SIA Blog | Science Articles 2010

The Facts and Falsehoods of Commercialisation Australia: Six myths exposed

2010-07-14T13:20:31Z

The Commercialisation Australia program, the successor to the Government’s COMET scheme, has proved a boon to many and a bane to others. Inevitably it was going to have a few teething problems. As with any new incentive program, it can involve navigating the industry-specific details to work out whether it’s right for your business. Here, Adrian Spencer explains the pros and cons that the grant can provide for those in the technology sector.

Myth 1: CA supports Research and Development (R&D) and Commercialisation activities

Myth 2: Aim to Double Dip

Myth 3: You can make anything seem like Pre-Commercialisation activities

Myth 4: Good ideas are better than financial security

Myth 5: The ‘Need for funding’; a Catch-22

Myth 6: Early Stage Commercialisation (ESC) is a grant that converts into a loan

Escaping the valley of death - bridging the gap between proof of concept and commercialisation

2010-07-13T15:47:53Z

SIA has long lobbied government for both Proof of Concept support as well as funding support to help ideas make it to market.

In the US, since 1983, they have had SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) grants to help escape the "Valley Of Death". SBIR grants are a 27-year-old US government initiative that steers federal dollars to small businesses working on projects that might be too risky for private investors.

This article shows how the US is taking the next steps to build on the good that SBIR grants have wrought and fill in any further funding gaps. The new measure, sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, would create a new grant program for companies whose federal research and development dollars are drying up -- just as they begin focusing on pushing new products to market.

Right now, Tonko said, "We just take people halfway through the journey."

There is "an abundance of success stories out there," where federal R&D money has led to promising prototypes, Tonko said. "That's not the time to drop the commitment or have a modest commitment. We need a robust, passionate resolve to absorb some of the high-risk, high-reward opportunities here."

Commercialisation Australia.......where are you.......?? Read the article here.....

Can Australia really claim to be a nation of innovators?

2010-02-02T18:10:15Z

Sure, we’ve reared more Nobel Prize Laureates in Science than any other nation on the planet. But ask your average shopper in New York, Beijing or Helsinki to name an Australian product and you might find yourself waiting a long time for an answer.

So, is Australia a nation of innovators? For a country of our size and natural assets, are we punching above or below our weight?

Read more.....

Australian Innovation Policy.....Where the bloody hell are you.......

2010-02-02T17:52:32Z

It’s been…

26 months since Kevin ‘07 was handed the Prime Ministerial baton;
25 months since Senator Kim Carr announced his Review of the National Innovation System;
21 months since Commercial Ready was ‘axed’;
17 months since Terry Cutler handed down the outcomes of Venturous Australia;
three months since the recommendations of the report found some semblance of form in Commercialisation Australia;
two months since most of learned that COMET would be wound up by 31 December 2009; and,
one month since the Australian Treasury released its Exposure Draft to reform the R&D Tax Incentive, seeking feedback by 5 February.

The Pittsburg Conference as bellwether for the laboratory industry....so what's the verdict

2009-03-11T17:38:31Z

By Russ Swann - Guest Editor

Unless you've been living on Mars for the last year or two, it probably hasn't escaped your notice that there is something of an economic crisis currently affecting the world's major economies. The
financial sector is suffering badly and spreading its malaise widely: manufacturing, construction, processing - no industry is recession-proof. But how is the laboratory sector faring in these troubled times?

This week in Chicago, the litmus has been applied to the sample. Pittcon (the Pittsburgh Conference, although it is never held in that city) is the biggest of the US events in our industry. It runs all this week in the 'windy city', and serves as a bellwether of the sector's virility. How then does the wind blow?

