tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ideas-boom-24991/articlesideas boom – The Conversation2018-11-23T03:18:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1068562018-11-23T03:18:36Z2018-11-23T03:18:36ZInnovation could just mean a better kind of co-operation<p>It seems Australia’s experiment at being a world leader at “innovation” is over, with the abrupt departure of its champion, Malcolm Turnbull. </p>
<p>The then prime minister made headlines with his <a href="https://theconversation.com/remember-turnbulls-2015-ideas-boom-were-still-only-part-way-there-97321">2015 Innovation Statement</a>, which sought to move the Australian economy beyond dependence on natural resource extraction into an “<a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australia-2030-prosperity-through-innovation">ideas boom</a>”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-clear-target-in-australias-2030-national-innovation-report-90938">No clear target in Australia's 2030 national innovation report</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But his replacement with Prime Minister Scott Morrison three months ago has seen innovation disappear off the government’s radar. Even the job of innovation minister was <a href="https://www.afr.com/technology/industry-concern-as-innovation-goes-missing-in-scott-morrison-government-20180826-h14ja3">scrapped</a> – to the consternation of the tech and start-up sectors. </p>
<p>Where does this leave us? Not poised to make the most of the 21st century, according to the <a href="https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home">Global Innovation Index</a>, which last year ranked Australia a lowly 76th in terms of innovation efficiency. </p>
<p>But we cannot afford to turn our back on innovation. Our major sustainability problems – transitioning energy, future-proofing cities, reducing carbon emissions – need us to move past “business as usual”.</p>
<h2>Rethinking innovation</h2>
<p>As my <a href="https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=NCHXVEAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">research</a> on innovative cities and regions in Europe and Australia shows, we urgently need to rethink what innovation is and how to go about it. </p>
<p>Too often it’s framed in purely economic or technological terms. But innovation should be much more than a buzzword or a techno-fix. </p>
<p>Our economy faces some intractable sustainability challenges, which must be prioritised. We’re struggling to stay within a safe climate envelope – despite (or even because of) technological advances. Around the world, social polarisation is <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-housing-boom-has-driven-rising-inequality-102581">deepening</a>, even in cities that rank highly on livability and innovation indices.</p>
<p>We need a notion of innovation based on solving problems collectively, with solutions that are relevant to society – not just to economists.</p>
<p>What does this look like? We need to combine scientific and technological solutions with expertise from the social sciences and humanities, and to that mix we need to add real-world lessons from practice-based knowledge and experimentation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246343/original/file-20181120-161615-1q336w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind turbines located off the coast of Copenhagen, Denmark.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/offshore-wind-turbines-cloudy-weather-copenhagen-541831516?src=0gS2PtcN0b_uvjDzLv1vHg-1-9">Vadim Petrakov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider the extraordinary success of wind power in Denmark, a small country which is a world leader on renewable energy. Denmark was an early mover in acting on the 1970s oil crisis and acknowledging – not ignoring – warnings of climate change. </p>
<p>The early development of wind turbines blended scientific expertise with farmers’ knowledge, with grassroots organisations involved too. New forms of partnerships were trialled between the private sector, government, universities and civil society organisations. The Danish government acted as an <a href="https://www.demos.co.uk/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf">entrepreneurial state</a>, which actively contributed to creating a market for wind energy. </p>
<p>Overall, the Danes took an approach of being resilient in a crisis and pursuing diversity of knowledge and cross-sector collaboration. It has paid off.</p>
<h2>Innovation as collective problem-solving</h2>
<p>So we need to have a broader understanding of what innovation really is: it’s collective problem-solving, not just something that’s done by heroic entrepreneurs. Even though there is no one-size-fits-all strategy, it will always be a messy process of trial and error, and it will always take time. Beware of politicians promising swift results.</p>
<p>The majority of innovation projects fail. Yet it is in the failures we find the interesting stories that we can learn from, as the brilliant <a href="https://www.museumoffailure.se/">Museum of Failure</a> captures. We have to accept failure and share the lessons from it. This is a challenge for politicians, who tend to be risk-averse and preoccupied with cost. </p>
<p>Australia’s formal approach to innovation could use a shake-up, but since moving to Australia two years ago I’ve found plenty going on at ground level. I’ve been interested by the work of <a href="https://www.farmersforclimateaction.org.au/">Farmers for Climate Action</a>, who show how <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-21/farmers-innovation-national-agriculture-day/9175106?pfmredir=sm">innovation</a> in agriculture can be effective while largely flying under the radar. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/farmers-climate-denial-begins-to-wane-as-reality-bites-103906">Farmers' climate denial begins to wane as reality bites</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Then there’s the Resilient Melbourne Strategy, which was endorsed two years ago and aims to help the city prepare for change and whatever the future may hold. My (Lars) research into the strategy demonstrates the challenge of combining citizen engagement with large corporations, elite universities and governments (which can operate in silos) – but we need these cross-sector partnerships to make innovation work. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, back in my former home town of Malmö in Sweden, a former shipbuilding factory has been transformed into an experimental, sustainable “<a href="https://stpln.org/">maker space</a>” bringing together technology, crafts, art and culture.</p>
<p>Tailoring innovation to a specific place – whether it’s Melbourne or Malmö – reminds us why we need innovation in the first place. Getting innovation right is particularly important for places coping with the potential loss of their major industry, like <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/research/research-projects/gippsland-smart-specialisation-strategy">Australia’s coal regions</a>. We can’t afford to get this one wrong.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited extract of the <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/past-events/mssi-oration-2018">MSSI Oration 2018</a>, given by Lars Coenen at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute on November 20, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106856/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Lars Coenen receives funding from the City of Melbourne and the Latrobe Valley Authority. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cathy Alexander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Innovation should mean solutions that work for everyone, not just economists.Lars Coenen, City of Melbourne Chair in Resilient Cities, The University of MelbourneCathy Alexander, Research Fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578072016-05-04T20:18:26Z2016-05-04T20:18:26ZTurnbull still hasn’t sold us on the innovation dream<p>The word “innovation” was conspicuously absent from most of the federal budget last night, mentioned just a handful of times in Treasurer <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/speech/html/speech.htm">Scott Morrison’s speech</a>.</p>
