Unravelling the vast paper trail

THE man who discovered DNA structure said: "It's necessary to be slightly underemployed if you are to do something significant."

JAMES D. Watson, the discoverer of the DNA structure, once claimed: "It's necessary to be slightly underemployed if you are to do something significant."

Unfortunately, the reality for a biomedical researcher in Australia today is far from this ideal. Research is threatened by endless paperwork and the constant quest for funding. Projects typically cost $200,000 a year for salaries and consumables. Most research grants provide funding for one project over three years. Analytical equipment can cost between $100,000 and $1 million. Finding money for research has become a prime academic activity.

January and February are dominated by grant writing, because the submission deadlines for the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council are in March. From April the nation's best researchers spend large tracts of time evaluating each other's grant applications. In August the grant review panels meet to discuss applications and make final recommendations for funding. Only about 20 per cent of applications are successful, resulting in considerable psychological stress for both the academic applicant and any postdoctoral researcher waiting for an extension of their employment. Rejections happen to even the best researchers, wasting valuable time.

The unreliability of long-term funding has a particular impact when it comes to converting biomedical research into pharmaceutical products. It has been pointed out ("Big ideas buried in innovation graveyard," The Australian, August 28) that one of the scientific ideas that started the US company Amgen was born in Australia, where its commercialisation was never realised. Amgen was founded by venture capitalists who were looking for a good investment, pulling together a first-class team of scientists.

To make the best out of biomedical research in Australia, it is important to fund research to the point where drugs, vaccines or tests can be licensed to multinational companies. The anti-viral drug Relenza is an interesting case in point. Originally developed by the Australian company Biota, it was licensed to Glaxo Smith Kline in 1990 to allow worldwide distribution. The resulting revenue flows to Biota and the company is still running successfully.

Many promising projects rely on funding by overseas pharmaceutical companies at an early stage, which will result in lost opportunity and revenue. Universities welcome this external funding as a source of income but economically it makes little sense. If instead 0.1% of superannuation assets were to be used to invest in emerging research outputs, opportunities could be realised to the benefit of Australian manufacturing with little risk.

On top of the challenges associated with obtaining research funds, the red tape associated with running a research laboratory has reached an extraordinary level. The World Economic Forum has ranked Australia No 138 when it comes to burden of government regulation (one being the lightest burden).

Biomedical research is one of the most highly regulated areas, covering animal experiments, experiments with human volunteers, import of reagents and animals, occupational health and safety, gene technology, radiation, quarantine procedures and waste disposal. While nobody disputes that these procedures need to be regulated, the detail to which these are implemented is counterproductive. The vast amount of regulatory paperwork and corresponding liability lies with the academic, who has little institutional help with these activities. Quite the opposite, university procedures associated with employment, leave, travel, etc, are also accompanied by extensive paper trails.

What can be done to boost biomedical research and discovery in Australia? Obviously it needs more long-term funding, however, this might not emanate soon in the current financial climate. So it is important to improve current funding schemes. The Australian Research Council's Future Fellowships scheme, for example, was too big, bringing a lot of young academics into the system who are now looking for grants and positions. Instead, fewer fellowships, accompanied by a research grant, could have been handed out.

Postdoctoral researchers often have to apply for independent grants because funding may not be guaranteed for their hosting groups. Five-year grants instead of three-year funding would provide greater certainty. Early career researchers could apply to a different scheme that has shorter grants. It could be argued, the more competition the better the science, but the current system fosters quick publications to show success on short-term grants, rather than supporting long-term strategic goals that will result in practical outcomes. We need to foster a culture where the regulation of funding and administration of biomedical research are focused on outcomes, instead of endless paper trails.

Professor Stefan Broer is the Head of the Division of Biomedical Science & Biochemistry at the Research School of Biology at The Australian National University.