Archives
Overview
The Knowledge Tree: CSIRO in Australia's innovation systems
Jane Marceau
Innovation and Technology Policy Analyst and Visiting Professor, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW
Abstract
This special issue of IMPP is devoted to presentation and consideration of the several aspects of CSIRO's roles in Australia's innovation systems. The recent Productivity Commission review of public support for science and innovation in Australia included CSIRO in its review but only briefly considered the nature of the context in which CSIRO operates. The review was broadly favourable to the Organisation as it has altered over the last few years, although it made no judgement on the level of funding appropriate to enabling CSIRO to maximise its contribution to innovation in Australia. The recent Budget, however, was not wholly sympathetic to CSIRO: on the one hand, it increased the funding cycle to four years but, on the other, allocated a small rise of 2% over the four year period which in real terms is a decrease.
This ambivalence towards CSIRO and its work has characterised most of the Organisation's history, to the extent that several commentators over the last decade have referred to restructuring CSIRO and its funding as 'a strange national sport' (New Scientist, quoted Ewer 1995 Foreword) or a 'peculiar national past-time' (Johnston 1995: 46). There always seems to be a thought in the heads of governments of whatever political persuasion that somehow the CSIRO, as recipient of considerable amounts of public monies, should be doing 'more' for the nation. This attitude has intensified or retreated at different times but remains a theme in policy development for research systems in Australia. CSIRO has probably been put under a not always friendly microscope more often than most.
The reasons for this attitude are several. Some derive from ambiguities written into the CSIRO Acts. The central mission of the Organisation is essentially to undertake scientific and technological research which is of benefit, both as public good and economically, to Australia. These admirable aims do not always translate cleanly into neat forms of organisation and clearly visible results, however. In some ways paradoxically, because the CSIRO is so large an element of the Australian research and innovation systems, the more visible CSIRO work becomes to some sections of the community, the more others complain.
But there are other issues. Some relate to the capacity of public policymakers, especially politicians but also officials, to understand the broad importance of science to economic development through innovation. Policymakers, and often scientists themselves, whether in CSIRO or the universities, have struggled to comprehend the nature of innovation itself and the processes by which major innovations are developed, adopted and managed.
References
Dahmen E (1988) 'Development blocks' in industrial economics, Scandinavian Economic History Review 1: 3-14.
Dodgson M, Gann D and Salter A (2005) Think, Play, Do, Oxford, OUP.
Faulkner W and Senker J (1995) Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics and Parallel Computing, OUP, Oxford.
Garrett-Jones S and Turpin T (1995) CSIRO and Australian science policy: an international and historical perspective, in Ewer P For the Common Good, pp.6-44, Pluto Press, Sydney.
Hickson D, Butler, R, Cray D, Mallory G and Wilson D (1986) Top Decisions: Strategic Decision-making in Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hyland P, Marceau J and Sloan T (2006) Sources of Innovation and Ideas in ICT Firms in Australia, Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management 15(2): 182-192.
Irvine J (ed) (1997) Equipping Science for the 21st Century, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Jensen M, Johnson B, Lorenz E and Lundvall B-A (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Research Policy 36(5): 680-693.
Johnston R (1995) Remaking national science policy and public sector research for the 21st century, in Ewer P (ed) For the Common Good: CSIRO and Public Sector Research and Development, pp.45-67, Pluto Press, Sydney.
Jones B (1987) Preparing for the Future: science and technology in Australia, International Journal of Technology Management 2(1): 5-24.
Marceau J (2000) Australian Universities: A Contestable Future in Coady T (ed) Why Universities Matter, pp.214-234, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Marceau J (2007) Bringing science to life in Australia: the need for a new approach in human health biotechnology policy, Journal of Technology Management On-line January.
Marceau J and Preston H (1997) Nurturing national talent, Prometheus 51(1): 41-54.
Marceau J, Manley K and Sicklen D (1997) The High Road or the Low Road? Alternatives for Australia's Future, Australian Business Foundation, Sydney.
Malerba F (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy 31(2): 247-264.
Porter M (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
Productivity Commission (2007) Public Support for Science and Innovation, Melbourne.
Radin B (2002) The Accountable Juggler: The Art of Leadership in a Federal Agency, CQ Press, Washington.
Rosenberg N and Nelson R (1994) American universities and technical advance in industry, Research Policy 23: 323-348.
Schumpeter J (1934) Theory of Economic Development, Harvard Economic Studies, Cambridge, Mass.
Strategic Research Foundation (SRF) (1990) Research for Our Economic Future, SRF, Melbourne.
Teece D (ed) (1987) The Competitive Challenge: Strategy and Organization for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, New York: Harper & Row, Ballinger Division.
Toner P (2005) Meeting trade skills shortages through the NSW VET system, University of Western Sydney.
The Australian (1990) Scientists forecast end of free rain, The Australian 15 Aug 1990.
Whitley R (2003) Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science, Research Policy 32: 1015-1029.
Zellner C (2003) The economic effects of basic research: Evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists' migration, Research Policy 32(10): 1881-1895.
eContent Home