My correspondent at the exposition, Jezz Leckenby of Netdyalog, reports that it is very much an event that is trying to put on a brave face. The most positive number is the attendee pre-registrations, which are actually up 3 per cent on last year. This may have something to do with the generous discounts made available to students, academics, and unemployed scientists in the run-up, but is at least a bit of good news. There was also a good turn-out, he reports, for the opening plenary lecture from Harvard's Professor George Whitesides, which was on zero cost diagnostics. He was rather upstaged by the founder of Aldrich (Sigma Aldrich), Dr Alfred Bader. An Austrian refugee jew from WWII, Bader gave a thrilling account of his life and received the
Pittcon Heritage award.

This, though, is where the good news runs dry. Comparing more numbers, we see find total conferees down by about 300 to 7100. Exhibiting companies are about 10 per cent fewer at just over 1000, and the space
they occupy is down by about 20 per cent, counting the number of actual stands. This is reflected in a 22 per cent drop in exhibition personnel, and a similar fall in the number of media delegates.

These numbers have turned the litmus red, but it has to be said that it isn't a very deep red. I have written before about how the laboratory sector is better placed than many industries to ride out the economic storm, and the news from Chicago really supports this: if the numbers are holding up so well in these conditions, perhaps the outlook is not so bleak after all.

Laboratory Equipment Australia

Science is Cool again......

2009-03-04T12:35:03Z

Guest editorial: Russ Swann - LaboratoryTalk

Governments of all persuasions will routinely trot out the mantra that education is their number-one priority, and that of all their number-one priorities science and engineering education comes right at the top. The investment in learning and knowledge, they assure us, is the only way to secure the prosperity of future generations. They usually tell us this just before announcing another round of cuts to their education budget, with the axe falling hardest on the less popular subject areas such as, well, science and engineering.

I think we can all expect to hear more of this blather in the months ahead, as governments look at all areas of expenditure with a level of scrutiny that could easily be thought of as panic. All those countless currency units used to support the corrupt and inept banking system mean that those areas of the economy that create wealth by actually doing things, instead of shuffling bits of paper, are going to find it ever harder to secure funds. Bet on education being one of them, despite its avowed priority-one status.

But there are a couple of reasons to be optimistic about the relative importance of technical learning among the wider educational programme. One of those, ironically, is the economy. We have seen in past recessions that students have a rather different perspective on their choice of courses than they do in times of prosperity. Suddenly an undergraduate might look at a degree in media studies or basketball as something of a luxury, and opt instead for a course offering at least a glimmer of employability. Here the sciences will benefit.

There's also the element of fashion. We have long suffered the stigma of nerdiness and dullness, while the flibbertygibbets of the arts world preened about. But no more: science is once again cool. The reason owes a lot to high-profile Big Science projects in the news, such as the Large Hadron Collider and the Human Genome Project. Even when, as is the case with the LHC, things don't quite go according to plan, the coverage makes our subject areas more sexy.

Possibly goes to show the old maxim - "There's no such thing as bad publicity" holds true in this case.

Why do we continue to act like a provincial Government.....??

2009-03-03T16:47:17Z

Whilst the rest of the developed world are planning long-term, considered responses aimed at turning around their economic fortunes by investing wisely in wealth generation and ideas we're blithely throwing money into the wind with nary a care where it lands.
Whilst the US for example has earmarked over US$600M for laboratory instrumentation purchases all we're planning - long term - in the realm of science funding is to build more classrooms for secondary school science classes.

Whilst the rest of the world marches on in the full understanding that long-term economic health and wealth generation comes from nurturing innovation and enterprise level R&D initiatives all I'm seeing are adverts from travel agents exhorting us "To have a holiday on Kevin" as their way of extracting the $900 per head available from March 9
Why.........................?????????????

Life Science Equipment makers face shaky economy, sales environment in 2009

2009-01-26T11:46:47Z

Makers of drug development research and medical equipment could face a slowdown in 2009 according to several analysts, as the economy remains weak and clients cut back on spending.

A broad range of companies that service researchers and medical care providers will report quarterly financial results in the coming weeks. But the main concern for investors, said Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Peter Lawson, will be the companies' outlooks moving forward.

