National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme

The Academy supports the principles established by the NCRIS Advisory Committee (Exposure Draft p3.). It is agreed that the National Research Priorities (NRPs) and their associated structural objectives provide a robust framework for decisions on NCRIS priorities, and the pre-eminent criterion should be strategic impact (ED p4) within the framework of the NRPs with the additional criteria increasing collaboration and reducing duplication and sub-optimal use of resources and other criteria listed on ED p.8, although text in that box does not mention strategic impact.

The biggest impediment to collaboration between institutions in Australia is competition for rights to ‘intellectual property” or possible future patents. There is competition between Universities themselves and also between universities and CSIRO and other research institutions. Each has its own ‘Business Development” office and lawyers who tend to kill collaborations with discussions which go on for far too long. The CRC program has gone some way to alleviating this competition by fostering collaborative work, but the problem is still a serious one. It should be recognised that only a fraction of research ends in a patent, only a fraction of patents end with a product and only a fraction of products last more than three years to earn anything to make payments on royalties. What is most important is that it is an Australian company or institution that owns the final patent, if indeed there is a patent. NCRIS funding should be structured such that operation of national collaborative facilities are not inhibited by restrictions due to intellectual property considerations.

The Academy endorses the principal that NCRIS funds should support adequate staffing and basic operating costs in addition to the capital costs for infrastructure.