<p>It had been very difficult to avoid a strong sense of déjà vu when hearing of the coming “ideas boom” in Australia. Much of the same policy analysis and prescription behind the Turnbull government’s <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda">National Innovation and Science Agenda</a> can be found in Keating’s 1995 Innovation Statement, Howard’s 2001 <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/2001/01/29/howard-launches-backing-australias-ability-policy.html">Backing Australia’s Ability</a>, and Rudd’s 2009 <a href="https://sydney.edu.au/documents/about/higher_education/2012/20120308%20PoweringIdeas.pdf">Powering Ideas</a>.</p>
<p>The message has been the same for more than 20 years: innovation is important and Australia needs to lift its game and become more innovative. We really have to find out why we continually revisit the same issues around innovation as if for the first time, and then do so little about them.</p>
<p>There have been some improvements in our thinking. The misleading idea that more science leads automatically to more innovation, the so-called linear model, is no longer so predominant. But it is still there. There is more concern for collaboration between researchers and business, and this is to be welcomed. There have been attempts to explain why progress has been so slow, such as an absence of political bipartisanship, but these often look at the symptoms rather than the causes of the problem. For real advances to be made we need two major areas of improvement.</p>
<h2>Longer, more rewarding lives</h2>
<p>First, the case for innovation has to be made more persuasively to the Australian people. The benefits of innovation need to be tied to the experience of everyone and not just elites in business and universities and the extraordinary worlds of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Innovation is about much more than increasing corporate profits, and it can give each successive generation longer and more rewarding lives than the one before. Put simply, innovation – new ideas, successfully applied - has made my life easier and longer than my parents. If we innovate my children’s lives will be easier, more rewarding and longer than mine.</p>
<p>For many, innovation is perceived as a precursor to more unwelcome changes at work and potentially to job losses. More explanation is needed on the ways innovation creates new jobs and brings excitement and meaning into work as people are given the opportunity to explore and try new things.</p>
<p>When these messages are communicated and appreciated, and innovation becomes part of the national social narrative along with health, education and security, governments will be held to more account for their piecemeal and short-term approaches that chop and change innovation support schemes after each election. Government won’t have the licence to impose continual reviews and budget cuts on key institutions, such as the CSIRO and CRCs, or impose more regulation and less budgetary certainty on universities.</p>
<h2>Ditch old-school economics</h2>
<p>Second, and related, we need much better analysis of the causes, nature and outcomes of innovation. We have plenty of data on the subject, but not a lot of imaginative thinking about it. The mainstream (neoclassical) economics that infuses almost all Australian policy thinking is next to useless when it comes to explaining a modern economy, characterised as it is by complexity and uncertainty. Its tenets and prescriptions relate more to 1950s industry rather than the present day fast-moving, networked and knowledge-based economy.</p>
<p>Mainstream economists have a mantra that governments can’t pick winners. This may say more about poor decision-making on the part of bureaucrats and their inability to judge rent-seeking behaviour, rather than the need to make some strategic bets for the future. It is no accident that the majority of funding for innovation in innovation leaders such as the USA and Finland is targeted and directed at certain kinds of firms, not spread around and made available to all (thereby avoiding the “crime” of interfering with the market) as in Australia.</p>
<p>Our research capacity in innovation is shockingly poor and we don’t evaluate policies well, remember what has gone before, or properly appreciate lessons from overseas. Better analysis would protect us from the periodic magic bullets discovered by politicians and pundits, with their simplistic prescriptions that we need more entrepreneurs, or more venture capital, or more collaboration. </p>
<p>Better research would help us shake off the misconception that the problem of innovation in Australia is primarily one of supply. That is, our universities and research organisations aren’t sufficiently engaged with the private sector, or doing research of practical value. The real problem is actually one of demand, a lack of appreciation of the potential for innovation among Australian management. We have some outstanding companies and managers in Australia, but we also have a lot that are second-rate, introspective, cossetted and slow. Far greater priority should be given to management education and to policies for improving the capacity of firms to innovate.</p>
<p>There are wonderful innovation success stories in Australia and some impressive advocates for the innovation agenda. The prime minister “gets it”. We are, however, a very long way off the international pace, and we have to multiply these examples and voices many times over and break the mould of our fragmented and short-term approaches. Australia’s leaders need to better articulate the consequences of innovation for every Australian, and we need improved analysis to guide better policy and management.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57807/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Dodgson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For many, innovation is perceived as a precursor to more unwelcome changes at work and potentially to job losses, but innovation is about more than increasing corporate profits.Mark Dodgson, Director, Technology and Innovation Management Centre, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/576372016-05-04T03:32:12Z2016-05-04T03:32:12ZBudget does little to help ‘transition’ the economy<p>Ahead of this week’s federal budget both <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-melbourne-institute-the-australian-2015-economic-and-social-outlook">Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull</a> and <a href="http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/009-2016/">Treasurer Scott Morrison</a> have spoken of the need for an economic plan to help transition Australia’s economy post the mining boom. We asked a group of experts to assess the budget against this stated agenda.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed</h2>