"Visibility has been severely impaired as the global slowdown continues and financial markets remain volatile," he said, in a note to investors.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Cepheid, which makes molecular diagnostic products, has already said it expects to report fourth-quarter results that fall short of analysts' estimates and expects a weak 2009. Meanwhile, Palo Alto, Calif.-based Varian Medical Systems Inc., which makes radiation therapy systems, already reported better-than-expected sales for its fiscal first quarter, though the stock fluctuated earlier in January on concerns of an industrywide slowdown.

Capital spending remains the primary concern, Lawson said, with companies geared toward the industrial markets at risk, including Varian and Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Dionex, which makes analytical instruments for chemicals. On that same note, though, Dionex could also come out ahead, as safety testing remains a key industry. Waltham, Mass.-based PerkinElmer Inc., which provides technology and services for the drug development industry, could also see a benefit from the continued spotlight on safety testing.

"Following comments from individual management teams at recent investor conferences, we expect the default position to be the issuance of muted 2009 guidance, as companies take a cautious look at the current economy, health care spending trends, and capital spending in both lab and hospital environments," said Leerink Swann & Co. analyst Bruce Cranna, in a note to investors.

He and several others in the industry cite a mix of a weak economy, cuts in spending and a stronger U.S. dollar as factors putting pressure on life sciences companies.

Scientific Equipment Manufacturers

An olympic folly

2008-10-12T17:24:20Z

An Aussie swimming coach sells training secrets to the Chinese and it hits the front pages of the tabloids. Fair enough. But our precious intellectual property has been flowing the wrong way for generations. Rowan Gilmore contemplates a troubling epidemic.........http://www.anthillonline.com/article_detail.php?id=781

Science Industry Australia Response to Green Paper “Venturous Australia”

2008-09-29T20:09:54Z

SIA has read with great interest the Cutler Green Paper “Venturous Australia” and congratulates the Panel on producing a wide ranging report. Its response is as follows:

•    SIA is supportive of the report’s recommendations for changing the tax concession for R&D and the extension of this program to overseas corporations operating in Australia.

•    Whilst acknowledging that the report has called for greater collaboration between PFRAs and industry, SIA is disappointed that the report has not explored more comprehensive mechanisms to facilitate this, including examination of schemes trialled overseas. The proposed pilot linkage voucher scheme, though welcome, will not itself bring about the necessary cultural change in industry.

•    SIA is supportive of the proposals to review patent law and to enable a more cooperative procedure to develop for the use by Australian industry of the outcomes of PFRA research.

•    SIA supports the full funding of PFRA research and the raising of support for public sector research to the proportion of GDP allocated to it in the mid 1990s.

•    SIA is concerned by the report’s suggestion that research block funding to universities should be based on success in winning national competitive grants and on publications in highly ranked journals. It does not believe that this will adequately reward universities that foster active collaboration with the private sector. Research funds received from industry and level of innovative activity (as measured by the “Proof-of-Concept” metric previously described by the SIA) should be part of the distribution formula, especially in the sciences, applied sciences and engineering.

•    SIA is disappointed that the report has not specifically addressed the low number of STEM graduates presently produced. These graduates are at the heart of innovative developments in many areas of industry and Australia currently underproduces them on a per capita basis. A similar comment can be made about technicians with science and engineering backgrounds. The Science Industry’s growth is presently severely constrained by skills shortages.

•    Though alluded to frequently throughout the report, SIA is disappointed that a School for Instrumental Science (or similar) being established at least one of our leading higher education institutions is not one of the recommendations. It is precisely the lack of such a focused curriculum that leaves our Higher Education system mired in the 1980s in terms of curriculum offerings whilst the economy is demanding (and not getting) graduates with skills and learnings based on current technology and techniques.

•    SIA cautions that in identifying areas of national challenge for innovation, the report may encourage an overly narrow focus on R&D. It should be appreciated that making progress in the areas identified calls on complementary competencies, particularly those associated with scientific measurement.

29 September 2008