to move between research and industry without penalty.¡±

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Another weakness is a tendency to encourage collaboration between organisations rather individuals. ¡°Research and collaboration does not typically occur because of the institutions, but rather due to the specialist expertise within them,¡± the submission says. ¡°The focus¡­should be on industry-researcher collaboration.¡±

STA recommends a ¡°single point of entry¡± for industry partners wanting to collaborate with universities on particular innovations. The entry point should be the lead researcher rather than the host institution, with projects given ¡°strong autonomy¡± from universities.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com