<p><em>Beth Webster, Director, Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology</em></p>
<p>This budget does little to assist Australia achieve its potential growth rate. </p>
<p>If the government was serious about improving the productivity and export potential of Australian industry, it would raise the amount of funding to technology and industry programs beyond the token amounts laid out in the past. On the contrary, the current budget represents a savage 13% cut to industry programs over last year and a 9% cut to the Australian Research Council.</p>
<p>The 2016 budget has been heralded by the government as the budget for jobs and growth. With over 700,000 unemployed people (half of whom have post-school qualifications) and arguably a further 700,000 underemployed, we would do well to focus on jobs.</p>
<p>Economists have long known how to create jobs – expand aggregate demand. The more difficult part however is to create jobs at the same or higher level of productivity as existing jobs. And this is where it matters how governments spend money.</p>
<p>Governments from most advanced countries now have sizeable programs to translate ideas and new inventions into industry. These include innovation procurement programs; incentives and rules to keep knowledge-based products onshore; and networking bodies to bring the research and business sectors closer together. Australia has yet to make a serious commitment to compete in the hi-tech global market for products. </p>
<p>Localisation policies, such as growth centres, have been shown across the world to play a significant role in the generation and use of knowledge. Encouraging geographical concentrations of knowledge diffusion creates a virtuous circle. It strengthens the knowledge base of a region which then attracts other innovating firms and further knowledge inflows. Given our distance from global markets, it is a tragedy that we have no policy to deliver fibre-to-the-home communications via the NBN.</p>
<p>Spending on welfare and health – desirable as it is – will not do it. These are essentially consumption items. Even if the additional health and welfare workers are highly productive, we still need to equip them with imported plant, equipment and consumables. To buy these imports, we need to export more, and to export more we need more highly competitive and innovative industries.</p>
<p>Solid economic modelling evidence exists that shows which government programs lead businesses to acquire more sales and exports. This budget ignores these studies. Instead it appeals to short term hip-pocket sentiments leaving the heavy lifting to future governments. This budget blithely ignores evidence that does not support its prior beliefs. It appears to be making decisions in an evidence-free vacuum. </p>
<h2>What happened to the ideas boom?</h2>
<p><em>Roy Green, Dean of UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney</em></p>
<p>We have to look very hard to find the “ideas boom” in this budget. </p>
<p>The breakthrough of the Turnbull government was its recognition that science, technology and innovation are critical to Australia’s transition from the mining boom to a more balanced and diversified economy. This budget was supposed to build further momentum around this transition. </p>
<p>Last year’s <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/?gclid=CKGhtfPRvcwCFcZ1vAodXpIJuA&gclsrc=ds">National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA)</a> introduced long overdue measures to boost entrepreneurship and energise collaboration between business and universities. But it only restored $1 billion of the research and innovation spending that was cut by $3 billion under the Abbott government. </p>
<p>The question now is whether and to what extent the 2016 budget makes a further contribution to the NISA vision and the development of a competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy. Clearly the small and medium business tax cut through the “10 Year Enterprise Tax Plan” will stimulate activity in the mid-market. But it will just be more of the same. </p>
<p>A tax cut by itself will not build the innovation capability in our firms so essential for <a href="http://rdahunter.org.au/initiatives/smart-specialisation">“smart specialisation”</a> in global markets and value chains. Nor will the emphasis on startups, welcome though it might be. Here, new measures are thin on the ground – a “regulatory sandbox” for FinTech ventures and a switch in jobseeker support to youth entrepreneurship. </p>
<p>Beyond startups, we need a lot more <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ceb4c290-fd94-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/InTodaysFT/product#axzz45cjLtaYT">“scaling up”</a> in our advanced manufacturing and internationally traded services to fill the gap left by mining exports. This is the key challenge for Australia’s economy. But there is no pathway in this budget for achieving a transformation from “business as usual”, and the projected cuts to higher education and research further reduce our national capacity. </p>
<p>Already Australia’s public outlay on higher education as a proportion of GDP is among the lowest of developed countries, and the government’s plans for $2 billion savings in this area are confined to the small print and budget tables. These could be completely averted by winding back the annual $5 billion diesel fuel tax rebate. Budgets are about priorities. </p>
<h2>Digital readiness and transitioning the economy</h2>
<p><em>Marek Kowalkiewicz, PWC Chair in the Digital Economy, with Rowena Barrett, Head of School of Management, QUT and Shahid M Shahiduzzaman, Research Fellow, QUT.</em></p>
<p>Treasurer Scott Morrison says Australia’s transitional economy needs a plan for jobs and growth. Literacy, numeracy and STEM School education is important to ensure Australians can thrive in a digital future. The pre-employment skills training (Youth Jobs PaTH Program) for the unemployed under-25s includes digital literacy. However it does not address those who now face industry and professional disruption due to automation and the changing nature of work. An estimated six million Australians will need digital literacy training by 2025. </p>
<p>Another 100,000 IT workers are needed in the next five years for Australia to compete internationally in the digital economy; figures that the budget does not clearly address. The corporate tax rate cut, as part of the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan, <em>may</em> provide small business owners with an indirect incentive to invest in innovation. The Fintech Statement has some welcome news but more details are needed. Similarly, the various tax measures, in addition to the NISA, to encourage new innovative entrepreneurial ventures, will be welcomed by the growing startup community.</p>
<p>The digital economy has real potential to spearhead Australia’s economy, our international competitiveness and deliver jobs and growth. But significant investment in education is still needed as is encouragement to retrain people and develop their entrepreneurial and innovative abilities. Australia needs digitally literate workers, managers and entrepreneurs. With government they can build an ecosystem to foster a digital revolution.</p>
