tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/science-and-research-priorities-18354/articlesScience and research priorities – The Conversation2023-07-20T04:28:18Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2099772023-07-20T04:28:18Z2023-07-20T04:28:18ZMedical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538404/original/file-20230719-15-3n1kch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C276%2C4940%2C3046&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-doing-a-sample-test-in-the-laboratory-4033148/">Edward Jenner/Pexels</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> (MRFF) is a A$20 billion fund to support Australian health and medical research. It was set up in 2015 to deliver practical benefits from medical research and innovation to as many Australians as possible. </p>
<p>Unlike the other research funding agencies, such the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), most of the MRFF funding is priority-driven. It seeks to fund research in particular areas or topics rather than using open calls when researchers propose their own ideas for funding.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-how-you-run-a-1b-scheme-science-fund-backers-lead-chorus-for-reform-20230619-p5dhni.html">Nine newspapers</a> outlined this week, researchers have criticised the previous Coalition government’s allocation of MRFF funds. There is widespread consensus the former health minister had <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-centre-never-built-and-a-hospital-that-missed-out-the-coalition-s-unusual-20b-research-fund-20230619-p5dhng.html">too much influence</a> in the allocation of funds, and there was limited and sometimes no competition when funding was directly allocated to one research group.</p>
<p>The current Health Minister, Mark Butler, has instituted a <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/billion-dollar-medical-research-grants-process-under-review/">review</a>. So how should the big decisions about how to spend the MRFF be made in the future to maximise its value and achieve its aims? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-brian-schmidts-big-ideas-for-how-australia-funds-and-uses-research-204015">Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt's big ideas for how Australia funds and uses research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Assess gaps in evidence</h2>
<p>Research priorities for the MRFF are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-medical-research-advisory-board-amrab?language=und">Australian Medical Research Advisory Board</a>, which widely consults with the research sector. </p>
<p>However, most researchers and institutions will simply argue more funding is needed for their own research. If the board seeks to satisfy such lobbying, it will produce fragmented funding that aligns poorly with the health needs of Australians.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Scientist at a busy bench in a lab" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most researchers will argue more funding is needed for their research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/scientist-in-laboratory-3735736/">Polina Tankilevitch/Pexels</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A better approach would be to systematically assemble evidence about what is known and the key evidence gaps. Here, the board would benefit from what is known as a “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484602/">value of information</a>” framework for decision-making. </p>
<p>This framework systematically attempts to quantify the most valuable information that will reduce the uncertainty for health and medical decision-making. In other words, it would pinpoint which information we need to allow us to better make health and medical decisions.</p>
<p>There have been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288400/">attempts</a> to use this method in Australia to help inform how we prioritise hospital-based research. However, we now need to apply such an approach more broadly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-has-left-australias-biomedical-research-sector-gasping-for-air-145022">COVID has left Australia's biomedical research sector gasping for air</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Seek public input</h2>
<p>A structured framework for engaging with the public is also missing in Australia. The public’s perspective on research prioritisation has often been overlooked, but as the ultimate consumers of research, they need to be heard. </p>
<p>Research is a highly complex and specialised endeavour, so we can’t expect the public to create sensible priorities alone.</p>
<p>One approach used overseas has been developed by the <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/">James Lind Alliance</a>, a group in the United Kingdom that combines the public’s views with researchers to create agreed-on priorities for research. </p>
<p>This is done using an intensive process of question setting and discussion. Priorities are checked for feasibility and novelty, so there is no funding for research that’s impossible or already done.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Doctor writes on a tablet" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research priorities aren’t always obvious.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/crop-doctor-writing-prescription-on-paper-6098057/">Laura James/Pexels</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The priorities from the James Lind Alliance process can be surprising. The top priority in the area of <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/irritable-bowel-syndrome/top-10-priorities.htm">irritable bowel syndrome</a>, for example, is to discover if it’s one condition or many, while the second priority is to work on bowel urgency (a sudden urgent need to go to the toilet). </p>
<p>While such everyday questions can struggle to get funding in traditional systems that often focus on novelty, funding research in these two priority areas could lead to the most benefits for people with irritable bowel syndrome.</p>
<h2>Consider our comparative advantages</h2>
<p>Australia is a relatively small player globally. To date, the MRFF has allocated around <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-grant-recipients?language=und">$2.6 billion</a>, just over 5% of what the United States allocates through the National Institute of Health funding in a <a href="https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-health-research-and-development/monitoring/investments-on-grants-for-biomedical-research-by-funder-type-of-grant-health-category-and-recipient">single year</a>.</p>
<p>A single research grant, even if it involves a few million dollars of funding, is unlikely to lead to a medical breakthrough. Instead, the MRFF should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage. </p>
<p>This could involve building on past success (such as the research that led to the HPV, or human papillomavirus, vaccine to prevent cervical cancer), or where Australian researchers can play a critical role globally.</p>
<p>However, there is an area where Australian researchers have an absolute advantage: using research to improve our own health system. </p>
<p>A prime example would be finding ways to improve dental care access in Australia. For example, a randomised trial of different ways of providing insurance and dental services, similar to the <a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/projects/hie.html">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a> conducted in the United States in the 1970s. </p>
<p>This could provide the evidence needed to design a sustainable dental scheme to complement Medicare. Now that is something the MRFF should consider as a funding priority.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/expensive-dental-care-worsens-inequality-is-it-time-for-a-medicare-style-denticare-scheme-207910">Expensive dental care worsens inequality. Is it time for a Medicare-style 'Denticare' scheme?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209977/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Barnett receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is a member of the NHMRC Research Committee; this article represents his own views.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Clarke receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund via grants held at the University of Melbourne.</span></em></p>The Medical Research Future Fund should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage.Adrian Barnett, Professor of Statistics, Queensland University of TechnologyPhilip Clarke, Professor of Health Economics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1609992021-05-18T20:11:35Z2021-05-18T20:11:35Z‘Devastated and sad’ after 36 years of research — early detection of ovarian cancer doesn’t save lives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401148/original/file-20210518-23-1uo0j2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/women-touching-lower-abdomen-629505710">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My colleagues’ and my efforts to develop a screening test for the early detection of ovarian cancer capable of saving lives arrived at a sad moment last week. The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00731-5/fulltext">final trial results</a> of the research I’ve focused on for 36 years, published in The Lancet, found early ovarian cancer detection doesn’t save lives. </p>
<p>The advances we have seen in science and technology over the past three decades have been nothing short of phenomenal. Each smartphone has more computational power than NASA had at its disposal during the moon landings. In medicine, researchers have sequenced the human genome, created life-saving treatment for HIV and rapidly developed vaccines for COVID-19.</p>
<p>There have been significant improvements in ovarian cancer treatment involving surgery and chemotherapy, but the sad and frustrating truth is of the <a href="https://www.ovariancancer.net.au/page/152/the-statistics#:%7E:text=Each%2520day%2520in%2520Australia%252C%2520four,with%2520breast%2520cancer%2520is%252091%2525">four women diagnosed with ovarian cancer</a> in Australia each day, three will eventually die from the disease. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/interactive-we-mapped-cancer-rates-across-australia-search-for-your-postcode-here-102256">INTERACTIVE: We mapped cancer rates across Australia – search for your postcode here</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The diagnosis of ovarian cancer is dependent on women reporting symptoms to their doctor. However, few develop symptoms until they have advanced stage cancer, by which time the outlook is poor. Of all women’s cancers, ovarian cancer has the lowest survival rate, with just <a href="https://www.ovariancancer.net.au/page/152/the-statistics#:%7E:text=Each%2520day%2520in%2520Australia%252C%2520four,with%2520breast%2520cancer%2520is%252091%2525">46% of patients in Australia</a> surviving five years. For breast cancer, it’s <a href="https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/types-of-cancer/breast-cancer">now 91%</a>.</p>
<h2>Back in the 80s</h2>
<p>I was motivated to improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer by my experience as a junior doctor in London in 1985. I was training with a brilliant surgeon who undertook operations for many women with ovarian cancer. In spite of the exhaustive surgery and the chemotherapy that followed, we saw far too many women suffer and die from ovarian cancer. </p>
<p>That experience inspired me to initiate a program of research designed to find a screening test to detect this cancer early. Women with the earliest stage of ovarian cancer had survival rates of 70%, but less than 20% of women with ovarian cancer were diagnosed that early. </p>
<p>My hypothesis was that if we could detect more cancers at an early stage it would save lives. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401154/original/file-20210518-19-1iawr2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We saw too many women suffer and die from ovarian cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hospital-interior-corridor-bue-greece-1256860270">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Based on evidence from other cancers, there was reason to be hopeful and two potential tests were available – a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6310399">blood test</a> called CA 125 and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(82)91622-1">the use of ultrasound scanning</a> which was then widely used in obstetrics.</p>
<p>Over the next 15 years, working with colleagues in the United Kingdom and United States, I developed and refined the screening tests and had great hope for what we called “multimodal screening”. This involved a “risk of ovarian cancer algorithm” for interpreting the change in blood levels of CA 125 over time to identify women who had a rising pattern, indicating an elevated risk of ovarian cancer. Women with an elevated risk could then have a secondary test involving ultrasound scanning. </p>
<p>During those 15 years, we published <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(88)90351-0">convincing evidence</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10261-1">in studies</a> involving over 50,000 women that this approach to screening was safe, acceptable to women, could detect over 85% of the cancers early and would probably be cost effective <em>if</em> sufficient lives were saved.</p>
<h2>Promising early results</h2>
<p>Before advocating screening of the general population, a massive trial would be needed to determine whether the screening would actually save lives. </p>
<p>The trial needed to involve screening and follow up of approximately 200,000 women for around 20 years. This would eventually include 2,000 women with ovarian cancer – enough to determine whether or not screening saved lives.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401161/original/file-20210518-19-1lq971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The trial involved great numbers of participants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/people-walking-work-street-new-york-420091906">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Work got underway in the United Kingdom in 2000 and optimism grew as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9">initial results confirmed</a> the ability of multimodal screening to detect cancer early in over 85% of cases. </p>
<p>By 2015, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6">preliminary mortality data</a> were available and were tantalising. The curves hinted at a 20% or more reduction in deaths from ovarian cancer, but the findings did not quite reach statistical significance. So another five years of painstaking follow up was needed.</p>
<h2>Disappointing final results</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00731-5/fulltext">final results of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening</a> showed the multimodal screening approach could detect cancers early and increase the number of early-stage ovarian cancers by almost 50%. </p>
<p>But to our surprise and despair, that did not reduce the number of deaths from ovarian cancer. All it seemed to do was to bring forward the time of diagnosis of the cancers in these women, without improving their survival.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman has blood taken for a blood test." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401254/original/file-20210518-15-1djldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Under the multimodal screening program, women were first given a blood test for levels of CA 125.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/swab-pressed-onto-injection-site-during-521751805">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is deeply disappointing. Disappointing of course for those who like myself have dedicated much of their professional lives to this effort, but much more importantly for the women across the world who we had hoped would have access to an effective screening test able to save lives. </p>
