CRC program needs uni equipment and expertise, not money

Next year is the 30th anniversary of the CRC program and the impacts can be felt by Australians daily — from the hybrid cochlear implant, to extended-wear contact lenses, and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s movable trailing edge. Outcomes include products that improve our teeth, indicate how tender our meat is going to be, control our feral pests and ­reduce the carbon footprint of our buildings.

There are 23 CRCs operating in the fields of agriculture, medicine, environment, mining and infrastructure, defence and social services.

Industry, government and academe co-invest and collaborate through CRCs.

Since the inception of the program, industry has invested more than $14bn in cash and in kind, and the government has invested $4bn in cash. The proportion of CRC funds from industry has increased throughout the decades of the program as the sector has become more confident in the program, and more competitive to win government dollars for CRCs in their field.

A more recent trend, perhaps due to the national emphasis on research impact, has been for universities to invest increasing cash contributions, over and above their research expertise, equipment and students.

This change may have been driven partly by changes to research funding policy so that CRC income now earns universities more Research Block Grant income from the government.

This means there is more money for research, and that’s ­always better isn’t it? Our answer is: not always.

We argue that CRCs will best serve Australia’s industry and community if their cash is provided by industry and the CRC program and universities provide different resources that focus on their greatest strengths — staff and research infrastructure.

We acknowledge that higher cash contributions from univer­sities may increase the overall research cash pot in a CRC, but we believe it also risks distorting the biggest asset of the program — ­industry leadership.

The adage “He who pays the piper calls the tune” is correct.

If academic institutions put the ­most partner cash into a CRC, they’ll naturally expect most of the say in what is done. The value of a university to a CRC should be in the research it provides.

The strength of the CRC program has been in encouraging publicly funded researchers to work on problems set by industry and those most affected by the ­research. It is key to any mission-driven research that those most invested in the mission should have the greatest say.

That applies whether the mission is to improve the ­efficiency of farming, mining or Australia’s space industry.

CRCs should be free to seek best-of-breed researchers across Australia, and in some cases internationally, to solve the challenges set by their mission. ­Although CRCs do not generally guarantee a specific cash return to universities contributing cash, all parties monitor it.

If a CRC is significantly supported by cash from universities, then the CRC’s management faces constraints regarding who can undertake its (partially) industry-led research agenda.

We don’t want the current trend of increasing university cash contributions to CRCs to continue to the point where they become distorting of the program’s aims.

The current funding round ­remains in consideration and we do not argue for any change in the rules under which they are competing. But in future rounds, we believe the system would be ­improved by the assessment of the cash component of bids concentrat­ing on industry cash rather than cash coming from universities.

The value of a university in a CRC or CRC project should be its expert staff, equipment and students — that is, the quality of ­research it can bring to address the CRC’s industry-driven mission.

Over the long term, the practice of university cash contributions to CRCs is bad for universities.

Universities subsidise the full cost of research from teaching. They contribute in-kind staff and equipment to CRCs. It is not a sustainable model of research funding for universities to contribute cash to CRCs to fund ­research and then to additionally contribute in-kind staff and equipment.

In an environment of competition for CRCs, it is hard for one university acting on its own to take a step back.

Thus we argue that the CRC program itself should de-emphasise university cash in the assessment of CRCs.

The practice is not necessary because there are already strong incentives that promote university-industry collaboration without university cash in the mix. This type of collaboration is important to Australia because more of our research is conducted in universities than is the case in almost every other comparable country.

Accessing research talent, and the emerging talent from the ­student population, is what matters to industry.

Universities also house facilities and equipment that are ordinarily beyond the reach of much of industry. That’s more than enough to encourage collaboration. CRC bids don’t need to be bulked up by university cash.

The CRC program was established to encourage industry-led research, not to leverage funding provided to CRCs by universities. The best proof of industry leadership of, and engagement in, a CRC is that industry (and the government through the CRC program), provide the cash.

There is cause to wonder if an industry is truly ­invested in the CRC mission if it relies heavily on cash investment from universities.

Let’s see CRCs whose research agendas are truly led by industry, using cash from industry and the government to assemble the best possible teams of researchers and research infrastructure from across the nation’s research institutions to address key challenges to the nation.

Richard Hillis is former chief executive of Deep Exploration Technology Co-operative Research Centre and now pro vice-chancellor (research performance) at the University of Adelaide.

Tony Peacock is chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centres Association.