<p>Given the budget constraints, and the electioneering to come, we are optimistic innovation will remains a focus of the Turnbull government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roy Green was expert adviser to last year's Senate Innovation System inquiry.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Webster receives funding from the ARC and the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marek Kowalkiewicz receives funding from PwC Australia, Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rowena Barrett receives funding from Qld Government, Brisbane City Council and PwC Australia for activities related to the PwC Chair in Digital Economy. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shahid M Shahiduzzaman receives funding from PwC Australia, Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council. He is affiliated with Queensland University of Technology, Australia. </span></em></p>We have to look very hard to find the “ideas boom” in this budget.Roy Green, Dean of UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyBeth Webster, Director, Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of TechnologyMarek Kowalkiewicz, Professor and PwC Chair in Digital Economy, Queensland University of TechnologyRowena Barrett, Head of School of Management (Human Resources, Small Firm Innovation), Queensland University of TechnologyShahid M Shahiduzzaman, Research Fellow, Digital Economy , Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/569992016-04-01T01:09:15Z2016-04-01T01:09:15ZIf we really want an ideas boom, we need more women at the top tiers of science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116908/original/image-20160331-15137-b1i6qu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tanya Monro (left), Emma Johnston (centre) and Nalini Joshi (right) at the National Press Club.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Press Club of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>On Wednesday March 30, Emma Johnston, Nalini Joshi and Tanya Monro spoke at the National Press Club for a special <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/national-press-club:-women-of-science/7285476">Women Of Science</a> event. Here they outline their views on how to promote greater participation by women at the top levels of science.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Few of us would imagine accepting that our daughters have fewer options than our sons. And yet that is exactly the situation we allow to persist in Australian science, technology, engineering and mathematics (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/stem">STEM</a>) today.</p>
<p>The 2016 woman scientist’s story starts well enough, particularly when you compare it with her 1960s counterpart. </p>
<p>Fifty-six per cent of undergraduates and half of PhD students are female. Even better, almost 60% of <a href="https://womeninscienceaust.org/2014/06/15/women-in-the-scientific-research-workforce-identifying-and-sustaining-the-diversity-advantage/">junior science lecturers are female</a>. </p>
<p>These bright, talented people are eager to find cures for all cancers, explain dark energy, invent faster mobile phones, design robots, become astronauts and prove the <a href="https://theconversation.com/millennium-prize-the-riemann-hypothesis-3847">Riemann hypothesis</a>, a millennial open problem in mathematics. </p>
<p>But towards the top end, <a href="http://www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/gender-equity-in-stem/">things are very different</a>. In STEM, women comprise about 16% of top-level professors. That figure rises to 23% if you include medicine.</p>
<p>Our own personal stories reflect this: when Tanya Monro arrived at Adelaide University in 2005 she was its first female professor of physics, even though there had been physics professors there since the 1880s. </p>
<p>In 2002, Nalini Joshi was appointed the first woman professor of mathematics at the University of Sydney, Australia’s oldest university.</p>
<p>In this respect, Australia is frozen in time. We are throwing away our opportunity to harness the huge intelligence and prodigious drive of the females already in the research workforce. How is this so different to the 1950s when talented women like <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/find-of-the-month/2009-march.aspx">Ruby Payne-Scott</a>, one of the inventors of radio astronomy, when she was required to resign as soon as she was married?</p>
<p>The push now is often subtler, embedded in principles, conventions and bias that is rarely visible. Modern science is still conducted within organisational cultures that resemble a feudal monastery; information is power and it is tightly held, it is difficult to find anything unless you know the right person to ask, survival rests on competition to be noticed by a “nobility”. </p>
<p>Unconscious, subjective conventions have evolved in response and that impacts everyone, both men and women.</p>
<p>As a nation, by forcing half our potential innovators to work much harder to reach the same seniority as the other half, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice. </p>
<h2>Buried bias</h2>
<p>The standard of living for future Australians depends on how effectively we can bring innovation into our businesses. We know that 75% of jobs in the fastest-growing industries require STEM skilled workers, and since last year’s announcement of the National Innovation and Science Agenda (<a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/">NISA</a>), it appears we’re in an ideas boom.</p>
<p>NISA proposes “encouraging our best and brightest minds to work together to find solutions to real world problems and to create jobs and growth”.</p>
<p>We agree. And we propose that the single most powerful response Australia could mount to this challenge would be to transform the relationship between women and science, technology, engineering and mathematics.</p>
<p>Australia is at, or near the bottom, of the OECD rankings in a range of critical innovation measures. The reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted, but a big one surely has to be that a huge proportion of our great thinkers – our potential science and innovation leaders – are being subtly and pervasively pushed out of STEM. Not based on their merit but based on gender. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.abstract">2014 study</a> found that without any information other than a candidate’s appearance (making gender clear), both males and females are twice as likely to hire a man than a woman to complete a mathematical task.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/29/0361684316630965.abstract">study published earlier this year</a> found that both male and female undergraduates were more likely to explain a woman’s science-related setbacks by mentioning factors about her, such as “she was let go because she messed up an experiment”. Whereas a man’s setbacks are more likely to be explained by contextual factors, such as “he was let go because there were budget cuts”.</p>
<p>Then there’s the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty">motherhood penalty</a>”, with negative effects on income, career advancement, and perceived competence relative to both fathers and women without children. </p>
<p>Australia must pursue change. The benefits of that change will clearly go beyond gender, beyond sexual identity, race and ethnicity. That change will make our society become more creative, abundant, and innovative.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt that improved female engagement in STEM will drive all areas of science and innovation, and achieve aspirations articulated across the whole NISA agenda.</p>