<p>The hope had been to deploy ovarian cancer screening for women in the general population alongside breast and cervical cancer screening, but that will not happen – for a while at least.</p>
<h2>Why didn’t early detection save lives?</h2>
<p>To answer that, we need to further analyse samples and data from the trial. Our suspicion is that the women whose cancers were detected early by screening had more aggressive cancers than those (the 10%) whose cancers were detected early without screening, on the basis of symptoms. </p>
<p>So even with early detection, their cancers progressed relentlessly despite them receiving the best available surgery and chemotherapy. </p>
<p>If that is the case, we are likely to require screening tests which can detect ovarian cancer even earlier than our algorithm, which we estimate picks up ovarian cancer 18 to 24 months early. Saving lives may require a test capable of picking up the cancers five or more years early. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-negative-clinical-trials-59904">Why we need to pay more attention to negative clinical trials</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Fortunately, there are exciting avenues of research involving advances in protein and DNA technologies which researchers in Australia and around the world are exploring. So there is hope. </p>
<p>But realistically, given the five-plus years needed to develop better screening tests and the ten to 15-plus years needed to have enough cases to conduct another large randomised trial, the solution is likely to be more than 20 years away.</p>
<h2>Still, we’ve learnt a lot</h2>
<p>This massive commitment of expertise, time, energy and funding has most definitely not been wasted. Much has been achieved along the way in this 36-year journey in developing ways to assess risk, diagnose cancer and prevent ovarian cancer which are now used in clinical practice. </p>
<p>New generations of researchers have been trained. The data and the blood bank collected is available to all researchers seeking new and better screening tests and is a unique resource. And the ability to detect ovarian cancer early may be invaluable in assessing new treatments. </p>
<p>I feel privileged to have led this effort and will always be grateful to the collaborators, researchers, health professionals, funding agencies and above all the 200,000 women who took part in the trial. </p>
<p>I feel a deep sadness that lives will not yet be saved by ovarian cancer screening, but I’m confident the next generation of researchers will build on our work and find approaches to screening and treatment of ovarian cancer which dramatically reduce the loss and suffering caused by this insidious disease.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-has-left-australias-biomedical-research-sector-gasping-for-air-145022">COVID has left Australia's biomedical research sector gasping for air</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Jacobs is a President and Vice-Chancellor of UNSW Sydney and a Board member of Ovarian Cancer Australia. He is a director and shareholder of Abcodia Ltd which holds a licence from Massuchusetts General Hospital for the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm and as a Co-Inventor of the Algorithm he has a potential royalty stream. He received funding awards for UKCTOCS from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute of Health Research and the Eve Appeal.</span></em></p>I was motivated to improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer by my experience as a junior doctor in London in 1985. But 36 years on, the results aren’t what we’d hoped.Ian Jacobs, President and Vice-Chancellor, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1162692019-05-14T00:47:52Z2019-05-14T00:47:52ZScientists want to build trust in science and technology. The alternative is too risky to contemplate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273204/original/file-20190507-73126-m3nb0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not everyone trusts that science will bring benefits to society. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kiev-ukraine-june-10-chemical-experiment-1170823279?src=m9vEQwVHrNfFpAZX2Lkd6g-2-17">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/parties-to-set-themselves-apart-with-science/">New research</a> shows that despite differences in their funding commitments, major political parties in Australia – the Coalition, Labor and the Greens – see science and technology as important aspects of our economy and future prosperity. </p>
<p>But that’s not enough. </p>
<p>It’s also crucial that the Australian public is able to have a say on priorities for scientific research and its applications. The <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2014.922642">social license of science</a> depends on being able to engage with the public. Without this, scientists and other experts risk losing public trust. </p>
<p>This could have real implications for achieving the public good when it comes to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-disruptive-technologies-that-will-shape-business-in-the-years-ahead-53054">emerging disruptive technologies</a> (like robotics and AI), the environment (including <a href="https://theconversation.com/revolutionary-change-needed-to-stop-unprecedented-global-extinction-crisis-116166">climate change</a>) and more. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-people-not-care-about-science-22473">Why do some people not care about science?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott recently pointed to tensions between government, the public and scientists, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-many-experts-tony-abbott-advocates-the-power-of-a-backbencher-in-debate-with-zali-steggall-20190502-p51jk5.html">saying</a> “we sub-contract too much out to experts already”. So how can we build, and not erode, trust in Australia’s scientists and other experts?</p>
<p>We recently worked with scientists to distil priorities they think should be front and centre in building a trusting relationship between science and the public. </p>
<p>They say that improvements can be made in: </p>
<ul>
<li>transparency</li>
<li>high ethical standards</li>
<li>two-way dialogue between scientists and the public. </li>
</ul>
<h2>A new charter</h2>
<p>The social license for science is not a “set and forget” exercise. As disruptive technologies emerge, scientists need to re-engage the general public to understand changing expectations and views about science.</p>
<p>With election 2019 in mind, late in 2018 the Australian Academy of Science (<a href="https://www.science.org.au/">AAS</a>) called for a new <a href="https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/position-statements/earning-our-future-platform">charter</a> to re-set the relationship between science and government, and to identify fresh ways for the general public to be involved in science. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stem-is-worth-investing-in-but-australias-major-parties-offer-scant-details-on-policy-and-funding-113739">STEM is worth investing in, but Australia's major parties offer scant details on policy and funding</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Focusing on key areas highlighted by the AAS, we adapted <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031824">existing research methods</a> to gather survey responses from 174 respondents across the science and innovation sector, and collated over 700 priority statements. </p>
<p>A group of 18 scientists – both senior and early career researchers across science domains – then gathered in Canberra on April 18 to work through the survey findings, and identify priorities for re-freshing scientists’ social licence. For this workshop exercise, we did a first cut of analysis and grouped the statements for similarity. </p>
<p>The survey data indicate the majority of respondents believe science should be based on transparency, openness, and meaningful dialogue with society. They also believe the ethical pursuit of research and innovation is important. However, the majority feel that current institutional arrangements don’t support these aspirations.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-it-means-to-know-your-audience-when-communicating-about-science-111147">What it means to ‘know your audience’ when communicating about science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What do we need?</h2>
<p>Participants in the workshop offered a set of priorities for action. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274234/original/file-20190514-60532-j6six6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274220/original/file-20190514-60537-17hyptp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274235/original/file-20190514-60532-1u0zk9o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How the science sector can do better</h2>
<p>Some of these principles don’t cover new ground – for example, some aspects were already contained in the 2018 release of the <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/research-integrity/release-2018-australian-code-responsible-conduct-research">Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research</a>. Also many scientists would say that openness, engagement and integrity are already central to their work. </p>
<p>But there is a sense running through this list of priorities that the science sector could collectively be doing better. That perhaps some of the ways scientists engage with the public, open up their work for debate or reflect on ethical implications are limited by old assumptions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-is-important-but-moves-too-fast-five-charts-on-how-australians-view-science-and-scientists-82752">Science is important but moves too fast: five charts on how Australians view science and scientists</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Also, scientists will need a lot more support from science and policy institutions if they want to shake up the old ways of doing things.</p>
<p>We hope these results mark the beginning of a longer conversation – as well as some concrete actions – about what a social licence for science means, and what is needed to meet public obligations in doing good science. </p>
<p>Some of this is already happening internationally, as learned academies combine forces to speak to governments about tackling critical shared challenges posed by environmental change and new technologies. Scientists, they stress, need to <a href="https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/Science_and_trust_G7_2019_01.pdf">prioritise meaningful conversations with citizens</a> and policy-makers should do more to create the infrastructure to make this possible. </p>
<p>In Australia, it’s important the next government meets the challenge of refreshing the social licence between science, government and the many and diverse communities that make up our nation. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>The research described in this article was designed and undertaken by a team of researchers from the Australian National University and The University of Queensland and CSIRO. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency or organisation.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116269/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from The Australian Research Council. She also is Chair of the National Committee for History and Philosophy of Science at The Australian Academy of Science. The work reported in this article was supported by funding from CSIRO's Responsible Innovation Initiative and The Australian Academy of Science. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Herington has previously received funding from the Australian Government Endeavour Leadership Program, and the American Australian Association. The work reported in this article was supported by funding from CSIRO’s Responsible Innovation Initiative and the Australian Academy of Science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sujatha Raman has previously received research funding from UK agencies including the Leverhulme Trust, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The work reported in this article was supported by funding from CSIRO's Responsible Innovation Initiative and the Australian Academy of Science. </span></em></p>In Australia, the next government will need to meet the challenge of refreshing the social licence between science, government and the many and diverse communities that make up our nation.Joan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityMatthew Herington, Research Fellow in Responsible Innovation, Centre for Policy Futures, The University of QueenslandSujatha Raman, Associate Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502432015-11-10T00:48:37Z2015-11-10T00:48:37ZWe need to fund more than just science priorities for Australia’s future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101333/original/image-20151109-29317-1q8pewq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What about the research that's not considered a 'priority'?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gjw/925335078/">Flickr/Grant Williamson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not long to go before Wednesday’s deadline for the 2016 <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/linkage-projects">Linkage Projects</a>, another national competitive research funding scheme run by the Australian Research Council (ARC).</p>
<p>I’m trying to complete an application but I’m struggling with one of the questions: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does this proposal fall within one of the <a href="http://science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/ThePriorities.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a>?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia’s outgoing Chief Scientist Ian Chubb introduced Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">nine research priorities</a> earlier this year by saying “[…] science is both awesome and awesomely important […].”</p>
<p>There is no denying the joint power of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) has brought about many inventions and innovations. Considering the numerous and seemingly insurmountable problems society faces, it is a fair call to expect greatness from STEM.</p>
<p>But this focus comes with consequences that in the long term are detrimental to all Australians and the overall goal of sustaining our livelihood, prosperity and high standard of living.</p>
<p>Academia has long recognised that wicked problems require cross-disciplinary research approaches, yet Australia’s Science and Research Priorities enthral mainly STEM researchers. This divide puts academia back into silos: those on the sunny side of funding decisions and those under a constant rain cloud.</p>
<p>Encouragement and incentives for the hard sciences to collaborate with the social sciences, design, arts and humanities and vice versa are scarce.</p>
<h2>Creativity, design and social innovation</h2>
<p>STEM usually goes hand-in-hand with a focus on entrepreneurship and start-up businesses. For good reasons, as entrepreneurship makes traditional industries more competitive. This often creates a multiplier effect, leveraging new jobs for the industry as a whole.</p>
