Pre-Budget submissions call for long-term science funding

Science & Technology Australia (STA) has used its pre-Budget submission to propose a new future fund as a way for the Albanese government to implement its election pledge to boost Australia’s research and development investment closer to the 3% of GDP achieved in other countries.

Applying CSIRO economic models to the proven example of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), the industry body said a Science Future Fund could generate economic returns of up to $2.3 billion a year for Australia — at no future cost to the Budget after its initial capitalisation. STA President Professor Mark Hutchinson said the fund would powerfully advance the Prime Minister’s ambition of an economic future “powered by science” and the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledge that the Albanese government will be “the science government”.

“By creating an ambitious new Science Future Fund, the government can forge an enduring legacy to put science investments beyond short-term funding cycles,” Hutchinson said.

“This fund would be a game changer for Australian economic growth … it would match the ambitions of our global technological allies and rivals; safeguard our national security and sovereign capability in an era of escalating global economic uncertainty; futureproof local jobs; and deliver a more prosperous future for all Australians.”

STA analysis shows that a Science Future Fund could inject $650 million every year from investment income into science breakthroughs, generating over $2 billion in new economic returns for the country every year. It would also help ensure Australia doesn’t fall behind its global economic competitors, who are rapidly scaling up their strategic investments in science.

“Right now the world is locked in a fierce science and technology race, as other countries strategically invest to secure their own economic futures through science breakthroughs and innovation,” said STA CEO Misha Schubert.

“In the US, the CHIPS and Science Act will supercharge science by a massive $52 billion — something US President Joe Biden calls a ‘once-in-a-generation investment in America itself’. The UK is also dramatically ramping up public investment in R&D.

“Australia must be every bit as bold in our ambition to be a global science and technology superpower.”

As with the MRFF, the proposed Science Future Fund would be a ‘locked box’ of capital, invested with a mandate of generating strong annual returns. These returns would then be used to transform Australia’s discovery science research, helping the country’s scientists to be the first to technological breakthroughs and pursue ‘moonshot’ programs that need long-term investments. It is a proven model to deliver long-term sustainability without recurring expenditure in future Budgets, STA said.

Meanwhile, the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes (AAMRI) has used its pre-Budget submission to address the mass exodus of early- and mid-career researchers to other countries and sectors, as well as the chronic underfunding of the full costs of research.

“Early- to mid-career researchers are the future of research: they are the scientists who will address the next pandemics and deliver the next wave of groundbreaking discoveries,” said AAMRI President Professor Kathryn North AC.

“They are also the group who have the least opportunity to secure funding and often find themselves in the tragic position of having to give up their research career due to lack of job security.”

According to North, last year fewer than 40 grants across Australia were given to early- to mid-career researchers from the NHMRC’s Ideas Grants Program, a program designed to be the primary source of funding for these researchers. AAMRI’s modelling indicates the need for an additional 241 Ideas Grants for these researchers, to ensure the viability of our health and medical research sector.

The second proposal from AAMRI is backed by the recently released AAMRI Report 2022, showing that the shortfall between funds received for research by scientists and the cost of running Australia’s independent medical research institutes rose to $381 million in 2020. This is the highest gap since AAMRI first collected this data in 2014, when the shortfall was $247 million.

Scientists may incur substantial costs when undertaking government-funded medical research that is not covered by research grants, covering for example state-of-the-art imaging and laboratory equipment, data analytics and IT support, business development and commercialisation expertise. Some government programs exist to help medical research institutes meet part of these costs, but this is not the case for MRFF grants.

“For every dollar an institute spends on research, a further 63 cents is needed to cover the indirect costs of research,” North said. “As we expand our research to meet Australia’s needs, those indirect costs keep increasing.

AAMRI acknowledged that there are some additional funds in place from government to help with indirect costs, but nowhere near enough, with independent medical research institutes receiving less than 40% of the funding needed to cover these costs in 2020. With this in mind, AAMRI is proposing that a similar level of support be provided for MRFF grants, as compared to other funds such as the NHRMC.

“We’re good at finding innovative solutions, so we fill these funding gaps with philanthropy and commercial revenue,” North said. “However, there is a limit to what we can fill and we’re seeing a lot of institutes really struggle.

“We can’t keep ignoring these problems and assuming research institutes will keep thriving. We need strategic solutions like those proposed by AAMRI to ensure Australia’s long-term health and economy.”

Image credit: iStock.com/Sergey Khakimullin