<h2>Re-think</h2>
<p>There’s no single solution or silver bullet, but the prize is big enough that it’s critical that we tackle every facet of this issue. </p>
<p>We need to challenge the assumptions: the first and biggest is that it’s just a career pipeline issue. It isn’t, and we can’t just wait for the passing of time to solve it.</p>
<p>Next we need to re-think what a good research track record looks like. When Tanya Monro secured her Federation Fellowship in 2008, she had three children and had moved across the world to set up a lab from scratch in the five years over which track record is traditionally assessed. At the time, the application process provided no mechanism for extending the time window over which her productivity was assessed.</p>
<p>We need to re-think the language we use to describe women and their behaviour. Men are often called “assertive” where women are called “aggressive”. Male researchers who have children are more often described as “scientists”; female researchers who have children are often described as “mothers”. We can be both feminine and assertive. We can be both outstanding research scientists and loving mothers.</p>
<p>And we need to work on shifting the conscious and unconscious bias that many of us don’t want to admit exists. Science goes to great lengths to remove bias from observations and experiments, yet many in science fail to adequately recognise and respond to our own biases. </p>
<p>One of the most powerful ways to combat this bias is via the relentless promotion of role models – as NISA suggest - we should “highlight the amazing stories of Australia’s successful female innovators and entrepreneurs”. However, the media consistently under-represent women in science. One only needs to think of television science celebrities, and even in the social media, to find that <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/top-50-science-stars-twitter">92% of the most successful Twitter scientists are male</a>. And when female scientists are mentioned, <a href="http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/04/07/0963662508098580.abstract">they tend to focus on our appearance</a> or parental status.</p>
<p>All three of us have done our bit to increase the representation of women in the media, taking every opportunity to speak in public and on radio and television – through news, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/">Q&A</a>, the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/national-press-club:-women-of-science/7285476">National Press Club</a> this week, <a href="http://h100.tv/article/presenter-main-page-bios-coast-australia-s2">Coast Australia</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2225125.htm">Catalyst</a>, and other radio, TV and <a href="https://twitter.com/IdeasBoomAu/status/715383929121804288">social media</a>. </p>
<h2>Be bold</h2>
<p>The good news is that we know how to enact change. Some of it is as simple as structural and regulatory changes to increase early career job security, provide parental care that can be accessed by both parents, create flexibility in the workplace, enable career breaks with guaranteed re-entry, move towards anonymous grant and journal review processes, allocate teaching and administrative tasks in transparent manner and value those tasks. </p>
<p>We need to push against that “motherhood penalty”, and there have been some real gains in recent years. For example, changes to the Australian Research Council criteria, which now allows for the selection criterion of Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/arc-research-opportunity-and-performance-evidence-rope-statement">ROPE</a>) to replace the concept of “track record”.</p>
<p>We must also embrace our national character: our diverse community, relatively flat hierarchy and willingness to challenge and take risks.</p>
<p>We must be willing to implement quotas or targets. You only have to look at the consistent success the Academy of Technology and Engineering (<a href="https://www.atse.org.au/">ATSE</a>) has had in bringing in significant numbers of stellar female Fellows over the last decade, and the recent pleasing developments at the Australian Academy of Science (<a href="http://www.science.org.au/">AAS</a>). </p>
<p>We need to remind ourselves that whenever we see a space where there isn’t a diverse workforce we don’t have the best possible people for the task.</p>
<p>Part of the solution has already been underway in the United Kingdom for more than ten years. The <a href="http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/">Athena SWAN</a> program requires participating organisations to look internally, find out where the holes in their own career pipelines are and propose action plan to address these holes. The charter then rates organisations based on these policies and practices, rewarding them with gold, silver or bronze awards.</p>
<p>The AAS and ATSE have joined together to mount a pilot of the Athena SWAN program as part of the Science in Australia Gender Equity (or <a href="http://www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/">SAGE</a>) initiative. Thirty-two enthusiastic organisations have already signed up to participate in the pilot. </p>
<p>Even the first step, – data collection and analysis – will be a challenge for most pilot participants. Of course they know how many women work there and how many may be promoted there, but they have probably not considered questions like how many are in the eligible pool for the next promotion or how long a period qualified female staff have waited before being promoted. </p>
<p>The Athena SWAN evaluations in the UK tell us that the outcomes will encourage and improve the working life of everyone, whether they are men or women. </p>
<p>Australia stands today with an unparalleled opportunity to engage the next generation of potential scientists. We simply cannot afford to lose so many of the talented people that we produce. So many great ideas that go elsewhere. </p>
<p>Imagine if we could encourage and keep these talented people. Imagine the great ideas doubling our Nobel Prize winners. Imagine being in a room full of female STEM professors. </p>
<p>Imagine the ideas boom then.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nalini Joshi receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is co-Chair and member of the Steering Committee of the SAGE Initiative and has made a financial contribution to the program, as well as being affiliated with the Australian Academy of Science as Chair of the National Committee for Mathematical Sciences. Nalini is a member of the Commonwealth Science Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tanya Monro receives funding from the ARC. She is VP of ATSE, a member of the South Australian Economic Development Board, the Board of CSIRO and the Commonwealth Science Council. She has made a financial contribution to the SAGE program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Johnston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If we want a genuine ideas boom in Australia, then we need to remove the barriers preventing women from reaching the highest levels in science.Emma Johnston, Professor of Marine Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Director Sydney Harbour Research Program, UNSW SydneyNalini Joshi, Professor of Mathematics, University of SydneyTanya Monro, Deputy Vice Chancellor Research & Innovation, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565952016-03-22T19:38:40Z2016-03-22T19:38:40ZLocation, location, location: what’s holding back an Australian ideas boom<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115973/original/image-20160322-32300-vp7hbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No, it's not Melbourne or Sydney.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Florian Rohart/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Brisbane has outperformed Sydney and Melbourne in a new Australian index that measures innovation performance at a suburb level. The index is designed to help policymakers better understand the characteristics that make some locations more innovative than others.</p>
