National Statement of Science Investment

National Statement of Science Investment
Name	National Statement of Science Investment
Adopted	2015
Jurisdiction	Australia
Status	Active

National Statement of Science Investment

The National Statement of Science Investment is a strategic policy framework that set priorities for public research funding, institutional grants, and industry partnerships in Australia. Framed amid debates involving the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Australia), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and universities such as Australian National University, the Statement influenced interactions between agencies like the Medical Research Future Fund and bodies including the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Its release followed national reviews and reports involving panels with figures from CSIRO, University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, and representatives tied to the Treasury of Australia.

Background and Purpose

The Statement emerged after inquiries and white papers that involved stakeholders such as the Dick Smith-era technology commentators, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists-linked experts, and review committees featuring academics from Monash University and University of Queensland. It responded to prior assessments from the Review of Research Policy and policy papers influenced by think tanks including the Grattan Institute and discussions in the Parliament of Australia. The document sought to reconcile recommendations from inquiries that referenced international models like the Office of Science and Technology (UK), the National Science Foundation (United States), and the European Research Council while addressing national agenda items raised in forums such as the National Press Club (Australia) and consultations with stakeholders from BHP, CSL Limited, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Key Objectives and Targets

Objectives articulated in the Statement aligned with priorities championed by institutions like the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and research-intensive universities including University of New South Wales and University of Western Australia. Targets included shifts proposed in conjunction with agencies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, aims to increase collaboration with organisations like RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and industry partners such as Telstra and Woodside Petroleum. The Statement referenced competitiveness benchmarks from bodies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, innovation indicators used by the World Bank, and performance metrics comparable to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Max Planck Society.

Funding and Budget Allocation

Budgetary measures in the Statement affected funding streams overseen by the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and grant programs connected to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Fiscal decisions intersected with the Australian Treasury, budget processes debated in the Senate (Australia), and appropriations that influenced research at institutions such as Deakin University, La Trobe University, and Griffith University. Funding reallocation referenced precedents from the Strategic Innovation Fund (Australia), private-public models seen in agreements with Chevron Corporation affiliates, and co-investment schemes resembling partnerships between Boeing and national laboratories.

Implementation and Governance

Governance mechanisms invoked in the Statement relied on executive oversight by ministers from cabinets including the Prime Minister of Australia and portfolios like the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology (Australia). Implementation mobilised advisory committees composed of representatives from the Australian Research Council, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, university vice-chancellors from University of Adelaide and University of Tasmania, and industry leaders from firms such as Rio Tinto and Qantas. The framework drew on institutional arrangements similar to governance in the National Health Service (United Kingdom) reforms and coordination models used by the Department of Education (Australia).

Domestic and International Impacts

Domestically, the Statement influenced research directions at medical centres like the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and institutes such as the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, and shaped collaboration with state entities including the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government. Internationally, the Statement framed bilateral science diplomacy engagements with partners like the United States, the People's Republic of China, and the United Kingdom, and affected participation in multilateral initiatives such as the International Energy Agency and collaboration frameworks that include the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. It altered industry links with multinational corporations including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and research consortia like the Human Frontier Science Program.

Criticism and Debates

Critics from bodies like the Australian Council of Learned Academies and commentators in outlets such as the Australian Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald argued that the Statement favoured short-term industry priorities over foundational research championed by academics at Macquarie University and Curtin University. Parliamentary scrutiny in committees of the House of Representatives (Australia) highlighted tensions over outcomes versus investigator-driven grants promoted by groups linked to the Royal Society (United Kingdom) and the European Commission. Debates involved unions such as the National Tertiary Education Union and industry associations including the Business Council of Australia.

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Outcomes

Evaluation mechanisms referenced performance reporting practices from the Australian National Audit Office and monitoring models analogous to those used by the National Audit Office (United Kingdom), with inputs from agencies like the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Outcomes tracked included changes in citation metrics that referenced indexing by Scopus (Elsevier) and databases such as Web of Science, patent filings through IP offices including IP Australia, and translational outputs linked to partners like CSIRO and biomedical firms such as Novartis. Independent reviews by panels similar to those convened by the Allen Consulting Group and reassessments discussed in forums like the Lowy Institute informed iterative policy adjustments.

Category:Science policy of Australia