Government must help biotech: Clarke

The suspension of the Federal government's R&D Start program, purportedly for being too successful, flew in the face of Australia's need to compete in the global biotechnology arena, Prof Adrienne Clarke has warned.

Victoria's Biotechnology Ambassador said the nation also needed to keep in step with the monetary commitments of other countries in attracting and keeping the world's best biotech people.

Speaking at an American Chamber of Commerce lunch in Melbourne, Clarke said it was widely accepted that biotech was a growth area, with the United States sector alone enjoying a market capitalisation of $US400 billion, compared with the market capitalisation of the global mining industry, which stood at $US300 billion.

Added to this was the fledgling bioinformatics industry that had grown from almost nothing five years ago to gaining a projection of more than $US11 billion by 2004, Clarke said.

"So biotech is huge, and it is one of the few strong growth areas," she said. "It's an industry with enormous growth potential, it is pervasive and it is bringing new products through all the time. But it is risky."

Clarke said a major problem area for Australian biotech was moving ideas from the laboratory into proof of concept.

"Governments must play a role to reduce the risk and get the fledgling enterprises launched," she said, adding that Australia had a stop-start history in this regard.

Clarke said R&D Syndicates, which offered a 150 per cent tax rebate, managed to get a major amount of money into a number of areas but were pulled after five years when they were deemed out of control. She said that AusIndustry's R&D Start program unfortunately appeared to have gone the same way.

Last week the Federal government announced a temporary freeze on funds after revealing a $40 million blow out, which it said had been caused by an unprecedented first-year cash burn among start-up companies.

The program is expected to recommence "later in the 2002-03 financial year", according to the government.

Clarke said the suspension not only made planning difficult for young businesses, but also sent a negative signal to the world at large about Australia's commitment to R&D.

"Planning is difficult for these small enterprises when the ground rules change suddenly and drastically," she said.

"From the outside, the perception is that we just don't have the commitment to getting these industries going."

Clarke said Australia was also lagging in terms of the profile of its universities and in attracting and keeping the best and brightest scientists and researchers.

She said that while several local scientists individually rated among the top in the world, none of the nation's universities made it into the top 100.

"This is a sobering thought when the future of new growth industries where we might have a chance to build a global presence depends so much on excellence," Clarke said.

"We have some scientists in the top 100, but they are in a hazardous situation because their funding is so unstable."

She said Australia should take heed of nations such as Canada, which had committed $900 million to filling 2000 new university positions, and Singapore, which is throwing $7 billion over five years at biotech.

Compared to this, she said the five-year $75 million Federation Fellowship scheme - while a good start - was relatively small.

Clarke said Australia needed to stop judging itself against its past performances and start matching itself against the rest of the world.