<p>But the entrepreneurship community is often dominated by the desire to replicate the success of Silicon Valley, which can blind them to regard only a tech start-up as truly entrepreneurial.</p>
<p>Great promise rests on new approaches such as exploring creative and social entrepreneurship. Some have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0239-y">argued</a> that social entrepreneurship complements the scientific method in solving some of the increasingly complex problems facing modern society.</p>
<p>Consider food. Food is more than the industrial agricultural mass production of commodified sustenance.</p>
<p>The research challenges in food that are not adequately being addressed by STEM alone include:</p>
<ul>
<li>new design approaches to shorten the distance between producers and consumers</li>
<li>ways of addressing the main causes of the mental health epidemic among Australian farmers such as adhesion contracts by seed and supermarket giants and the impact of coal seam gas – with the late <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4341168.htm">George Bender</a> being the most recent victim</li>
<li>learning from indigenous knowledge and practices of caring for country, such as <a href="http://www.abriculture.com/">abriculture</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>The list of important challenges that the social sciences, design, arts and humanities are well equipped to tackle is long and nowhere to be found in Australia’s research priorities.</p>
<p>There’s nature, climate change, animal welfare, extinctions and the loss of biodiversity. There is also poverty and international aid, migrants and refugees, racism and xenophobia. Then consider regional development, mental health, women and children, domestic violence, people living with disabilities, LGBT rights and equality, homelessness, indigenous peoples of Australia, the list goes on.</p>
<p>Are these social, cultural and environmental concerns less worthy of receiving priority funding?</p>
<h2>The human priority</h2>
<p>What about research into our own human condition? Given all the science and technology advances that brought us automation and higher productivity, we often end up being rushed, having less time for family and friends. We work longer hours and wait longer until we are able to retire. We suffer from stress and other preventable diseases, and are less happy overall.</p>
<p>For US President Barack Obama, the “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/04/barack-obama-empathy-deficit">empathy deficit</a>” is a research priority more important than his federal deficit.</p>
<p>Another research priority should be finding new ways to expand the toolbox available to citizens to participate in their community, in their city, in society, in local forms of governance, to take action and bring about change for good.</p>
<p>Can we offer more and better options than the usual array of voting every couple of years, petitioning, protesting, volunteering and donating? Social media to the rescue? How do we deal with the digital walled gardens of Google, Facebook and Twitter that encapsulate everyone inside <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles">filter bubbles</a>?</p>
<p>Australia’s cities house not just major infrastructure but also <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/">89.3%</a> of our population, which makes us one of the most urbanised countries in the world. This presents many complex challenges that my <a href="http://www.urbaninformatics.net">research lab</a> is extremely passionate about, and so I declare my bias when I call for the socio-cultural facets of cities to also be a research priority – and not only cities, but population growth.</p>
<p>The biggest challenge humanity faces is figuring out what comes after growth. The late US Professor Al Bartlett superbly demonstrated in his famous <a href="http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html">lecture</a> that growth cannot continue without bounds. And growth does not equal prosperity. Economists unite and figure out: how do we <a href="http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications">descend prosperously</a>?</p>
<h2>A better way</h2>
<p>So what encouragement is there for those researchers – who may be completing their application for ARC Linkage Projects – who want to do their best to better society but have their work not considered a priority?</p>
<p>It’s hard enough <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ins-and-outs-of-research-grant-funding-committees-49900">to get a grant accepted</a> with last week’s announcements of the ARC Discovery Projects down to a 17.7% approval rate.</p>
<p>If we are serious about encouraging research that will secure and sustain a future for Australia, I encourage the incoming Chief Scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-finkel-to-be-australias-new-chief-scientist-49733">Alan Finkel</a> to cast his net wider than the current priorities.</p>
<p>We need not just STEM to the rescue, but we need all research hands on deck.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marcus Foth receives research funding from the Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme, and the Australian Government's Low Income Energy Efficiency Program. He is a member of the Queensland Greens and was their 2015 Queensland State Election candidate for Mount Isa.</span></em></p>It’s hard enough to get research funding in Australia, so what if your work falls outside one of the areas declared a “priority”?Marcus Foth, Professor of Urban Informatics, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/442992015-08-28T03:21:09Z2015-08-28T03:21:09ZSetting priorities for environmental research is daunting when the questions are so huge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93143/original/image-20150827-372-1su13uy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gamba Grass is altering fire regimes in the Top End, threatening human life and property, natural assets including Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks, and compromising savanna burning programs.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Samantha Setterfield</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Ian Lowe</strong></p>
<p><em>Emeritus Professor, Griffith University and former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation</em></p>
<p>A few years ago I was part of an exercise to identify the important knowledge gaps that prevent effective environmental management in Australia. The study was motivated by a recognition that our future well-being depends critically on the health of the natural systems we rely on for clean air, water and the resources for food production, as well as indirect benefits derived from a healthy environment. </p>
<p>We published a <a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/23228/Big_eco_questions.pdf">paper</a> which identified areas of environmental management that are profoundly hindered by a lack of basic scientific knowledge, rather than just by a lack of policy development and management. </p>
<p>Of the 22 big questions we identified, more than half are directly related to climate change, while several concern our limited understanding of marine systems. These are still the top priorities today. </p>
<p>We identified four global issues that are important for Australia: integrating environmental management with other human needs; tackling climate change; ocean acification; and coastal flooding (note that most Australians live near the coast).</p>
<p>As well as those global issues, we have a particular local problem: the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-endangered-species">continuing loss of our unique biodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>There is some overlap here with the main areas identified by the government’s <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/ThePriorities.aspx">new research priorities</a>, which in the area of environmental change call for attention to be directed towards: better prediction of climate impacts; making our urban, rural and regional infrastructure more resilient; and helping our biological systems, communities and industries adapt to environmental change.</p>
<p>Our paper went on to pose a series of questions that need answers if we are to overcome the current lack of knowledge that is holding back our environmental management.</p>
<p>To integrate environmental management with other human needs, we need to know how to value natural ecosystems so that financial incentives can be used to help preserve them, and the environmental costs of production can be incorporated into the prices of goods and services.</p>
<p>We also need well-defined sustainability goals, a knowledge of how much change different ecosystems can tolerate, and an understanding of what management policies will work best in each situation. </p>
<p>With relation to climate change, we need to know how to downscale global climate models to give us useful predictions at the landscape scale for Australia. More specifically, we need to know how fire regimes are likely to be influenced by climate change and how best to manage them; how marine systems such as coral reefs are likely to respond to changes such as increased ocean acification; how agriculture might change (or even physically move location) in the future; and how coastal systems such as freshwater aquifers will respond to sea-level rise.</p>
<p>We also need to devise and implement an early detection system for potential invasive species such as new weeds, pests, pathogens, and diseases.</p>
<p>And a big question about our loss of biodiversity is whether we can reverse and restore the loss of species in degraded landscapes, and in particular how we can preserve them to prevent further loss?</p>
<p>While there are many areas where we know what needs to be done and are still failing to respond because of ideology or short-term political expediency, the areas identified here require basic research if we are to make informed decisions. This is far from a comprehensive list. </p>
<p>As much of the environmental damage done in the past has been the result of ignorance, improving our knowledge should be a top priority.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93135/original/image-20150827-372-1oxbbal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We urgently need to know how fire regimes will respond to changing climates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ian Dixon</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Andrew Campbell</strong></p>
<p><em>Director, Research Institute for Environment and Livelihoods at Charles Darwin University</em></p>
<p>Others in this series will rightly focus on research priorities in terms of the “what?” questions: identifying the topics most deserving of attention. Important, of course, but I prefer to focus on the “how?” questions. How should we go about understanding an issue as complex and contentious as environmental change?</p>
<p>Let’s take at face value the term “environmental change” as being broader than just “climate change”, rather than the former being simply euphemistic code for the latter.</p>
<p>Fair enough – there are lots of drivers of environmental change besides global warming: human consumption and pollution; invasive species; agriculture and land clearing; changing fire regimes; and mining, to name a few. Of course, many of these intersect with, and are worsened by, climate change.</p>
<p>In broad terms, we know what we need to do. Over the next century or so, we have some deceptively simple objectives:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Decouple economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions</p></li>
<li><p>Increase food production while using less land, water and nutrients</p></li>
<li><p>Increase water and energy productivity</p></li>
<li><p>Adapt to an increasingly difficult climate</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Each of these is a herculean scientific and policy challenge. Yet we need to do them all at once — walking, chewing gum, patting our heads and rubbing our bellies at the same time.</p>
<p>Figuring out how to tackle so-called <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-many-wicked-problems-how-science-policy-and-politics-can-work-together-8990">wicked problems</a> demands a rethink of the process of scientific inquiry, going beyond the traditional reductionist approach by which we test single-issue hypotheses. Earlier this year my colleagues and I <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969714016830">published a paper</a> discussing how to design more effective interdisciplinary research.</p>
<p>However, understanding environmental change in ways that help society to stay within <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.abstract">planetary boundaries</a> requires more than new research methods. It also means rethinking the interface between education, science, society and policy. </p>
<p>In an era where every smartphone has GPS, we can combine outputs from sophisticated research facilities like <a href="http://www.tern.org.au/">TERN</a> with the observations of hundreds of thousands of people, through citizen science initiatives like the <a href="http://www.ala.org.au/">Atlas of Living Australia</a> and <a href="http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/">e-Bird</a>.</p>
<p>We have as yet made only baby steps with the integration of citizen science, the internet of things, social media, school and adult education, and the voluntary community sector (landcare, field naturalists, renewable energy and the arts). </p>
<p>The closer we draw these groups together, the more difficult it will be for governments, corporations or industries to get away with promoting or subsidising environmental destruction, delegitimising environmental concerns, or weakening environmental protection. </p>
<p>One of our biggest challenges in an era of wicked problems, big data and knowledge economies is how to analyse, synthesise and make sense of the disparate data we generate. </p>
<p>Along with big-ticket projects like synchrotrons and square kilometre arrays, we also need research infrastructure designed to do this kind of analysis. </p>
<p>A dozen or so scientific synthesis centres have emerged around the world in the earth and environmental sciences over the past 20 years, for instance in <a href="https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/">Santa Barbara</a>, <a href="http://www.stockholmresilience.org/">Stockholm</a> and <a href="https://www.idiv.de/sdiv.html">Leipzig</a>. Compared with radiotelescopes and research ships, these synthesis centres are dirt-cheap, but the <a href="http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/1/21.short">emerging evidence</a> that they are scientifically very valuable, especially from a policy perspective.</p>
<p>Unfortunately we have been unable to sustain funding for our short-lived Australian synthesis centre, <a href="http://www.aceas.org.au/">ACEAS</a>. So at the top of my personal wish list would be for Australia to invest in its own national environmental synthesis centre. Team Australia needs an environmental dashboard. </p>
<p>Ideally, as many team members (citizens) as possible should be involved in generating the information that goes into it, in tracking progress on the various dials (water, energy, food, land, biodiversity, atmosphere, oceans, climate), and in working out how we can do better.</p>