<p>Brisbane has five areas in the top 10 of the innovation index in 2014, substantially more than the much larger state capitals of Sydney (three) and Melbourne (two). At the same time, areas in the other states capital cities don’t even feature until position 28. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115951/original/image-20160322-32291-1fxszd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1. BCEC Innovation index for Australia: 2014, by SA3 regions.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The index is a composite of a number of indicators for both inputs to and outputs from innovation. Measures include patents, trademarks, new business entry and business R&D investment (all relative to the size of the workforce), as well as the share of postgraduate qualified graduates and the ratio of research institutes to the resident population. Each of these measures either a direct innovation activity or a factor that supports innovation activities.</p>
<p>The index highlights the importance of location and agglomeration. The most innovative regions are usually in the largest cities and are typically near other innovative regions and relevant infrastructure that supports innovation such as business districts, universities and research institutes, as can be seen in Figure 1 above.</p>
<h2>Proximity matters</h2>
<p>Innovation is embedded in places. The co-location of the right mix of people, physical capital and infrastructure is key to developing new ideas and transforming them into commercial successes. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://business.curtin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/03/bcec-positioned-for-an-ideas-boom-report.pdf">new report from the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre</a> finds innovation is a local phenomenon where for a host of complex and interacting reasons, certain places and regions are doing better than others. </p>
<p>Innovations build on existing knowledge. Cities are the mechanism which facilitates the creation and dissemination of knowledge leading to better innovation performance. Universities increase the innovation performance of surrounding areas through direct research and innovation outputs and by improving the human capital of workers. Similarly, city centres and surrounding areas attract highly-skilled graduates. </p>
<p>While internet-based communication connects people in even the most remote locations with the rest of the world, when developing an innovation, these communication technologies largely complement regular face-to-face interaction rather than replacing it. It is easier to connect, share ideas and build trust with a neighbour than a person or business who is far away. </p>
<p>Other countries have recognised how important location is for innovation and developed place-based innovation policies. </p>
<p>EU countries and regions are required to have national or regional “<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf">Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation</a>” in order to access European structural and investment funds to support research and innovation. EU cohesion policy involves a process for tailoring innovation policies to local regions, including policies for scientific R&D, practice-based innovation and adoption and diffusion of knowledge and innovations.</p>
<p>Australia is almost twice the area of the European Union. Place-based policies are particularly important in Australia with its large distances between cities and larger distances to the rest of the world. </p>
<p>Place-based innovation policies are not completely new in Australia. Queensland’s “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/smart-state-policy-pays-dividends/news-story/0f546a57cbb6b24bdafdab73f79a67b6">Smart State</a>” strategy between 1998 and 2007 attempted to boost knowledge-based industries through investment in infrastructure, education and training, research programs and industry incentives. While it is difficult to measure the success of these policies the strategy may help explain the high ranking of areas in Brisbane in BCEC’s innovation index (See Table 1).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115953/original/image-20160322-32309-veax6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Table 1. Ranking of SA3 regions by 2014 BCEC Innovation index for Australia.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>International collaboration and innovation</h2>
<p>While innovation is a local phenomenon, international collaborations can bring benefits to businesses in the form of greater exposure to new ideas, world leading advances in technology, and commercialisation opportunities. </p>
<p>Yet OECD comparisons show that only 7.7% of innovation-active businesses in Australia engage in collaborations with international partners in the United States, Asia or Europe - well below the OECD average of 17.9% (Figure 2). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115955/original/image-20160322-32300-1bushko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 2. Share of innovation-active firms engaged in international collaborations: OECD, 2012-13.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Australia is a long way from innovation centres such as London, Tokyo, Shanghai and the Silicon Valley, of course. Australia is also far away from large cities in countries that are (relatively at least) closer to home, like Singapore or Auckland. And Australian cities are also far away from each other. </p>
<p>This means the knowledge inputs crucial to innovation do not diffuse easily within and to Australia, something that may be a particular constraint to innovation in Western Australia given its relative isolation.</p>
<p>Yet paradoxically, no more than 3.6% of Australian businesses cite access to knowledge as a barrier to innovation. This suggests - rightly or wrongly – that the majority of businesses rely on national knowledge partnerships for research and development activities.</p>
<p>It is difficult to square this circle, other than to speculate that some businesses in Australia perhaps “don’t know what they don’t know” – in other words, it is difficult for firms to recognise knowledge gaps as a barrier to innovation, because they simply don’t know what they haven’t learned or invented yet.</p>
