RESEARCHERS are probably not the best people to commercialise their own
ideas. I was forced to that conclusion after chairing a lively debate on the
issue at the Australian Research Management Conference in Brisbane recently.
On one side was the director of the Centre for Drug Design and Development at
the University of Queensland, Peter Andrews, who argued that productive
researchers are in the best possible position to appreciate the commercial
benefits of their findings.
But Chris Fell, the deputy vice-chancellor (research) at the University of
New South Wales, pointed out that researchers are very unlikely to be trained in
the skills necessary to secure financial backing, negotiate with potential
licensees and employ the staff needed to ensure the commercial success of the
whole operation. An inventor鈥檚 emotional commitment to the original idea reduced
the chances that he or she would take the hard decisions needed to build a
viable business, Fell said.
Advertisement
Most players in the process seem to agree that the biggest barrier to
bringing ideas to market in Australia is proving their viability to the
satisfaction of potential investors. So I was very interested to hear about
Uniseed, a joint venture between two of Australia鈥檚 older universities,
Melbourne and Queensland. The aim is to provide funding to test new ideas and
bring them to the point of being able to seek commercial support. Uniseed has a
serious capital base, initially of about A$20 million. Now all we need is
sufficient government support of science to ensure the good ideas keep
coming.
AUSTRALIA could generate 20 to 30 per cent of its power from renewable
sources by 2010. That claim was made at another recent Brisbane conference by
the head of the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Jos Beurskens. He said
the European Community expects to reduce its energy demand by 10 to 20 per cent
by 2010 and double the share provided by renewables from 6 to 12 per cent.
His was not a lone voice. There was real enthusiasm for the commercial
prospects of renewable energy systems at the conference, entitled From
Fossils to Photons, which brought together researchers, regulators and
business people to discuss the future of clean energy technologies. For
instance, the chief executive of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
David Freeman, said Australia鈥檚 2 per cent target for renewable energy by 2010
was ridiculously unambitious. 鈥淵ou should fire every bean-counter who claims
coal is cheaper,鈥� he said.
Democrat senator Lyn Allison, who chaired a Senate inquiry into Australia鈥檚
greenhouse policy which released its report last month, quoted The
Economist as saying that sustainable energy was the next trillion-dollar
industry and called for a carbon levy by 2003 to fund cleaner energy systems.
But the most far-reaching proposal was developed by Australian National
University geologist Doone Whyborn.
His work on extracting geothermal energy from hot dry rocks has reached the
point of commercial feasibility studies. The great advantage this source has
over most other forms of renewable energy is that the heat is available 24 hours
a day, and so could supply the base load of heavy industry. Sites in the Hunter
Valley region appear promising and are located near enough to the large power
loads of New South Wales to be financially attractive. An area in the remote
north of South Australia has been calculated to have more potentially useable
energy than the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Whyborn says that the cost of
generation looks like being between 4 and 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. That鈥檚 quite
a lot less than I pay for my electricity.
The announcement that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is proposing to
close down its television science unit not surprisingly has produced an angry
reaction from the science community. As TV columnist Errol Simper from The
Australian pointed out, Auntie鈥檚 new CEO Jonathan Shier has no experience
of public broadcasting, so it should be no surprise he is making bizarre
decisions. The real question is why the Australian government appointed a person
so obviously unsuited to the job.
That question was made more pointed by a media release from industry, science
and technology minister Nick Minchin. With no apparent sense of irony, he told
the world that he was pleased to see that the ABC had promised a continuing
commitment to science broadcasting. In other words, having let the bull loose in
the china shop, he welcomed the bull鈥檚 concern for preservation of the
stock.