<p>Figuring out how we can achieve that is as important as deciding which research questions to explore.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93133/original/image-20150827-364-8vucge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Northern Territory’s Daly River is one place that is still in a relatively natural state - but is threatened by development pressures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Douglas</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Bill Laurance</strong></p>
<p><em>Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, and Director of the Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science at James Cook University</em></p>
<p>One of the first things a boxer learns is “throw punches in bunches”. It’s not a single blow that will fell most opponents, but a devastating flurry of jabs, hooks, crosses and uppercuts.</p>
<p>Scientists are increasingly drawing similar conclusions about biodiversity and the environmental stresses that imperil it. Most species aren’t being endangered by a single hazard, but by combinations of different threats acting in concert.</p>
<p>For example, in many parts of the tropics, an alarming synergism arises between selective logging and hunting. In the Congo Basin, for instance, loggers have <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5830/1451">bulldozed more than 50,000 km of new roads</a> since 2000. Following in their footsteps are hordes of hunters armed with deadly rifles and cable snares. The result? An epic slaughter of wildlife, with two-thirds of the world’s forest elephants <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/05/two-thirds-forest-elephants-killed">killed off in the past decade</a>.</p>
<p>Many human disturbances also increase wildfires. Habitat fragmentation and logging create piles of flammable slash in the forest while disrupting the canopy, allowing light and wind to dry out the forest floor. From the Amazon to Australia, human-disturbed forests have suffered catastrophic fires that have destroyed or degraded vast expanses of native growth.</p>
<p>Climate change is also making ecosystems more fire-prone. El Niño droughts are known to affect many forests, but in 2005 and 2010 researchers saw a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047436/pdf">completely new kind of drought</a> in the Amazon, caused not by El Niño but by exceptionally warm Atlantic sea-surface temperatures, which drove the rain-bearing “intertropical convergence zone” northwards. As a result, vast expanses of the Amazon that were formerly thought to be drought-proof suffered catastrophic tree death, resulting in hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>The remarkable mobility of modern human societies is a subtle but nonetheless critical form of disturbance, because we are spreading foreign species all across the planet. Some exotics are complete game-changers. The <a href="http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/FrogChytridFungus.htm">chytrid fungus</a> spreading around the world has caused at least 200 species of frogs and other amphibians to disappear. And <a href="http://weeds.brisbane.qld.gov.au/weeds/elephant-grass">elephant grass</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/field-of-nightmares-gamba-grass-in-the-top-end-12178">Gamba grass</a> in northern Australia are utterly destroying native forests. These African grasses grow up to 4 m tall and burn so savagely that even fire-adapted woodlands are being wiped out.</p>
<p>I sometimes challenge my students to name a single place on Earth where only one environmental change is occurring. They can’t do it because no such place exists – and Australia is certainly no exception. Air and water pollution, climate change, overhunting, widespread habitat loss and fragmentation, foreign species, altered ecosystems and food chains. There are no refuges from these external, infernal threats. </p>
<p>That’s the most alarming thing we are doing to the world — changing it in myriad ways all at once. Species aren’t enduring just a single menace, but are running a gauntlet of perils as they struggle desperately for survival.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-road-research-can-improve-transport-across-australia-43643">On the road: research can improve transport across Australia</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/research-priority-make-australias-health-system-efficient-equitable-and-integrated-43547">Research priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-a-leader-in-cybersecurity-research-43716">Australia could become a leader in cybersecurity research</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe is a past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Campbell was Australia's first National Landcare Facilitator and chairs the advisory board of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Laurance receives funding from the Australian Research Council and other scientific and philanthropic organisations. He is director of the Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science at James Cook University and founder and director of ALERT--the Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers and Thinkers.</span></em></p>One of the Australian government’s new research priorities is “environmental change”. But can be hard to know how to tackle such huge and interlinked issues as climate change and species extinctions.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityAndrew Campbell, Director, Research Institute for Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin UniversityBill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436482015-07-19T20:11:31Z2015-07-19T20:11:31ZAustralia has a big role to play in feeding the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87135/original/image-20150702-22619-tgg26n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research and technology can improve the yield and sustainability of crops like wheat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lauren Tucker/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Joanne Daly</strong><br>
<em>CSIRO Fellow and former Group Executive of Agribusiness and Chief of Division at CSIRO</em></p>
<p>Agricultural and food industries are an important part of the Australian economy and national identity. They are <a href="http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/24/248677/ANZ_insight_3_Greener_Pastures.pdf">set to remain</a> so as global demand for food rises over the next four decades.</p>
<p>While not seen as a major part of Australia’s GDP, these industries provide employment across both rural and urban Australia. They sustain rural communities, provide the majority of food consumed in Australia, and underpin our retail and food services industries. They also provide important export earnings, while having important interactions with our environment’s water, soil and biodiversity resources. </p>
<p>Research and technological innovation have long been integral to the success of our agricultural and food industries. Our hard-won reputation for high quality, safe and clean food is founded upon this bedrock. </p>
<p>Research and innovation continue to grow in importance, as our industries look to respond to increasing global demand for food. Producers will need to overcome major environmental challenges due to climate change, land degradation and biosecurity threats while also sustaining and increasing rates of productivity growth. Processors will need to remain competitive with low cost competitors and imports. </p>
<p>The science and research priorities for food recognise the need for research into three broad areas: supply chains; barriers to accessing healthy food; and enhanced food production. </p>
<p>Agricultural and food industries are so pervasive in our society that the other eight research priorities – particularly Soil and Water, Transport, Advanced Manufacturing, Environmental Change and Health – will also have significant implications.</p>
<p>A recurring theme across the Food priorities is the integration of knowledge and cutting-edge technologies. This enhances connections between producers and processors to respond to ephemeral market opportunities and changing consumer preferences.</p>
<p>It allows us to better target inputs in production and processing, not only for profitability but also to better manage land, water resources and biodiversity resources. And it enables reduction and reuse of waste streams. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Sally Gras</strong><br>
<em>Director of the ARC Dairy Innovation Hub and Associate Professor at The Melbourne School of Engineering and Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute at The University of Melbourne</em></p>
<p>The new research priorities address key issues facing Australian food producers, spanning primary production, post-farm gate manufacturing, distribution and export.</p>
<p>Food safety, stability and shelf life are essential for the export of Australian food products to distant markets across Asia. Research could improve fresh and long life food products, such as yogurt and UHT milk, while new packing and preservation technologies could assist both domestic distribution and export. </p>
<p>Research on provenance and clean, sustainable production could also assist Australian manufacturers to compete on food quality rather than price, potentially accessing higher value markets. </p>
<p>New methods to recover water and byproducts may improve the profitability and sustainability of manufacturing. Food waste could also be reduced and recycled across the supply chain. Energy consumption is not directly mentioned in the Food priorities, but novel technologies could be used to increase energy efficiency, while the Environmental Change priorities may also assist industry adaptation. </p>
<p>The Advanced Manufacturing priority highlights the need to de-risk, scale up and add value to Australian manufactured products – research that could stimulate both product and process innovation. The focus on healthy Australian foods also encompasses some aspects of nutrition.</p>
<p>The priorities are well aligned with the new <a href="http://www.business.gov.au/advice-and-support/IndustryGrowthCentres/Pages/GC-Food-and-Agribusiness.aspx">Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre</a>, which aims to improve access to global supply chains and international markets. The priorities also build on the research networks and strengths established through the Australian Research Council’s <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/itrp/itrp_default.htm">Industrial Transformation Research Program</a>, and will allow broad multidisciplinary contributions.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Stephen Powles</strong><br>
<em>Director of the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative at the University of Western Australia, and grain farmer, Kojonup, Western Australia.</em></p>
<p>I applaud and welcome that Food and Soil & Water are among the national research priorities. As never before, food is needed for a rapidly growing world. Australia already is a major food exporter, and being underpinned by research and development, we are poised to make substantially greater contributions to feeding the world. </p>
<p>Australia has competitive advantages in clean and green high quality grains, dairy and meats for global markets, especially booming Asia. However, there are many challenges and much R&D will be required if we are to sustainably deliver much higher quantities of quality Australian food. </p>
<p>Only through creative R&D will we be able to sustainably lift production from our fragile soil and our very limited water assets. Adverse climate change requires we attain even greater water use efficiency in our rain-fed Australian agriculture. </p>
<p>Conversely, in irrigated agriculture we have much to learn to better use water and to unlock the clear irrigated agricultural potential in northern Australia. Momentum is building to lift food production in northern Australia, and there are real opportunities but many challenges and underpinning R&D is essential. </p>
<p>At the post-farm gate level, Australia must establish how to build, label and capitalise on our clean, green, ethical and nutritious foods. With our high costs, sectors must develop and embrace all technologies to be competitive, including robotics in production and manufactured food items. </p>
<p>In my view, it is research and technologies in precision agriculture and robotics that require greatest attention if Australia is to substantially and sustainably lift food production and help feed the world.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Rachel Ankeny</strong><br>
<em>Professor in the School of Humanities and convener of the Food Values Research Group at the University of Adelaide.</em></p>
<p>These priorities outline key issues facing the food industry if we view foodstuffs as products and expectations as primarily economic. They call for research on social, economic and other barriers to access to healthy Australian foods, which is to be applauded.</p>
<p>But what is largely missing are the challenges associated with human beings: producers, processors, retailers and distributors of food; consumers who make choices about what to purchase and eat; and policymakers who regulate the industry. </p>
<p>Also lacking is any explicit discussion about food security. In the narrowest sense, Australia is food secure; there is enough food per person on average. But there are deep social, political and pragmatic problems with making nutritious foods available, particularly in remote communities. Hence we experience food insecurity. </p>
<p>To build healthy and resilient communities (also covered in the Health priority), we must use (social) science to investigate the diverse barriers to food access and consumption.</p>
<p>Agricultural communities face challenges to their resilience, in part due to threats to their “social license to operate”. Sectors of the public are increasingly anxious about contemporary agricultural practices and their potential impacts on health, animal welfare and the environment. </p>
<p>They view efforts to make agriculture more efficient and sustainable as in conflict with historic shared values underlying traditional and small-scale family farming. </p>
<p>Hence the call to develop production capacity requires scrutiny not just as a technical problem, but in its broader socio-cultural context. “Sustainable” can refer to environmental, economic, and/or social sustainability. “High intensity” production, and especially novel technologies, are frightening to many and may continue to erode their trust in the food system. </p>
<p>Education alone is not sufficient. Understanding of technological and scientific issues associated with agriculture involves a mixture of values, attitudes, <em>and</em> knowledge. </p>
<p>Many opportunities exist if we read between the lines of the priorities about the types of research and ingenuity that are required to meet the challenges: social science is needed.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Richard Richards</strong><br>
<em>Program Leader of the High Performance Crops for Australia group at CSIRO</em></p>
<p>Australia has been a world leader when it comes to food production in challenging environments. We have an enviable record, particularly in improving crop water-use efficiency whilst maintaining our clean and green image. The opportunities globally will open up for Australia if we can maintain this record as the challenges ahead globally are immense. </p>
<p>We must double global crop production by 2050 to feed 9 billion people. This must be done on less land area than we currently crop, with less water available and in the face of climate uncertainty. Food produced must not be at the expense of land degradation and it must be affordable, reliable and of high quality. </p>