<p>Successfully positioning Australia for an “ideas boom” may require a policy approach that addresses the unique constraints of Australia’s economic geography. In absence of such a tailored policy approach, innovation may be more expensive and difficult to achieve in Australia, discouraging R&D investment and limiting the potential for an “ideas boom”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Duncan is the Director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Cassells is Principal Research Fellow at the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Bond-Smith is a Research Fellow at the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.</span></em></p>Any government policy focused on innovation must recognise the importance of proximity.Alan Duncan, Director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and Bankwest Research Chair in Economic Policy, Curtin UniversityRebecca Cassells, Associate Professor, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin UniversitySteven Bond-Smith, Research Fellow, Bankwest-Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/545502016-03-01T00:29:18Z2016-03-01T00:29:18ZRethinking ‘small’ business could drive a real ideas boom<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112057/original/image-20160219-1283-vfym7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It takes businesses of all size to drive research and development.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid the tax debate under way in Australia this year, there have been intermittent <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/tax-options-shrink-after-gst-retreat/news-story/6734b17bbfa6f9aa76176b7ea4cfca6f">calls from within the government</a> for a tax system that encourages a “more entrepreneurial, risk-bearing culture”.</p>
<p>Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s $1.1 billion “ideas boom” includes a 20% tax offset for early stage and 10% for late stage startups, plus capital gains tax exemptions for investments in startup businesses in general. </p>
<p>These tax breaks to incentivise growth in startup enterprises are something the tech industry has been calling for over the past several years due to the slow growth of such businesses and the more generous incentives provided in other countries such as the UK. </p>
<p>The question remains: how might governments step in with incentives for grass roots innovation? In a policy sense, how might we offer the Zuckerbergs and Brins of 2031 just that little more motivation to do what they want to today? </p>
<h2>What Australia does already</h2>
<p>Tax incentives have long been used by governments to motivate such behaviours using generous deductions and rebates applied to research and development (R&D) expenditure and tax offsets for startup investors. </p>
<p>Without going into the detail and exceptions, you can generally assume that eligible companies with a turnover of less than A$20 million are entitled to a 45% refundable offset. This is also equivalent to saying that for every dollar you spend on R&D, the government will allow you to annually claim one and a half times the amount as a tax offset. </p>
<p>Let’s assume you earn a profit of A$100,000 and have an actual R&D expense of A$20,000. The 45% refundable tax offset allowed by the ATO provides you a A$9,000 cash flow saving. Given our general 30% company tax rate, the saving of A$9,000 might be equivalently considered a tax reduction from a A$30,000 expense. Next to the actual A$20,000 R&D expense, that’s like a 150% deduction. So, you spend A$20,000 on R&D, but the government effectively lets you treat the A$20,000 expense as a A$30,000 expense. </p>
<p>This is a good incentive for smaller incubators to engage in R&D. In fact, you might think these rules are generous, and certainly don’t act as a disincentive to R&D spending. So how do they compare with other nations?</p>
<h2>How the UK does it</h2>
<p>The UK is one example some in Australia’s tech industry have singled out for having a better system in place. </p>
<p>First, the definition of an SME from a tax perspective in the UK appears to encompass a broader range of firms, to include firms with an annual turnover under €100 million, and a balance sheet (let’s say assets to keep it simple) under €86 million. So, they’re taxing SMEs less generally, and defining SMEs more broadly than we do for these generous concessions. </p>
<p>And UK companies are given a bigger deduction, percentage wise. UK SMEs conducting R&D are allowed to claim a tax relief of 230% of the actual expense. More importantly, if you’re seeking an injection of capital to grow your business, you’d probably rather be in the UK than here. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.seis.co.uk/">Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme</a> (SEIS) provides investors into new startups with a tax relief equal to half of their investment into a startup, up to £100,000. So, if you invest £60,000 pounds into an SEIS investment, you can claim £30,000 off your tax payable – a generous offer. This substantially reduces your risk. If the business fails, you can claim the other £30,000 pounds as an income tax deduction. Much depends on your individual circumstances, but these incentives clearly provide significant impetus to invest in small startups. </p>
<p>What if you’re a more established firm? The UK has an Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) for later stage investments, where investors may claim a 30% rebate on their investments. Collectively, the above R&D and direct investment incentives certainly appear superior to what we offer in Australia at present. Indeed, the Turnbull announcement possibly reflects an attempt to catch up to the UK SEIS/EIS system. </p>
<p>But before we bang down the doors of Parliament for more generous R&D and direct investment tax concessions, consider that the outcomes are not always straight forward and/or positive when deploying tax breaks as an incentive to allocate resources to the tech sector.</p>
<h2>Picking winners</h2>
<p>A more strategic issue for us to grapple with is that, like it or not, much of the R&D investment in startups is dominated by large US multinationals such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. </p>
<p>Do these multinationals need additional R&D and direct investment tax breaks to invest in Australian startups? Possibly no for two very simple reasons. First, it is no secret that they collectively avoid billions in paying tax in Australia and have <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/google-says-give-rd-tax-breaks-to-small-techies-not-big-guys-20150407-1mfy30.html">directly admitted</a> they do not need additional R&D or other tax breaks to invest in startups. </p>
<p>Secondly, Australia does not have a good track record of allocating resources to a particular industry, or specifically to small businesses by using tax breaks and/or subsidies. In fact, providing additional tax breaks for direct investment in startups may simply create a further avenue for high earning individuals to avoid paying tax. </p>
<p>The use of tax breaks as an incentive to increase the growth of the startup sector in Australia sounds wonderful on the surface, but requires careful consideration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roman Lanis is a CPA</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prabhu Sivabalan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Using tax incentives to motivate innovation is more nuanced than governments sometimes assume.Roman Lanis, Associate Professor, Accounting, University of Technology SydneyPrabhu Sivabalan, Associate Professor, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/552172016-02-26T00:25:10Z2016-02-26T00:25:10ZTreasure Trove: why defunding Trove leaves Australia poorer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112994/original/image-20160225-15141-qedike.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The National Library of Australia safeguards one of Australia's most important living archives.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul Hagon</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>All swashbuckling pirates (and movie producers) know that if you want to find the treasure buried beneath the elusive X you first need a map. A charred fragment is no good: fortune only comes to those who hold enough pieces to follow the trail.</p>
