BIO profile: John Mattick, Institute for Molecular Bioscience

Australia's research institutes and industry have a mutual responsibility, says Prof John Mattick -- to work together to translate academic ideas into ideas for development and commercialisation.

As the head of Australia's fastest growing research institute, the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (IMB) at the University of Queensland, Mattick is in a good position to smooth that transition from basic science to drug development.

"The responsibility of science and scientists is to discover and understand new ideas and technology. Then industry takes those ideas and technologies and works out if they can develop practical applications," he says. "Some people are naturally more driven by applications -- they like to see tangible outcomes to their research. Others are more academic -- they focus on the basic understanding."

Mattick has had plenty of first-hand experience of the interface between basic science and industry. After the usual PhD and postdoc stint, which included five years at a lab in Houston, he joined the CSIRO in the early 1980s, where he worked on a recombinant vaccine against foot rot in sheep -- a vaccine that is still in commercial production today. "At that time I had my first experience of the intersection between research and industry," he says.

In 1988 he moved on to the University of Queensland to set up the Centre for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, later the Centre for Molecular and Cell Biology, which later merged with another institute at the university to become the IMB.

"When I came to the University of Queensland, I took the view that first and foremost there had to be outstanding research," he says.

At the IMB, Mattick has assembled a stellar group of scientists, many of who have formed links with Australia's biotechnology industry. The institute's close association with its dedicated commercialisation and tech transfer company IMBcom has helped this along. To date, eight spin-off and start-up companies have come from the IMB, including Xenome, Promics, Protagonist, Mimetica, Nanomics Biosystems, Kalthera, Cyclagen and Nephrogenix.

"We have a terrific situation here as we have the resources to invest heavily in IMBcom -- a specialised group working full time to identify intellectual property at the institute and look for opportunities," Mattick says. "The IMBcom staff meet regularly with the institute staff to see where they are at, where the opportunities are and so on. It relieves the individual scientists of the responsibility to beat the bushes for commercialisation opportunities."

It's a model that, while still unusual, is slowly gaining favour in Australia's research institutions, although generally the tech transfer companies deal with the output of an entire university, not just an associated institute.

"If universities and institutes expect people to be proactive in this area, then they need to be properly resourced," Mattick says.

It all points to the changes that still need to be made to Australia's R&D culture, which Mattick says has not developed to a point where industry, not just biotechnology, looks to the research institutions to identify new ideas and technologies.

"With the notable exception of our primary industries, industry tends to have a branch office mentality in Australia," he says.

According to Mattick, it is critical that Australia is involved in the next major wave of industrial transformation, which he says will involve the life sciences, particularly in the heady rush of research that has followed the Human Genome Project.

"In a smallish country like Australia, the only way to get on a steeper trajectory is to get onto the emerging sectors of major potential," he says. "It's worth noting that globally, a drug like EPO [erythropoietin] is worth half the value of the entire Australian grain crop. It may be the last chance that Australia has to be at the leading edge of a major industrial transformation."

But Mattick says the country will only be able to reach its potential if the federal and state governments throw their whole-hearted support behind the sector, and science in general. Mattick is concerned that much of the investment into the sector has been half-baked, with the exception of states like Queensland and Victoria, which have put substantial resources into the sector.

"If Australia wants to get ahead of the game, it needs to put in extra resources. Federal funding is getting better but it is still given grudgingly. It needs to be a strategic decision to fund science, rather than funding just because the scientists asked for it. Research is still treated as a charity rather than a major tool for industry development," he says.

"The irony is that Australia is claiming to be the clever country, when there is little evidence of that, especially in the areas of science and technology development. But complaining about it is not the solution, although pointing out the deficiencies is quite reasonable. We need to identify what the key agendas are, and get the right people in place to achieve those agendas."

Mattick points to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research as a shining example of where great leadership -- in the form of MacFarlane Burnet and Gustav Nossal -- made the institute what it is today.

As far as his own institute goes, Mattick is happy with its progress to date. It has a multidisciplinary environment encompassing genomics and bioinformatics, molecular genetics and development, molecular cell biology, chemistry and structural biology, and nanotechnology -- something that is rare in Australia, and even internationally.

"We've provided a place for inspiring young Australian scientists to develop careers in Australia. We're publishing very well. And we're at the vanguard of encouraging people to start up companies -- it provides an alternative career path for PhDs and postdocs and is a stage in the maturation of entrepreneurship in Australian biotechnology," he says.

"We're taking a forward thinking approach in the way that we develop science."