<p>To achieve the productivity gains required by 2050, we must firstly close the gap between the theoretical potential yield at any location and any season based on temperature, water, sunlight and soil, and the current farm yield. This gap for our major food crops currently varies from 20% to 80%. </p>
<p>We must also aim to increase the potential or theoretical yield by increasing total photosynthesis and biomass. Ideally this will be achieved by increasing crop duration and light capture as well as improving the underlying biochemistry of photosynthesis. This will not only increase potential yield but also water-use efficiency.</p>
<p>This challenge is only achievable if there is additional investment in agricultural research. The rewards for Australia and the world are immense. Continuing economic prosperity for Australia will be one but also important will be reduced malnutrition, poverty, environmental sustainability and improved global stability.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in the series on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/science-and-research-priorities">science and research priorities</a> here.</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanne Daly works for CSIRO. She has previously received funding from the Cotton Research and Development Corporation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny receives funding from The Australian Research Council, including a linkage grant with industry partners Elders Ltd, Coles Supermarkets, SA Research and Development Institute (SARDI), and Richard Gunner's Fine Meats Pty Ltd. She was consulted on the Science and Research Priorities under discussion here.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Richards works for CSIRO. He receives funding from the GRDC, ACIAR and an international life science company.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Gras is director of the ARC Dairy Innovation Hub, which works with the Australian dairy manufacturing industry to address some of the major scientific and technical challenges identified as constraints to business growth and productivity in the dairy manufacturing sector. She receives funding from The Australian Research Council and industry partner Dairy Innovation Australia Ltd.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Powles receives funding from the GRDC, ARC and international life sciences corporations</span></em></p>By embracing science and technology, Australia’s agricultural industry could be more efficient, productive and sustainable.Joanne Daly, CSIRO Fellow, CSIRORachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History, University of AdelaideRichard Richards, CSIRO Fellow, CSIROSally Gras, Director ARC Dairy Innovation Hub and Associate Professor, The University of MelbourneStephen Powles, Director Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437162015-07-10T03:34:13Z2015-07-10T03:34:13ZAustralia could become a leader in cybersecurity research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87885/original/image-20150709-10879-11msbt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=354%2C75%2C2067%2C1774&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">nikcname/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Alex Zelinsky</strong><br>
<em>Chief Defence Scientist, Defence Science and Technology</em></p>
<p>The national science and research priorities have been developed with the goal of maximising the national benefit from research expenditure, while strengthening our capacity to excel in science and technology. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/cybersecurity">Cybersecurity</a> has been identified as a research priority due to Australia’s increasing dependence on cyberspace for national well-being and security. Cyberspace underpins both commercial and government business; it is globally accessible, has no national boundaries and is vulnerable to malicious exploitation by individuals, organised groups and state actors. </p>
<p>Cybersecurity requires application of research to anticipate vulnerabilities, strengthen cyber systems to ward off attacks, and enhance national capability to respond to, recover from, and continue to operate in the face of a cyber-attack.</p>
<p>Cyberspace is a complex, rapidly changing environment that is progressed and shaped by technology and by how the global community adopts, adapts and uses this technology. Success in cyberspace will depend upon our ability to “stay ahead of the curve”. </p>
<p>Research will support the development of new capability to strengthen the information and communications systems in our utilities, business and government agencies against attack or damage. Investment will deliver cybersecurity enhancements, infrastructure for prototype assessment and a technologically skilled workforce.</p>
<p>Accordingly, priority should be given to research that will lead to: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Highly secure and resilient communications and data acquisition, storage, retention and analysis for government, defence, business, transport systems, emergency and health services </p></li>
<li><p>Secure, trustworthy and fault-tolerant technologies for software applications, mobile devices, cloud computing and critical infrastructure</p></li>
<li><p>New technologies for detection and monitoring of vulnerabilities and intrusions in cyber infrastructure, and for managing recovery from failure.</p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p><strong>Andrew Goldsmith</strong><br>
<em>Director of the Centre for Crime Policy and Research, Flinders University</em></p>
<p>Sensible science and research on cybersecurity must be premised upon informed, rather than speculative, “what if”, analysis. Researchers should not be beholden to institutional self-interest from whichever sector: government; business; universities; or security/defence agencies.</p>
<p>We need to be clear about what the cybersecurity threat landscape looks like. It is a variable terrain. Terms such as “cyber-terrorism” tend to get used loosely and given meanings as diverse as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/stuxnet">Stuxnet</a> attack and the use of the internet by disenchanted converts to learn how to build a pipe bomb.</p>
<p>We need to ask and answer the question: who has the <a href="https://ccdcoe.org/publications/2012proceedings/2_6_Dunn%20Cavelty_TheMilitarisationOfCyberspace.pdf">interest and the capability to attack us and why</a>?</p>
<p>References to “warfare” can be misleading. A lot of what we face is not “war” but espionage, crime and political protest. More than two decades into the lifecycle of the internet, we have not yet had an electronic Pearl Harbour event.</p>
<p>Cybersecurity depends upon human and social factors, not just technical defences. We need to know our “enemies” as well as ourselves better, in addition to addressing technical vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>We should be sceptical about magic bullet solutions of any kind. Good defences and secure environments depend upon cooperation across units, a degree of decentralisation, and built-in redundancy. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87992/original/image-20150710-24068-1aeu5tu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cybercrime is a growing problem, and it’ll take concerted efforts to prevent it escalating further.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Klug/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>Jodi Steel</strong><br>
<em>Director, Security Business Team at NICTA</em></p>
<p>Cybersecurity is an essential underpinning to success in our modern economies. </p>
<p>It’s a complex area and there are no magic bullet solutions: success requires a range of approaches. The national research priorities for cybersecurity highlight key areas of need and opportunity.</p>
<p>The technologies we depend on in cyberspace are often not worthy of our trust. Securing them appropriately is complex and often creates friction for users and processes. Creation of secure, trustworthy and fault-tolerant technologies – security by design – can remove or reduce security friction, improving overall security posture. </p>
<p>Australia has some key capabilities in this area, including cross-disciplinary efforts. </p>
<p>The ability to detect and monitor vulnerabilities and intrusions and to recover from failure is critical, yet industry reports indicate that the average time to detect malicious or criminal attack is around six months. New approaches are needed, including improved technological approaches as well as collaboration and information sharing. </p>
<p>Success in translating research outcomes to application – for local needs and for export – will be greater if we are also able to create an ecosystem of collaboration and information sharing, especially in the fast-moving cybersecurity landscape. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Vijay Varadharajan</strong><br>
<em>Director, Advanced Cyber Security Research Centre at Macquarie University</em></p>
<p>Cyberspace is transforming the way we live and do business. Securing cyberspace from attacks has become a critical need in the 21st century to enable people, enterprises and governments to interact and conduct their business. Cybersecurity is a key enabling technology affecting every part of the information-based society and economy. </p>
<p>The key technological challenges in cybersecurity arise from increased security attacks and threat velocity, securing large scale distributed systems, especially “systems of systems”, large scale secure and trusted data driven decision making, secure ubiquitous computing and pervasive networking and global participation. </p>
<p>In particular, numerous challenges and opportunities exist in the emerging areas of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/cloud-computing">cloud computing</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/internet-of-things">Internet of Things</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/big-data">Big Data</a>. New services and technologies of the future are emerging and likely to emerge in the future in the intersection of these areas. Security, privacy and trust are critical for these new technologies and services. </p>
<p>For Australia to be a leader, it is in these strategic areas of cybersecurity that it needs to invest in research and development leading to new secure, trusted and dependable technologies and services as well as building capacity and skills and thought leadership in cybersecurity of the future. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87886/original/image-20150709-10889-1oo52e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As more information is stored in the cloud, we need to be mindful of how to protect it from attack.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">FutUndBeidl/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>Craig Valli</strong><br>
<em>Director of Security Research Institute at Edith Cowan University</em></p>
<p>ICT is in every supply chain or critical infrastructure we now run for our existence on the planet. The removal or sustained disruption of ICT as a result of lax cybersecurity is something we can no longer overlook or ignore. </p>
<p>The edge between cyberspace and our physical world is blurring with destructive attacks on physical infrastructure already occurring. The notion of the nation state, and its powers and its abilities to cope with these disruptions, are also significantly being challenged. </p>
<p>The ransacking of countries’ intellectual property by cyber-enabled actors is continuing unabated, robbing us of our collective futures. These are some of the strong indicators that currently we are getting it largely wrong in addressing cybersecurity issues. We cannot persist in developing linear solutions to network/neural security issues presented to us by cyberspace. We need change.</p>
<p>The asymmetry of cyberspace allows a relatively small nation state to have significant advantage in cybersecurity, Israel being one strong example. Australia could be the next nation, but not without significant, serious, long-term, collaborative investments by government, industry, academy and community in growing the necessary human capital. This initiative is hopefully the epoch of that journey. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Liz Sonenberg</strong><br>
<em>Professor of Computing and Information Systems, and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Collaboration and Infrastructure) at University of Melbourne</em></p>
<p>There are more than two million actively trading businesses in Australia and more than 95% have fewer than 20 employees. Such businesses surely have no need for full-time cybersecurity workers, but all must have someone responsible to make decisions about which IT and security products and services to acquire. </p>
<p>At least historically, new technologies have been developed and deployed without sufficient attention to the security implications. So bad actors have found ways to exploit the resulting vulnerabilities. </p>
<p>More research into software design and development from a security perspective, and research into better tools for security alerts and detection is essential. But such techniques will never be perfect. Research is also needed into ways of better supporting human cyberanalysts – those who work with massive data flows to identify anomalies and intrusions. </p>
<p>New techniques are needed to enable the separation of relevant from irrelevant data about seemingly unconnected events, and to integrate perspectives from multiple experts. Improving technological assistance for humans requires a deep understanding of human cognition in the complex, mutable and ephemeral environment of cyberspace. </p>
<p>The cybersecurity research agenda is thus only partly a technical matter: disciplines such as decision sciences, organisational behaviour and international law all must play a part. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Sven Rogge</strong><br>
<em>Professor of Physics and Program Manager at the Centre for Quantum Computation & Communication Technology at UNSW</em></p>
<p>Cybersecurity is essential for our future in a society that needs to safeguard information as much as possible for secure banking, safe transportation, and protected power grids.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/quantum-computing">Quantum information technology</a> will transform data communication and processing. Here, quantum physics is exploited for new technologies to protect, transmit and process information. Classical cryptography relies on mathematically hard problems such as factoring which are so difficult to solve that classical computers can take decades. Quantum information technology allows for an alternative approach to this problem that will lead to a solution on a meaningful timescale, such as minutes in contrast to years. Quantum information technology allows for secure encoding and decoding governed by fundamental physics which is inherently unbreakable, not just hard to break.</p>
<p>Internationally, quantum information is taking off rapidly underlined by large government initiatives. At the same time there are commercial investments from companies such as Google, IBM, Microsoft and Lockheed Martin.</p>
