Collaboration and politicisation:

Government science in the past 20 years

Tim Wills

1402BPS – Science, technology and society

Martin Bridgstock
Science has been receiving quite a lot of publicity recently. From the 'Climategate' scandal (the
leaked emails from the University of East Anglia) to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation's (CSIRO) successful licensing of Wi-Fi technology to a number of large
international corporations, research organisations have received a lot of attention from the media. In
Australia the federal government have been spending their way out of a financial crisis, science has
received a big funding boost. While the visibility of science has increased, government funding for
their own research labs has decreased and government laboratories have been required to make
closer connections with academia and industry.

But firstly, let's define what government science is. There are three different types of science:
academic, industrial and government science, each of which receive some kind of government
financial support, from tax breaks to direct research funding. Government science can be defined as:
Science that it not only funded by governments, but performed in government owned laboratories
(Bridgstock 1998:30). Government science was initially used for three main reasons: Market failure
(when it was not economically prudent or possible for the private sector to perform research
beneficial to it); public good research, such as climate change or water quality; or for military
purposes (Bridgstock 1998:30). These are still major functions of government science but the
sectors are converging and cooperation between the sectors is on the rise.

One of the major initiatives to increase cooperation between the three sectors, was the formation of
Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). These consisted of an academic institution and/or
government organisation(s) as research partners, and an industrial end user as the industrial partner.
Ralph Slatyer, the chief scientist in the government at the time, proposed them as a way of
overcoming Australia specific challenges (1994). The large geographical size of Australia combined
with a relatively small population led to small research teams. Slatyer proposed that large teams
needed to be formed in order to 'keep pace with the rapid scientific and technological progress
occurring internationally' (1994:147). Another reason cited was the need for closer interaction
between researchers and industry, so the economic benefit of the research could be maximised
(Slatyer 1994).

CRCs have had a significant economic and social impact in Australia, mainly through application of
research by the industry partners (Review of the CRCs Program 2008). The impact on government
science is less clear. The objective of CRCs has changed over the years, shifting more to focus on
more immediately applicable industrial research, with less focus on basic or 'pure' research. One
CSIRO researcher involved in a 2005 study felt that CSIRO and CRC research was compatible
(Garrett-Jones et al. 2005). Others in the same study expressed concern with the effect on human
resources – 'In one case [the CSIRO researcher] was a key person for one of the major
technologies, so it was very hard to extract him, and that’s led to problems' (2005:542) – or with the
focus on industrial research. It seems likely the impact would vary based on whether the aims of all
the participants were compatible.

Government science no longer focusses solely on public good research and rectifying market
failures. Collaboration of industry in CRCs have solved most problems of market failure. Some
kinds of market failure still exist especially in the area of social justice and community research
(Review of the CRCs Program 2008). The most recent review of the CRC program recommends
that the amount of government funding given to a particular CRC be based on the social benefit
gained if the problem the CRC is founded to solve is achieved(2008:92). However, most other areas
have managed to solve most of their market failure problems through forming industry groups,
which are able to fund research directly or to form a CRC.

With so much research happening in collaborative ventures, the role of CSIRO, and by extension,
state government research organisations, has changed significantly. CSIRO was formed in 1926 as
the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) with the aim of having a large base of
researchers located in one organisation that could solve problems that smaller organisations
couldn't. From 1947-49 CSIR's chairman Sir David Rivett, promoted free exchange of knowledge in
the world of science (Collis 2000). Thus CSIRO was formed: An organisation where scientists
would have freedom from executive decision, bureaucracy, external control and as much as
possible, financial constraints. An organisation where scientists would work in the public interest
(Collis 2000). As the world has changed so has CSIRO. Last year, a decision (later overturned after
a public backlash) was made by the CSIRO executive to forbid a CSIRO economist from publishing
a paper, in which he criticised a type of carbon trading that the government had at the core of it's
climate change policy (Berkovic 2009). As the role of science in government policy increases it is
likely we will see more political interference in government science in the future.

The future holds many opportunities and challenges for government scientists. Collaboration will
likely continue, with more research in the public interest (Carr 2008). The research being performed
by the three sectors is becoming more similar all the time and governments will likely become
tempted to cut money from government science whenever they need quick money. Small state
government research organisations, especially in regional areas, are facing closures in line with the
trend towards government centralisation and outsourcing. CSIRO will likely stay as an important
organisation in science, with more political factors influencing it's research targets. The trend
towards privatisation will affect the science sector. Government science has an important role to
play in the future, but it is likely that some of it's current roles will become redundant. It will likely
survive, but in smaller, more specialised roles.

Through all the changes government science has been through, it's role has changed significantly.
Collaboration with industrial and academic science has created new opportunities and challenges
for government scientists. Market failures are less common as industry collaborates with itself and
with the other types of science to perform beneficial research. As collaboration has increased and
science has become more publicly visible, some government scientists have been subject to political
censorship. Government science's role will likely be smaller and more specialised in the future, with
continued privatisation and politicisation of science.
 References

Berkovic, N., 2009. Climate expert Clive Spash 'heavied' by CSIRO management. The
Australian, viewed 29 April 2010 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-
expert-clive-spash-heavied-by-csiro-management/story-e6frg8gf-1225793717744>.
Bridgstock, M, Burch, D, Forge, J, Laurent, J & Lowe, I. 1998. Science, technology and
society: an introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, K., 2008. New CRC guidelines announced, media release, 28 November, viewed 29
April 2010
<http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/NEWCRCGUIDELINESANNOUNCED.aspx>.
Collis, B., 2000. Fields of Discovery: Australia's CSIRO, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Garrett-Jones, S, Turpin, T, Burns, P & Diment, K. 2005. Common purpose and divided
loyalties: the risks and rewards of cross-sector collaboration for academic and government
researchers. R&D Management, 35(5), 535–544.
Review of the Cooperative Research Centres Program, 2008. Collaborating to a purpose.
Program, viewed 29 April 2010
<https://www.crc.gov.au/HTMLDocuments/Documents/PDF/CRCReviewReport.pdf>.
Slatyer, R.O., 1994. Cooperative research centres: The concept and its implementation.
Higher Education, 28(1), 147-158.