John H Howard, 17 December 2024
Australia's technological future hangs in the balance. Our Science, Research and Innovation (SRI) architecture stands at a critical inflection point, demanding fundamental recalibration of institutional frameworks and strategic priorities.
The nation that pioneered Wi-Fi and the black box flight recorder now risks becoming a footnote in the global innovation race. The reasons for this decline run deep within the design of our SRI system.
Researchers and policy analysts have spent many years mapping and representing the innovation system in increasingly complex diagrams, flow charts and biological analogies. Strengths are celebrated as building blocks, but systemic weaknesses and failures have received much less attention.
Recently, a critical systemic weakness appeared most starkly in quantum computing. Australia produces world-class theoretical research but struggles to turn these insights into working technology. This isn't just about a gap between the lab and the market––it represents a fundamental weakness in how we organise and finance our innovation ecosystem.
While our universities excel at foundational research, they lack the institutional frameworks and funding mechanisms to develop practical applications. The 2022 Research Commercialisation Action Plan and the Higher Education Research Commercialisation (HERC) Intellectual Property (IP) Framework have been welcome initiatives. But the investment and take-up are too small to really shift the needle.
Geography plays a surprising role in this story. Despite our digital age, physical proximity still drives innovation. Consider Boston's Kendall Square, where a dense network of labs, startups, scale-ups, and venture capital firms creates a self-reinforcing innovation cycle. Scientists bump into entrepreneurs over coffee, ideas flow relatively freely between institutions, and access to rapid prototyping happens naturally through these informal networks.
Kendall Square, and others like it, are supported by investments in cultural facilities and amenities, creating vibrant neighbourhoods where innovation extends beyond lab walls. The area around MIT features performing arts venues, art galleries, experimental performance spaces, and design studios that attract diverse creative talent.
Boston’s Seaport Square Innovation District also links separate clusters of diverse activity and architectural character between the city’s historic waterfront and its contemporary landmarks. Like many innovation districts such as 22@ Barcelona, it has a strong urban renewal and property development underpinning.
Investment in socio-cultural infrastructure transforms what could be sterile research districts into living communities where scientists, entrepreneurs, and artists cross paths and develop the social capital and trust that underpins innovation. However, as discussed in previous blogs, there are downsides such as social gentrification and displacement, that cannot be ignored.
Australia's innovation precincts in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide are impressive but haven't quite yet captured this cultural and creative magic.
While Melbourne's Carlton/Parkville precinct benefits from its proximity to the city's cultural life, many of our research districts remain primarily technical zones, missing the creative ferment that characterises the world's most dynamic innovation districts. Some are isolated and disconnected on the urban fringes.
In addition, our vast distances, once mastered by telecommunications, now present an unexpected barrier: they work against the spontaneous connections that spark technological breakthroughs. This geographical challenge demands creative solutions beyond simply establishing more research parks and glistening new buildings.
The funding system poses an even more fundamental problem. Australia relies on tax incentives and three-year grant cycles––a system designed for a different era of innovation. This approach made sense when research progressed in predictable steps, and commercial applications were thought to follow a linear trajectory. But you can't build tomorrow's quantum computers or artificial intelligence systems with yesterday's funding models.
These short-term approaches actively discourage the patient, strategic investments that have worked so well elsewhere. America's DARPA shows what's possible with sustained, long-term funding. Its ambitious projects can run for decades, allowing researchers to tackle fundamental challenges without pressure for immediate commercial returns. Similarly, Israel's innovation ecosystem demonstrates how government funding can catalyse private investment in deep technology.
The solution demands more than money.
Australia must fundamentally rethink how it approaches innovation. The German Fraunhofer system offers valuable lessons, showing how public institutions can bridge the gap between research and industry. These institutes maintain independence while serving as crucial intermediaries, translating academic insights into industrial applications.
But we can't simply copy other nations' success stories. Australia must design its own framework that works with our federal system and business culture. This means creating new institutional forms that can coordinate across state boundaries while maintaining local autonomy. It means developing investment mechanisms that can support long-term technological development while satisfying public accountability requirements.
Time pressures make this challenge urgent. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is accelerating, blending physical, digital, and biological technologies. This isn't just about keeping up with global trends - it's about maintaining strategic sovereignty in critical technologies. Nations that fail to master these platform technologies risk permanent dependence on others.
Yet Australia holds strong cards. Our universities rank among the world's best. Our political system remains stable. Our location between East and West offers unique advantages in the global innovation race. The challenge lies in orchestrating these assets more effectively.
Success requires a new kind of public sector entrepreneurship––leaders who can match bold vision with practical execution. The transformation demands action across three horizons: fixing funding now, rebuilding institutions in the medium term, and transforming the entire system for the long term.
The stakes for a nation built on scientific and technological breakthroughs could not be higher. Today's choices will echo through future generations. They'll determine whether Australia leads the next wave of innovation or becomes a cautionary tale of missed opportunities.
The clock is ticking. At this juncture, standing still means falling behind.
This Insight draws on a longer Paper which can be downloaded at this link.
Comments