<p>Due to long term strategic investments in leading academic groups Australia remains at the forefront globally and enjoys a national competitive advantage in quantum computing and cybersecurity. We should utilise the fact that Australia is a world leader and global player in quantum information science to provide many new high technology industries for its future.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-manufacturing-in-australia-is-smart-agile-and-green-43645">The future of manufacturing in Australia is smart, agile and green</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-road-research-can-improve-transport-across-australia-43643">On the road: research can improve transport across Australia</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/research-priority-make-australias-health-system-efficient-equitable-and-integrated-43547">Research priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43716/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Zelinsky is the Chief Defence Scientist of the Department of Defence; research within Defence Science and Technology is Government funded.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Goldsmith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Valli is Research Director of the Australian Cyber Security Research Institute. He has received funding from NSST/PMC, European Union FP7 Program, NCRIS and various Australian agencies. Craig is a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>National ICT Australia is funded by the Australian Government as represented by the Australian Research Council and the Department of Communications through the ICT Centre of Excellence program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liz Sonenberg receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has conducted joint projects with DSTO scientists.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sven Rogge receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vijay Varadharajan receives funding from Australian Research Council, NSST/PMC</span></em></p>Online infrastructure and business are becoming increasingly important, as is our need to focus research efforts on securing them from cyber-attack.Alex Zelinsky, Chief Defence Scientist, Defence Science and Technology OrganisationAndrew Goldsmith, Strategic Professor of Criminology, Flinders UniversityCraig Valli, Director of Security Research Institute, Edith Cowan UniversityJodi Steel, Director, Security Business Team, Data61Liz Sonenberg, Professor, Computing and Information Systems, and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Collaboration and Infrastructure), The University of MelbourneSven Rogge, Professor of Physics, UNSW SydneyVijay Varadharajan, Director: Advanced Cyber Security Research Centre, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436432015-07-08T20:06:19Z2015-07-08T20:06:19ZOn the road: research can improve transport across Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87695/original/image-20150708-31601-1ru2es1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1175%2C0%2C3518%2C2881&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More research can improve how our existing transport infrastructure works.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Erin Geary/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Marion Terrill</strong><br>
<em>Transport Program Director at the Grattan Institute</em></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/ThePriorities.aspx">Transport priorities</a> announced by the government recommend that departments and agencies should give priority to research that will lead to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Low emission fuels and technologies for domestic and global markets</li>
<li>Improved logistics, modelling and regulation: urban design, autonomous vehicles, electrified transport, sensor technologies, real time data and spatial analysis</li>
<li>Effective pricing, operation, and resource allocation.</li>
</ol>
<p>Transport’s value lies not so much in the service itself, but in its power to enable us to move around and enjoy the things we care about. Transport research in general should focus on efficiency, productivity, reliability and access. Decisions we make about transport are very long-lived, not only committing us to decades of infrastructure maintenance but also locking us in to today’s technologies and usage.</p>
<p>Scientific research in the transport field should focus on those areas where Australia has unique or unusual characteristics. Transport activity accounts for more than a third of Australia’s energy consumption and close to three quarters of our use of liquid fuels, due to long distances between population and economic centres. With demand for transport fuel rising, Australia has a stronger need than many nations to improve technology for domestic and export markets.</p>
<p>Second, scientific research can be most effective by focusing on the right stages of the technology lifecycle. Exciting as it may be to invent a brand new technology, in most cases economic and social benefit comes about through the adaptation of new technology to local circumstances and its diffusion into widespread use. As a small player, Australia will always struggle to play a big role in original creation, but we can be swift adapters and effective spreaders of productive technology. </p>
<p>As well as shaping future transport developments, scientific research can also increase the efficient use of what we already have. Never before has there been such capacity to regulate traffic flows on city roads, share cars among multiple users, intervene swiftly when equipment shows signs of wear or breakdown, or unload freight containers safely. </p>
<p>Cheaper, safer and more environmentally friendly transport technology needs smart regulation and allocation of funding to the most valuable transport infrastructure and services.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Rob Fitzpatrick</strong><br>
<em>Director of Infrastructure, Transport & Logistics at NICTA</em></p>
<p>Populations in our urban areas are on track to double. You can bet that the amount of roads we have to drive on will certainly <em>not</em> double.</p>
<p>Australians need to use what we already have, and do so far more efficiently, before we invest in new capacity. And when we do invest, it must be through “d3”: Data-Driven Decision-making.</p>
<p>There is simply <em>no excuse</em> in today’s world not to harness data from myriad sources, develop living simulations of what’s going on in the world around us, learn from history (yes, it does repeat itself) to predict future outcomes and from that base, shape planning priorities.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87725/original/image-20150708-31590-1knlkeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Better research can help reduce congestion and all its concomitant problems.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">*vlad*/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What can we solve, and why should transport be a priority?</p>
<ul>
<li> Congestion. It can be solved, but what does it take?
<ul>
<li>Commitment from government departments, agencies and bureaucrats to “own the answer”. They shouldn’t accept views from traditional consultants, and not hold back data</li>
<li>Recognition that there’s no silver bullet, other than the science of data analytics and optimisation. Myriad solutions combine to transport people from A to B. Factoring in freight, which has to share the same road and rail infrastructure, adds complexity in largely predictable ways</li>
<li>Increasing visibility and transparency of data from both public and private sector organisations so that individuals and organisations can make decisions based on fact, not speculation</li>
<li>New analytic techniques. There are loads of these that fundamentally challenge traditional consultants’ “insights” on latent capacity, required infrastructure and options for alternate, integrated, modality.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li><p>Demand management. Our roads can appear as if kids are on permanent school holiday in term-time. That only takes 3-5% reduction in traffic volumes. Do we seriously believe well-informed, data-driven public policy can’t encourage a 3-5% improvement in road utilisation?</p></li>
<li><p>Infrastructure investment prioritisation. With increasing “visibility” of freight flows into, out of and within Australia, we can develop a dynamic picture of the “beating heart” of our nation. With this, we can visualise which roads and bridges, which urban areas and port districts, are under stress at particular times of the year, and more pragmatically align the A$150 billion of new annual infrastructure investment to areas that need it most.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Why should transport be a research priority? Because hard-working mums and dads of Australia are spending too much time in traffic going to and from work, and not enough time with their kids. And because Australia has some of the world’s most serious talent addressing these challenges. Australia is already one of the most highly urbanised countries on the planet. Solve these challenges here and we can commercialise outcomes for years to come. </p>
<p>In October 2016, the <a href="https://www.its-australia.com.au/events/2016-its-world-congress-melbourne/">World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems</a>, where the world’s leading brains meet to share insights and new ideas, is convening in Melbourne. Let this be a rallying cry for liberating our transport capabilities!</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Susan Pond</strong><br>
<em>Adjunct Professor in Sustainability at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney and Leader of the Alternative Transport Fuels Initiative</em></p>
<p>Aviation is one of the transport areas where Australia has unique or unusual characteristics. Australia is more reliant on domestic and international aviation than most countries because of the long distances within the country and to international markets. </p>
<p>Aviation is more reliant on liquid fossil fuels, mainly in the form of kerosene, than most other transport modes. Australia is heavily reliant on imported liquid fossil fuels, either in the form of crude oil for refining onshore or refined petroleum products. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87724/original/image-20150708-31583-1on4is1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More research can improve the fuels we use in aviation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Francisco Martins/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Development of an Australian renewable jet fuel industry will provide solutions for our liquid fuel supply security concerns, our aviation sector’s demand for low carbon emission fuels and our need for industry diversification through the introduction of new value-adding manufacturing industries. </p>
<p>Importantly, the renewable jet fuels industry sits at the interface between aviation and agriculture, another sector that is critical for Australia’s future.</p>
<p>Many processing and conversion technologies to convert feedstocks, such as agricultural waste streams, into renewable jet fuel are already available “off the shelf”, mostly from international suppliers. The renewable fuels drop in to all existing infrastructure built to handle conventional jet fuel and meet the same international standards as their fossil fuel equivalents. </p>
<p>Even so, there is much research to be done before the renewable aviation fuel industry can become viable in Australia. Issues to be addressed in the Australian context include feedstock availability and costs, best practice integration of new, economically self-sustaining supply chains, biorefinery product portfolios and progress towards final cost per unit outputs that are competitive in the market. </p>
<p>It’s hard to think of a better, large-scale industry growth opportunity for Australia and a better time to play to our strengths. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-manufacturing-in-australia-is-smart-agile-and-green-43645">The future of manufacturing in Australia is smart, agile and green</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/research-priority-make-australias-health-system-efficient-equitable-and-integrated-43547">Research priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-a-leader-in-cybersecurity-research-43716">Australia could become a leader in cybersecurity research</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43643/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Fitzpatrick works for NICTA - National ICT Australia - as Director, Infrastructure, Transport & Logistics. NICTA receives funding from federal and state government departments. Rob is a Director of Intelligent Transport Systems Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marion Terrill and Susan Pond do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A research focus on transport can help improve existing infrastructure and guide future developments, and tailor them to Australia’s unique needs.Marion Terrill, Transport Program Director, Grattan InstituteRob Fitzpatrick, Director, Infrastructure, Transport & Logistics, Data61Susan Pond, Adjunct Professor, United States Study Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435472015-07-07T20:09:03Z2015-07-07T20:09:03ZResearch priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87452/original/image-20150706-16786-1oo67ly.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Health is one of the nine Science and Research Priorities announced by hte government.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-183418442/stock-photo-hospital-bed-after-patient-get-well.html?src=bp1YBA_yldUTBWwdhv_5Gg-1-1">Sapol Chairatkaewcharoen/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Kathryn North</strong><br>
<em>Director of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, David Danks Professor of Child Health Research at the University of Melbourne and Chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Committee.</em></p>
<p>The national science and research priorities have been developed with the goal of maximising the national benefit from research expenditure, while strengthening our capacity to excel in science and technology. </p>
<p>In the area of health, the “national benefit” includes the development of evidence-based therapies and preventative strategies to improve physical health and mental well-being at the individual and population levels. </p>
<p>In 2012–2013, Australia’s <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129548871">national expenditure</a> on health was estimated at more than A$147 billion, or around 10% of GDP, and this cost has steadily increased over the past two decades. So it is imperative that our research strategies also generate economic benefits by increasing the efficiency of our health-care system, reducing unnecessary investigations and therapies, and fostering partnerships with industry so that Australian discoveries are translated and commercialised within Australia. </p>
<p>On this basis, the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, convened a working group comprising of 15 opinion leaders in health and medical research across the major research disciplines (clinical, health services research, population health, basic science), as well as representatives from industry and government, to identify the following major priority areas in health and medical research:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Better models of health care and services that improve outcomes, reduce disparities for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, increase efficiency and provide greater value for a given expenditure</p></li>
<li><p>Improved prediction, identification, tracking, prevention and management of emerging local and regional health threats</p></li>
<li><p>Greater involvement of Indigenous people in the health system, with strategies for both urban and regional communities</p></li>
