A proposed Australian research and development review has drawn varied responses from interest groups, with the science lobby lauding the once-in-a-generation appraisal while the university lobby lamented what it saw as a missed opportunity.

The 14 May?federal budget?includes a commitment to a ¡°strategic examination¡± of the R&D system to ¡°strengthen its alignment with Australia¡¯s priorities¡±. Science minister Ed Husic said the review would ¡°determine how we can get more value from every taxpayer dollar invested in research¡­and maintain our competitive edge¡±.

The review appeared alongside major budget investments in science including A$449 million (?236 million) on satellite development, A$145 million to boost core scientific measurement capabilities, A$18 million for green metals research and development, A$20 million for battery research and almost A$500 million to help produce what treasurer Jim Chalmers described as ¡°the world¡¯s first commercial scale quantum computer¡±.

The Australian Academy of Sciences said these projects were ¡°testament to the opportunities that science can offer the nation¡±. But academy president Chennupati Jagadish said investments in discovery research, the ¡°basic feedstock¡± of many government aspirations, were ¡°fundamentally missing¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°The academy has been arguing the case for this long-overdue whole-of-sector analysis since 2018,¡± Professor Jagadish said. ¡°It is a necessary precursor to the creation of a strategic road map that can¡­reverse the 14-year decline in investment.¡±

However, Universities Australia said the budget had overlooked research-related suggestions from the Universities Accord panel. ¡°There were very solid recommendations in the accord report that [the government] could already deal with,¡± said chief executive Luke Sheehy.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°They don¡¯t need an ATEC [Australian Tertiary Education Commission] to start funding¡­the direct costs of research at a higher rate. They should think about doing that sooner rather than later.¡±

The Innovative Research Universities network said a whole-of-government review of research funding was a good idea. ¡°But there were more immediate reforms, particularly to university research funding and PhD stipends, that we could have gotten moving on in the meantime,¡± said executive director Paul Harris.

While the accord recommended a ¡°formal strategic, cross-portfolio examination of national research funding¡±, it also pushed for more generous PhD stipends, a target for the number of PhD candidates employed in industry and a ¡°Solving Australian Challenges Strategic Fund¡± for university research.

¡°We need action, not more reviewing,¡± said Kylie Walker, chief executive of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. ¡°What we would like to see here is both happening at the same time.¡±

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

She said the strategic examination was important because it would help ¡°streamline¡± the government¡¯s involvement in research. ¡°An awful lot of inconsistency across the 14 or so portfolios that fund R&D federally¡­has unfortunately contributed to a colossal investment of time in just advocating for, arguing for, applying for and reporting against that funding. Statistics suggest that Australian researchers spend up to a third of their working days¡­just justifying their existence.¡±

Ms Walker said the review would also help in realising the governing Labor Party¡¯s long-standing aspiration to boost R&D spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. ¡°Understanding how government funds, incentivises and motivates the system will be¡­crucial,¡± she said.

¡°This government, and every government in fact, has spent a lot of energy on identifying what its priorities are for the economy, for research, for science. It would be really nice if we aligned the funding to support them.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com