<p>The National Library of Australia’s <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au">Trove</a> service is that map for anyone wanting to navigate the high seas of information abundance. (You don’t even need to be a pirate.) </p>
<p>But our information plundering days may soon be over. Recently announced “efficiency dividends” mean that aspects of the Trove service will be scratched.</p>
<p>The news that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/budget-cuts-will-have-a-grave-impact-on-the-national-library-staff-told-20160222-gn0co2.html">Trove will face cuts</a> has led to an outpouring of support on social media, with several thousand tweets using the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/fundtrove?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag">#fundTrove</a> hashtag.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"702028164873199616"}"></div></p>
<p>So what exactly will we lose?</p>
<p>Trove pulls together metadata and content from multiple sources into one platform to make finding what you are looking for an efficient and successful experience. </p>
<p>As of February 25 2016, this includes information on over 374,419,217 books, articles, images, historic newspapers, maps, music, archives, datasets and more, expressing the extraordinarily rich history of Australian culture.</p>
<p>If, as someone interested in museums, I am looking for information on Sir Frederick McCoy, inaugural director of the National Museum of Victoria, a single Trove search reveals not just books and articles. </p>
<p>I’ll find information on archival collections at the <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/13397399">State Library of Victoria</a> and the <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32035926">Royal Historical Society of Victoria</a>, biographical entries from the <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mccoy-sir-frederick-4069">Australian Dictionary of Biography</a> and the <a href="http://www.eoas.info/biogs/P000589b.htm">Encyclopedia of Australian Science</a>, digital photographs, <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/88167509?searchTerm=frederick%20mccoy&searchLimits=">transcribed newspaper obituaries</a> and images of documents such as a Geological Survey of Victoria map <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-232436448/view">to which McCoy contributed</a>.</p>
<p>Distributed content is available within seconds. The benefits to researchers, local and family historians, and the Australian community as a whole, is immense, resulting in over 70,000 unique visitors a day. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"702768479150039046"}"></div></p>
<p>Yet, as The Sydney Morning Herald <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/budget-cuts-will-have-a-grave-impact-on-the-national-library-staff-told-20160222-gn0co2.html">reported on Monday</a>, staff have been told the federal government’s “efficiency dividend” will have a “grave impact” on the National Library. Aside from inevitable staff cuts, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The library will also cease aggregating content in Trove from museums and universities unless it is fully funded to do so. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the information equivalent to leaving money, or treasure, on the table.</p>
<p>Making Australia’s existing investment in information resources freely and efficiently available is not just a self-evident public good in terms of equality of access. The democratisation of information has clear benefits for innovation and the Turnbull government’s “<a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-seeks-ideas-boom-with-innovation-agenda-experts-react-51892">ideas boom</a>”.</p>
<p>Trove is a key piece of information infrastructure for many professionals, and this wealth of material isn’t behind a paywall or subscription service. There’s no requirement that users prove they are “bona fide” researchers (whatever that may mean). </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"701893590969004032"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s accessible to anyone with an internet connection; and the sources it draws on include more than the usual suspects. There’s content from small institutions and large, community collections as well as state-funded libraries, museums and archives.</p>
<p>In a sense Trove has been a revolutionary experience for those of us who rely professionally on access to high-quality information. Once our problem was that there was just too little to go on. Now there’s far too much. </p>
<p>Contrary to the myth of the lone researcher who loves spending hours scouring paper archives and libraries to discover “buried” or “lost” knowledge, humanities research isn’t primarily about the hunt for content. It’s about analysing, processing, interpreting, relating and synthesising useful content that has been found. </p>
<p>By dramatically reducing the time spent on the trail of content, Trove users spend less time hunting for the booty and more time working with the spoils.</p>
<p>Trove not only aggregates content, it provides sophisticated search capability to help narrow down thousands of results. It’s a focal point for the diverse community who help organise, correct and improve the information it contains.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"702067727603662848"}"></div></p>
<p>For people and organisations with some coding skills there are also opportunities to harvest and process content via an API (application programming interface) to reveal <a href="http://dhistory.org/querypic/fx/">new ways of looking at our shared heritage</a>. </p>
<p>The Trove platform supports 21st-century innovation and agile practice. As a result, it has become essential and internationally renowned infrastructure for distributed, collaborative and responsive research into Australian society and culture.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"701904299496857600"}"></div></p>
<p>As a past manager of Trove, <a href="http://discontents.com.au/fundtrove/">Tim Sherratt</a>, pointed out on Wednesday, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Trove is not going to be suddenly turned off. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But its relevance relies on constantly growing the knowledge and content it contains.</p>
<p>If the National Library puts Trove to the sword as a result of the government’s swashbuckling cuts, this innovative stash of content may end up dispersed and buried again, taking Australia off the map. That would definitely leave us poorer, an information desert island in an increasingly interconnected world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deb Verhoeven received funding from NeCTAR to work with Trove data in 2015. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia has one of the world’s best reference libraries, available freely to anyone with an internet connection. Severe funding cuts will cripple Trove’s capacity – and that should worry everyone.Mike Jones, Consultant Research Archivist, The University of MelbourneDeb Verhoeven, Professor and Chair of Media and Communication, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.