<li><p>Effective technologies for individuals to manage their own health care using mobile apps, remote monitoring and online access to therapies. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>This article brings together experts from across the health spectrum to offer their views on the merits, challenges and opportunities presented by this research priority. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Sally Redman</strong><br>
<em>CEO, Sax Institute</em></p>
<p>High-quality Australian research will be critical to understand the drivers of health expenditure and to identify and test solutions that can help contain costs while maintaining quality of care. The inclusion of “research that will lead to better models of care and services that improve outcomes, reduce disparities, increase efficiency and provide greater value” among the priorities is therefore particularly welcome. </p>
<p>Australia’s excellent and world-leading big health data sets – including large, long-term research cohorts and routinely collected information such as hospital and Medicare data records – will be central to this effort. Over the past few years, much work has gone into strengthening these data resources and making them more readily and safely available. </p>
<p>There has also been significant growth in research capacity and methodologies to analyse and interpret them. However, much remains to be done and it is good to see the priorities identify the need for a whole-of-government strategic approach to big data. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87577/original/image-20150707-1281-djhgee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Better models of care and services can improve outcomes and value for money.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-245905540/stock-photo-surgeons-are-operating-in-a-hospital.html?src=mCMExOTXOnVDqrAEYkstyA-1-28">hxdbzxy/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Establishing better models of care and services across Australia will also require more sophisticated approaches to the often complex task of evaluating their impact. This will include new research methods, stronger research and policy partnerships, and more effective ways of embedding rigorous research into the roll-out of new policies and programs. </p>
<p>Research to improve health outcomes for Indigenous people is also a welcome inclusion in the priorities. Future investment in Indigenous health must be driven by stronger evidence about the impact and sustainability of potential policy, program and service delivery options. This research should be conducted in partnership with Indigenous communities and now is also the time to invest in Indigenous research leaders. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>James McCluskey</strong><br>
<em>Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research), The University of Melbourne</em></p>
<p>Governments justifiably scrutinise the benefits of public funding in research. Health research is no exception and the mantra of the last decade has been around more effective “translation” of research into the clinic or population. </p>
<p>It’s fair to expect research will impact on the community in some way. However, the implication is that a lot of health research makes no difference and that there is a clear boundary between basic and applied research. </p>
<p>Experienced scientists know this is bunkum. Most breakthroughs come on the back of years of incremental research, with lines of sight between basic discovery and practical outcome often spanning 20 years or more, involving global effort and requiring decades of investment across all parts of the sector. In the meantime, we all want good value from our taxes. </p>
<p>Any list of health priorities will be long and subjective because we don’t have all the information for rational decisions. There is good data that health services can be massively improved in their efficiency and safety through research. </p>
<p>There is an agreed need for electronic medical records across the nation to simplify patient interactions with the health system and drive new research. Indeed, “Big Data” in health needs to be better harnessed to inform public health policy and practice. Indigenous health, preventative health, the personalised medicine revolution (genomics) and health equity all deserve prioritised investment. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87578/original/image-20150707-1281-1vaq42x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Part of the solution is more collaboration and better integration across the health research community.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-156022646/stock-photo-male-nurse-pushing-stretcher-gurney-bed-in-hospital-corridor-with-doctors-senior-female-patient.html?src=sBPwiS049d6c5L9MJVcVcg-4-20">Spotmatik Ltd/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On top of this short list, there needs to be a discovery component to our health and biomedical research sectors, mainly across the laboratory sciences. Without this there will be precious little to translate in the future.</p>
<p>What’s the best solution for such a complex equation? </p>
<p>An organising principle might be encouraging more collaboration and better integration across the health research community. When scientists, doctors, allied health professionals, hospital administrators, pharma and patients work together, the different ways of understanding health can drive efficiencies, create better outcomes and highlight natural priorities. </p>
<p>The recent designation of a small number of national Advanced Health Research Translation Centres aimed to do just this and at meaningful scale, even though they have no resources beyond the operating budgets of the partners. </p>
<p>Arguments around where we invest in health research might make more sense when the disparate parts of the sector are better informed with high-quality data and are collaborative in their efforts. Perhaps a starting point is to better use some of our resources to drive more integration and shared vision across the different elements of our health ecosystem. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Jane Gunn</strong><br>
<em>Head of Department, Chair of Primary Care Research and Director of the Primary Care Research Unit at the University of Melbourne</em></p>
<p>Australia must get better value from the money we spend on health care. Too often, the public experiences disorganised and expensive health care that can make things worse, rather than better. </p>
<p>In the past we have focused research on <em>what</em> health care interventions should be delivered rather than on <em>how</em> to deliver them. The nation’s new research priorities are a welcome step towards redressing this imbalance and reforming the health-care system.</p>
<p>The current system is not supported by a strong research culture, resulting in a poorly integrated health care system. Poor integration means that people with multiple conditions and complex problems are falling through the gaps. We must invest in research which helps us to bridge these gaps by joining up the system. </p>
<p>To do this, we need a research workforce specifically trained for this difficult task. Implementation science – the science of getting evidence into practice – is gaining momentum around the world, but is embryonic in Australia. Better implementation science is an essential part of realising the new research priorities and integrating the system to deliver more seamless care. </p>
<p>Clinical data should be used to inform efforts to improve the system. Currently we have no standardised system for recording diagnoses and management across separate health care settings. This makes it extremely difficult to keep track of what is happening to people as they interact with the health care system. </p>
<p>The result is gaps and duplication in care which we struggle to identify and resolve. In so many ways we are working in the dark. The new priorities offer a chance to build an integrated health system that places research at the centre of reform. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-manufacturing-in-australia-is-smart-agile-and-green-43645">The future of manufacturing in Australia is smart, agile and green</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-road-research-can-improve-transport-across-australia-43643">On the road: research can improve transport across Australia</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-a-leader-in-cybersecurity-research-43716">Australia could become a leader in cybersecurity research</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn North receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and other government and non-government competitive research funding agencies. She was a chair of the expert working group for the Health Priority as a part of the Science and Research Priorities consultation process. She was Chair of NHMRC Research Committee from 2012-2015. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Gunn receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and other government and non-government competitive research funding agencies. She was a member of an expert working group for the Health Priority as a part of the Science and Research Priorities consultation process. She was a member of the NHMRC Research Committee 2009-2015. She is Chair of the Board of the Northern Melbourne Medicare Local Ltd and member of the Board of the Eastern Melbourne Healthcare Network. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim McCluskey receives research funding from the ARC, NHMRC and has been a recipient of Cancer Council Victoria grants. He is a director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research; the Bionics Institute; UoM Commercial, ASHA for Indian Slums; and is Chair of Nossal Institute Ltd. He has shares in ImmusanT, a U.S. Based company developing a vaccine for Celiac disease.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Redman was a member of an expert working group that identified practical challenges for the Health Priority area as part of the Science and Research Priorities consultation process. The Sax Institute receives core funding from the NSW Ministry of Health and is supported by other government, non-government, philanthropic and competitive research funding agencies.</span></em></p>Australia spends around 10% of GDP on health, so it’s imperative that our research strategies also generate economic benefits.Kathryn North, Institute Director, Murdoch Children's Research InstituteJane Gunn, Head of Department, Chair of Primary Care Research, Director of the Primary Care Research Unit, The University of MelbourneJim McCluskey, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), The University of MelbourneSally Redman, Professor of Public Health and CEO, Sax InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/438332015-07-05T20:16:46Z2015-07-05T20:16:46ZAustralia’s Chief Scientist on getting our research priorities right<p><em>This is the first in our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. Stay tuned for expert roundups on each of the nine priorities in coming days.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>In 2012 the <a href="http://www.acola.org.au/">Australian Council of Learned Academies</a> commissioned a survey of some 1,200 researchers, at all stages from graduate to retired, about their thoughts on the career they had chosen.</p>
<p>For three out of four, the best thing about the job was the chance to work on interesting and important issues. The passion for changing the world brought people in, kept them going and made them reflect with satisfaction on their life’s achievements.</p>
<p>It’s a good thing that it did, because the frustrations they also reported were immense. For many, particularly in the early career phase, it was the uncertain job prospects that cut the deepest, along with the time devoted to grant applications and the difficulty in gauging where the opportunities might lie. To have a vision of something important, and to have no path by which to achieve it, was bitter.</p>
<h2>Making the case</h2>
<p>As far as I know, there has never been a golden age when every fundable project was funded and every talented person got a tenured position. Like all countries, in all history, we have finite resources to allocate to any number of important and worthy things.</p>
<p>Knowing, as we do, that science is both awesome and awesomely important, we have an obligation to make the case for investment to the Australian people. We have to give them the confidence the investments they make are aligned to the aspirations they hold, however difficult and winding the journey.</p>
<p>We also have to put everyone – ministers, vice-chancellors, business investors, individual students – in a position to make intelligent decisions with the resources we have.</p>
<p>Today we have a system that operates largely on the premise that dumb luck (sometimes presented as “market signals”) will secure sufficient capacity, of sufficient calibre, in all the areas we need it. Too often, we look backwards at what used to happen and presume that the future will be similar.</p>
<p>The market is a helpful way of allocating private investment to promising ideas – but only when the legwork has been done to get the ideas to the point of realisation. And only if investors know where to look in the first place. </p>
<p>The instincts of researchers about what’s important may be sound. But how often does a group of researchers all agree, and agree to work together?</p>
<h2>Establishing priorities</h2>
<p>So we have many people making difficult choices on the basis of limited information and often in the context of straitened funds. Other countries have faced the same challenges, and responded in an intelligent way: they have established national priorities for science and research. </p>
<p>So, starting in late 2014, I convened a series of roundtables with representatives across the disciplines, with a view to learning from success. The Prime Minister announced the outcomes of that process in May: nine science and research priorities, each with three to four corresponding practical research challenges.</p>
<p>It is a significant step forward, and it is important that the implications are properly understood.</p>
<p>First, and most importantly, this is not, and never has been, an applied research agenda. You could frame the priorities to exclude basic research, but we haven’t done that, for all the reasons that the advocates for basic research put forward: it is important; it is integral; it must be supported to find the breakthrough solutions to many of the challenges we face. </p>
<p>So the priorities cover the spectrum from basic to applied science, as they do in other countries, and as they should.</p>
<p>Second, I have never suggested that all of our research spend should be allocated to the priorities – simply enough to give us confidence that we are prepared. </p>
<p>The priorities are not exhaustive nor exclusive. Government departments and agencies will still have their own priorities, with a proportion of their effort focused on the national priorities relevant to their mission. </p>
<p>The process is evidence-based. With the priorities identified, we have now begun to map the capabilities corresponding to each of the priorities and their specific challenges. We will draw on both the data and the authority of disciplinary experts.</p>
<p>Once the mapping is complete, we will be in a position to judge the scale of the investment required to both address any gaps and act on any latent potential. Government agencies will be required to invest in these areas, through their R&D budgets, as part of their overarching missions, to the extent we need.</p>
<p>A third point put to me is that the research path is by definition unknowable. And if you can’t predict the outcomes, you shouldn’t try to plan the inputs.
