The federal government's budget decision to axe the $760 million Australia's Economic Accelerator (AEA) program and redirect its funds to support the CSIRO and the National Measurement Institute has sparked outrage among researchers and scientists. This move, dubbed 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' by critics, highlights a deeper issue with Australia's investment in research and development (R&D).
The Problem with R&D Investment
Australia's R&D investment as a proportion of GDP is a modest 1.7%, significantly lower than the OECD average of 2.7%. This disparity is concerning, as it suggests a lack of commitment to fostering innovation and economic growth. The AEA, established to bridge the gap between research and real-world applications, has been a crucial component in this ecosystem. Its axing not only disrupts ongoing projects but also sends a signal that the government is prioritizing short-term gains over long-term scientific advancement.
Personal Perspective: The Wasted Effort
Prof. Melanie Davern's experience is a stark example of the impact of this decision. She and her team spent months preparing a grant proposal, only to find out that their efforts were in vain. This wasted time and resources could have been directed towards other critical projects, further exacerbating the problem. The frustration felt by Davern and her colleagues is a shared sentiment among researchers across the country.
The Broader Impact
Universities Australia's chief executive, Luke Sheehy, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the sector's struggle with increased regulation and costs while facing a decline in investment. The AEA's axing, in particular, is seen as a setback for the 'Future Made in Australia' initiative, which aims to translate research into tangible economic benefits. The government's response to this criticism is twofold: a boost to CSIRO and the establishment of the National Resilience and Science Council. However, these measures may not adequately address the underlying issue of insufficient R&D investment.
The Way Forward
The Australian Academy of Science's president, Prof. Chennupati Jagadish, and Science & Technology Australia's CEO, Ryan Winn, both welcomed the new council but stressed the need for more substantial investment. The government's budget, while showing some support for science, fails to address the critical need for sustained and significant funding for R&D. This discrepancy between rhetoric and action is a recurring theme in Australia's scientific landscape.
In conclusion, the AEA's axing is a symptom of a larger problem in Australia's approach to R&D. The government must recognize the importance of consistent and adequate funding to foster innovation and economic growth. Without this, the country risks falling behind in the global race for scientific advancement.
