The Ideas Boom goes bust


Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull delivering his speech that received a standing ovation from (most of) the audience. Even my hair was getting right into it.

He had just about everyone on their feet. The mood at the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science was upbeat. We’d been treated to a stellar array of talent – science that could clearly lead to economic windfalls, science to help manage the country and its natural environment better, and outstanding teachers to help foster a more scientifically-literate community.

Malcolm Turnbull, the newly appointed Prime Minister, received a standing ovation for his speech that emphasized science as underpinning both the current and future prosperity of Australia. Standing ovations are a rare accolade from a scientific audience; rarer still when directed toward a politician, especially one from a party that had disparaged and cut funding to science so very recently.


The mood was buoyant, as we celebrated science and great scientists such as QAECO’s own Dr Jane Elith.

That was six months ago. And not everyone had stood to applaud. Some wanted more tangible proof that science really was going to be placed at the heart of Australia’s prosperity. But even as I stood, I wondered two things.

Could the Prime Minister sway his cabinet to follow his call?

And for all the talk about science and innovation, what would it mean for funding? Perhaps more importantly, what would it mean for planning and better integration of research and higher education?

Six months would be telling. In particular, what would the Turnbull government’s first budget reveal? I was prepared to wait.

For too long now, funding of universities and major research institutes such as CSIRO has been distributed without a coherent plan for research and researchers. We can’t simply turn funding on and off like a tap and see changes in research performance. The human capital employed by that funding doesn’t change that quickly. It takes months, even years, of lost productivity to shift one’s research environment. Training and establishing a research career can take a decade or more.

We can’t have a research fellowship scheme that sees 200 fellowships one year, but only 50 in another. Or a fellowship scheme that is an expendable hostage in a game of political brinkmanship. Perhaps more importantly than the number of fellowships, we need capacity within our research institutions to accommodate that talent in the longer term. There is little point investing in fellowships if those recipients have limited opportunities once their fellowships expire.

If we want people to continue on research careers, they need to be able to see pathways. The instability and lack of planning means pathways are obscure for many young researchers. At the moment, they are living on hope, on skepticism, or on disappointment.

And we’re living on a slogan. The Ideas Boom. Let me tell you – there won’t be an Ideas Boom in Australia without a properly funded plan. Up until now, the Ideas Boom was simply a $28M advertising campaign. It still is.

The Ideas Boom will happen elsewhere, and some of Australia’s most innovative scientists will move there. Why? Because the budget does very little to lay the foundation for any coherent plan for science and innovation in Australia. In fact, the budget entrenches the Abbott government’s 20% funding cut to universities without providing further capacity to increase income.

Government expenditure on research is going south. As  a proportion of each country’s GDP, Australia spends less than half of the research expenditure of Iceland, Finland and Denmark. If this were an Olympic medal tally, the public would demand an inquiry – we’re being beaten by New Zealand! If we want an Ideas Boom, we’ll need more and smarter investment.


Government spending on R&D for major advanced economies. Sourced from the ABC FactCheck.

University income has been increasingly derived from sources other than the Federal government for several years now. Below are the values reported by The University of Melbourne – the majority of its funding will soon be from private sources, it seems, given further cuts to university funding. Other Australian universities are likely on a similar trend.


The University of Melbourne has increasingly sourced its income from private sources, particularly fees. With further funding cuts entrenched, that trend will continue.

The budget plugs some holes in research funding. Notably, various specialized pieces of infrastructure will be funded, supporting a small fraction of Australia’s research capacity. And extra funding for GeoSciences Australia will help us find more resources to mine. Antarctic science is set to benefit from an expanded Antarctic program, including a new boat just over the horizon. But the announced support is haphazard against a background of cuts.

This is not an Ideas Boom. It’s business as usual – reduced funding across the board, and sprinkles of funding in pockets.

The standing ovation is over. Everyone has resumed their seats, with arms folded. The Ideas Boom is busted. Well, to be honest it can’t really be busted because it was never built.

About Michael McCarthy

I conduct research on environmental decision making and quantitative ecology. My teaching is mainly at post-grad level at The University of Melbourne.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Ideas Boom goes bust

  1. Pingback: More things stay the same, more we retrogress |

  2. Pingback: Adapting to realistic constraints of eradications: an ‘action-portfolio’ framework that improves ecological benefit and reduces cost | The Applied Ecologist's blog

  3. Bloody depressing really. Amazing how it forces you to do more with less. Unfortunately, there is work that just can’t be done with less. I guess the big budget, major enviro research will be done in places other than Oz. Sadly!

  4. Someone asked (off-line) about the $1.1B over 4 years that is part of the National Innovation & Science Agenda (NISA). With Australia’s GDP at $1.6 trillion, NISA amounts to 0.017% of GDP. That would cause a tiny blip on the above ABC FactCheck graph – we’d still remain well behind Slovenia and New Zealand.

    Compare that to an extra $19.5B per annum for defence building projects (subs, frigates and patrol vessels):

    Put $19.5B into research and development, and we see a boost of 0.3% – right in the mix with major nations such as the USA, Japan, France, and The Netherlands. I’m not suggesting Australia should increase R&D spending to those levels within a year – but we should have a coherent plan to ramp up to that level of funding within a few years, spent in way that supports careers in research and innovation, and supports a broad range of research initiatives of long-term (economic, environmental & social) value to Australia.

  5. I like this tweet by @whereisdaz:
    The #ideasboom. From thought bubble to bust, without an actual boom.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s