Biotech boosted in priority plan: CSIRO

CSIRO's biotechnology and life science programs will be strengthened, the organisation claimed yesterday in the launch of its research policies for 2006/07 and beyond.

CSIRO's total funding for 2006/07 is AUD$608 million, up $14 million on the current financial year.

The organisation is to cut its direct funding in livestock and wool research by 5 per cent, but will try to boost industry investment into those areas. It will also look to stamp out duplication of current research into agricultural sustainability, although it expects to grow new programs in the next couple of years.

In particular, CSIRO said it would focus more on turning agricultural research into new products, services and markets.

CSIRO will spend $7 million more on biosecurity research, in diverse projects aimed at protecting Australia from threats such as invasive species and weeds, bird flu and SARS.

Maths, IT benefit

One of the biggest changes in CSIRO's budget will be $7.8 million in funding for ICT and mathematical sciences, double the current funding, which includes hiring up to 30 scientists and engineers for projects such as large-scale sensor networks, environmental monitoring, bio-industries and agribusiness.

Nanotech also gets a boost -- CSIRO will spend more on advanced materials science, with a view to developing nanocomposites and 'self healing' polymers, with applications in medical devices and implants and surface coatings.

"We have decided to grow our investment into exciting new areas where we believe we have a unique opportunity to make a difference," said CSIRO's deputy CEO Ron Sandland. "At the same time we will need to exit some research projects or reduce some research areas where we are no longer competitive or the potential to have impact is less clear."

That could mean that jobs would be lost from some areas, he said, but new jobs would be created in others. "We are confident that the organisation's research investment is being directed to the areas that are most relevant and likely to return the most benefit to Australia," Sandland said.

FASTS backs plan

FASTS, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, applauded CSIRO's attempt to map its research priorities. "Criticism of CSIRO for changes to its research profile is misplaced when they ignore the national picture," said FASTS president Prof Tom Spurling. "No nation, let alone one institution, can cover all possible research paths".

Spurling said CSIRO had to make hard decisions about its medium and long-term research priorities. He also said it was vital that Australia had a strategic and coordinated approach to its research.

"What research should be done and who should do it, needs a higher level of oversight than CSIRO or any other research institution or university can provide," he said. "But Australia does not have this capability. This means there is no real understanding of the effects when CSIRO, or programs such as the Cooperative Research Centres, change focus and direction."

Government expenditure is at its lowest levels for 25 years as a percentage of GDP, said Spurling, and CSIRO is a comparatively small -- and shrinking -- part of Australia's national research efforts. "Between 1999/2000 and 2005/06, CSIRO'S share of Commonwealth investment in R&D declined from 12.4 per cent to 10.7 per cent," said Spurling.

Nobel view

In a statement, Nobel laureate Prof Peter Doherty said he saw "attractive aspects" in CSIRO's research prioriries, although admitted he was looking at the organisation with an outsider's perspective.

"CSIRO has had to travel a very difficult road and they are responding to the political and funding realities of the current scientific landscape," said Doherty. "They're tapping what's available, but it continues to be disappointing that there is not substantially greater investment, both from industry and government sectors, in these and many other areas of science that are so important for Australia's future."

Nanotechnology Victoria CEO Dr Peter Binks said the priority framework was a good set of initiatives. But he was critical of the fact that CSIRO still failed to come to terms with Australia's manufacturing industries, especially regarding nanotech.

"In Australia, manufacturing firms have highlighted nanotechnology as a key innovation opportunity," said Binks. "However, nanotechnology is disguised heavily underneath CSIRO's priorities. CSIRO is one of the few major research organisations worldwide where nanotechnology is not listed as an area of expertise or as a corporate priority. Two years ago nanotechnology was listed as an 'emerging science' for CSIRO. Has it now emerged -- or has it disappeared?"

The CSIRO has missed an opportunity, Binks said. "There are a number of sectors - automotive, aerospace, equipment design, packaging, agriproducts, environmental remediation - which will benefit greatly from CSIRO's nanotechnology developments, if properly focused," he said. "The CSIRO could also, if it chooses, play a major leadership role in the public awareness and discussion of nanotechnology over the next decade, including addressing issues such as toxicology and public risk. This is an important debate for Australia, and CSIRO should have a voice."