But I don’t accept that the uncertainty of the journey makes it impossible to point to a destination.</p>
<p>Take the United States. 19 new cancer drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in the past two years. They exist today because of federally funded research begun in 1971 under the rubric of the “War on Cancer”.</p>
<p>Last year the US became the world’s largest oil producer. That is because of fracking – which was in turn made possible by research begun in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo forty years ago.</p>
<p>Two examples of mission-led research, both delivering on their goals, both based on a great deal of basic research and pursuing paths that proved even more fruitful than their proponents expected.</p>
<h2>In for the long haul</h2>
<p>There is nothing revolutionary in the nine priorities for Australia. If I tell you that food, soil and water, transport, cyber-security, resources, energy, advanced manufacturing, environmental change and health and are important, you probably wouldn’t disagree.</p>
<p>But now we have articulated them. We have recognised specific challenges within them. We are expecting departments and agencies of the Federal Government to act on them. </p>
<p>And I hope we can give both the nation, and the research sector, the confidence that talented people are at work on critical projects, with the support for the long-haul they deserve.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-manufacturing-in-australia-is-smart-agile-and-green-43645">The future of manufacturing in Australia is smart, agile and green</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-road-research-can-improve-transport-across-australia-43643">On the road: research can improve transport across Australia</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/research-priority-make-australias-health-system-efficient-equitable-and-integrated-43547">Research priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-a-leader-in-cybersecurity-research-43716">Australia could become a leader in cybersecurity research</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43833/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb is the Chief Scientist of Australia.</span></em></p>The nine science and research priorities will help focus and coordinate our efforts, and aid government departments in supporting the future of Australian science.Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436452015-07-05T20:16:42Z2015-07-05T20:16:42ZThe future of manufacturing in Australia is smart, agile and green<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86956/original/image-20150701-25062-1c8l32m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=687%2C84%2C3309%2C3099&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Technologies like 3d printing and robotics will be crucial aspects of Australia's manufacturing future.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Oak Ridge National Laboratory</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on the <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a> recently announced by the Federal Government. You can read the introduction to the series by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Alan Finkel</strong><br>
<em>Chancellor of Monash University, and Fellow and President of the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering (ATSE)</em></p>
<p>In a rapidly changing world, attempts to preserve the past will doom the future. The <a href="http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/ThePriorities.aspx">research priorities</a> seek to avoid that trap by identifying the need for our industries to be agile and transformative, to provide high value-add and to recognise their place in a complex global supply chain.</p>
<p>The research priorities also note the importance of seeking to dominate in selected niche product categories where we already have some wins, such as high-performance materials, composites, alloys and polymers.</p>
<p>Not explicitly stated in the priorities, though, is the reality that the efficiency of tomorrow’s industries will be driven by automation and artificial intelligence. More will be achieved with fewer workers. </p>
<p>We must accept that revenue growth in manufacturing will not routinely be accompanied by jobs growth in the manufacturing industry itself. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because as new wealth is created it will be invested in services, health and other industries, with net creation of jobs.</p>
<p>If we are smart about aligning our research to our priorities, there will be ample opportunity for us to develop advanced manufacturing techniques to create, or in some cases, bring back added-value manufacturing in food and resources, and expand our achievements in medical devices. </p>
<p>We will be able to improve quality and productivity, improve scheduling and logistics, and in many cases produce products in Australia more cheaply than we could import products of equivalent quality.</p>
<p>But measuring our success in manufacturing will be confounded by its changing nature. For example, printing and distributing text books is clearly a manufacturing industry. In the future, when textbooks fully transition to online delivery, will that mean that the manufacturing jobs in that sector have been wiped out? </p>
<p>Or should we think of the engineers who develop and maintain the cloud-based delivery systems as the manufacturing workers of the future? We must learn to value our successes in the context of a changing definition of what we are measuring.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Cathy Foley</strong><br>
<em>Deputy Director and Science Director of the Manufacturing Flagship at CSIRO and former President of Science and Technology Australia</em></p>
<p>The fourth industrial revolution has started! Known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0">Industry 4.0</a>, in 15 years time <a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-must-prepare-for-massive-job-losses-due-to-automation-43321">40% of the jobs we know today will not exist</a>, and the way we manufacture products and get them to the consumer will be radically different. </p>
<p>Just-in-time, personalised, agile and adaptive “creator robots and machines” will build a world that is a little like the Jetsons cartoon from my childhood. But this means that, as a country, we have to change our approach to manufacturing too.</p>
<p>Having standalone industrial companies and innovation organisations doing their own thing, competing against one another, simply will not work.</p>
<p>We need to reset our thinking to compete globally and collaborate locally. Australia’s success in Industry 4.0 will pivot on our willingness to shift our currently poor ability to collaborate across sectors – such as from research to industry – and within sectors – industry to industry, and research organisation to research organisation – so that we can move rapidly up the ranks and be a world leader in collaboration. </p>
<p>We currently rank <a href="http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/">81 out of the 143 OECD economies</a> for innovation efficiency. We have all the components we need to do this: top-class research; great design; well-educated citizens; a strong small-to-medium enterprise community; and a terrific services industry. </p>
<p>We are poised to make that transition. But our focus can’t remain on competing among ourselves, whether it is between academic institutions, states or within local industry sectors.</p>
<p>Can we be a “big” enough country to rise above the local and think global? I think we can.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Veena Sahajwalla</strong><br>
<em>Scientia Professor, and Laureate Fellow and Director, SMaRT Centre, UNSW Australia</em></p>
<p>Last year, I wrote about the ability of <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-the-nation-will-be-impossible-without-engineers-23191">engineers to build Australia into the future</a> by fostering invention and innovation. I still believe it will be engineers who can deliver previously unimaginable solutions, like green manufacturing, which is an area that will transform the manufacturing industry.</p>
<p>Australian industries need the flexibility, insight and foresight that comes from thinking creatively, asking critical questions, forming and testing hypotheses and reasoning quantitatively. They also need access to the research and technologies that will add value to manufactured products.</p>
<p>At the Sustainable Materials Research and Technology Centre (<a href="http://smart.unsw.edu.au/">SMaRT</a>) at UNSW, we are working on green manufacturing in collaboration with industry, using waste and end‐of‐life products as raw materials.</p>
<p>We are rethinking the way we have traditionally done manufacturing and looking at creating new resources from waste. But it is fundamental and applied research that have created the foundations of where we are today.</p>
<p>The ability to produce ferrous alloys from auto waste and copper-based alloys from e-waste is also forcing us to rethink mining, which has traditionally been about extracting raw materials and sending them long distances, with one large processing plant transforming them into usable material. </p>
<p>Not only are natural resources being depleted at an unsustainable rate, industries are beginning to recognise the cost-effectiveness of reusing materials, and the importance of high value-add, small, agile and localised processing facilities.</p>
<p>Silicon from silica in glass, or copper from e-waste, are extremely valuable, so we need to look past the fact that initially they present as waste. This is where science and innovation come in. It’s looking for the beauty within. The future manufacturing scientists and engineers will be creating high-value materials by discovering novel green manufacturing solutions.</p>
<p>I see a huge opportunity for green manufacturing in micro-factories across regional Australia, and new jobs for regional communities that offer economic opportunities in tomorrow’s industries. We believe these new industries can happen on a small scale quite effectively based on new scientific discoveries.</p>
<p>In Australia, where our population is small and the tyranny of distance presents its own challenges, doing it cleaner and smarter, and developing innovations that are good for the environment and sustainable on every level, offers huge economic benefits and a brand new manufacturing sector built around transforming waste into resources.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Read more in our Science and Research Priorities series</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-road-research-can-improve-transport-across-australia-43643">On the road: research can improve transport across Australia</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/research-priority-make-australias-health-system-efficient-equitable-and-integrated-43547">Research priority: make Australia’s health system efficient, equitable and integrated</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-a-leader-in-cybersecurity-research-43716">Australia could become a leader in cybersecurity research</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Veena Sahajwalla has collaborated with OneSteel through the ARC Linkage grants scheme. The PIT technology – “Green Steel” – has been licensed to OneSteel for commercialisation. Current grants and previously received grants are ARC grant schemes (ARC Linkage, Discovery, ARC Industrial Transformation Research Hub), Australian Laureate Fellowship, Australia India Strategy Research Funding, CRC Low Carbon Living, and industries including: Arrium Mining and Materials, Hyundai Steel, Brickworks Building Products, Jaylon Industries, Tersum Energy, TES-AMM Australia and LKAB. She is a member of a range of professional associations: EA, AIST, ACS, ASM International, AusIMM, ATSE, Climate Council and NSW Australia Day Council Board member.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Finkel and Cathy Foley do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia has a bright future in advanced manufacturing, but it will be a turbulent transition that we need to manage carefully.Alan Finkel, Chancellor, Monash UniversityCathy Foley, Deputy Director and Science Director Manfacturing Flagship CSIRO, CSIROVeena Sahajwalla, Professor and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT), UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.