42 ||MAY/JUNE 2017
Most government research funding programs are ostensibly
guided by some set of priorities, mainly based on the National
Science and Research Priorities or potential linkages with one
of the Industry Growth Centres.
The basic rationale for defining priorities is recognition that
the research budget is finite, so expenditure should be directed
to areas where Australia is seen to have a comparative advantage,
either actually or potentially. This allows a critical mass of
research activity – people, training, infrastructure and other
resources – to be built up rather than seeing the investment
spread thinly, making it difficult to reach world leadership
status.
This aim is laudable but are research priorities useful in practice?
Applicants under the broad range of government programs
aimed at supporting research and, in some cases, commercial-
isation will invariably be asked to identify into which of a
program’s priorities their proposal falls. Unfortunately this
presents a series of dilemmas for those called on to assess the
applications and determine which should be funded.Generality versus Specificity
There are very few STEM-related proposals that could not be
fitted into one or more of the very broad National Science and
Research Priorities, or the subsets of these used for particular
programs. This immediately begs the question: why bother
with the priorities to start with?
A way around this might be to expand the number of prior-
ities and define them more exactly, such as “low emission/renew-
able energy” rather than “energy”, or “additive” rather than
“advanced” manufacturing. However, progressing down this
track will make the system even more complicated and lead to
disputes as to why one field is included but not another.Quality versus Compliance
By imposing priorities to be addressed in research grant appli-
cations, the issue of how to balance excellence with the extent
to which the work meets the requirements of the priority area
arises. It would be highly undesirable to exclude a proposal
covering a world-class piece of research, or having potential for
very attractive commercial or other outcomes, in favour of a
more pedestrian submission that adheres more closely to the
priorities laid down.
A criterion could be adopted that compliance with priorities
(or linkage with an Industry Growth Centre) only becomes a
factor in the assessment if all other factors are ranked virtually
equal. But again the question arises: why bother with priori-
ties in the first place?Competing Priorities
As well as priorities defined for research and Growth Centres,
the government has a series of other high level economy-wide
priorities. These include such things as creating (and main-
taining) jobs, economic growth, export performance, climate
change mitigation and adaptation (meeting international obli-
gations), and skills development. While there is some align-
ment of these, it needs to be asked why the long-term potential
of such things as jobs and growth do not weigh more heavily in
assessing applications for government support of research.Interdisciplinary Research
Many future research breakthroughs will cross traditional disci-
pline boundaries. It’s already a struggle to break through the
established faculty/department/division structures in research
(and research funding) organisations, so imposing another
potential set of boundaries by requiring any proposal to fit a
national priority could present another hurdle to jump for this
type of work to be initiated.Research Infrastructure
Careful consideration of priorities would be justified when it
comes to planning high-cost research infrastructure. The argu-
ment for using priorities to avoid fragmentation of effort is far
more compelling if it builds the case for a large infrastructure
investment (or better utilisation of an existing facility).
The problem is often that infrastructure such as synchrotrons,
NMR machines and large-scale 3-D printers often crosses the
boundaries of the national research priorities, making the case
for capital investment more difficult to develop. Surely what
level of utilisation is likely or what contribution the equipment
makes to improving the productivity of the research under-
taken is just as important as which national priority it supports?
Unquestionably Australia needs to identify, publicise and
celebrate where its existing and potential research strengths lie.
Processes such as the ERA and the work on engagement and
impact are important to better understand the research system
and to justify the public investment it requires. Equally impor-
tant is to define the major challenges that the application of
STEM research can help address.
However, to use these strengths and challenges to establish
priorities that guide the allocation of government support for
research can undermine the required focus on excellence,
discourage “thinking outside the box” and place a greater
emphasis on assessing the inputs to the research system rather
than the potential outcomes.
Peter Laver AM FTSE is a former Director of ATSE and Chancellor of Victoria University.Are Research Priorities Useful?
Research priorities can place a greater emphasis on inputs than the potential outcomes.DirECTiONS Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering