Download Deakin UniversityDraft 2016 National Research Infrastructure

Name of Submitter: Professor Jane den Hollander, Vice-Chancellor
Deakin University
Draft 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap
Submission Template
Please provide your comments in this word document below, noting that the overall word count
should not exceed 1,000 words and any content exceeding this amount may not be counted as part
of your submission. If you would like your comments published, please ensure that your submission,
including all pictures, diagrams or tables adheres to online accessibility requirements as stated on
our Terms and Conditions page.
Deakin University is in broad agreement with the Draft National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. We
accept concentration on layers 2-4 as the rightful focus of government. We agree with adoption of the
nine focus areas identified in the document, citing as well a need to recognise natural interactions of
certain focus areas. As examples, the development of Platforms for Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences and the emergent integrated data sets are relevant and have certain implications for public
health data sets. Likewise, there is obvious shared relevance of Environmental Systems and
Biosecurity. We also agree with each of the key recommendations contained in the document.
We do have some additional comments, which are intended to contribute to a sharpening of the focus
for each recommendation.
2. Research Infrastructure Advisory Group – We recommend a mix of university, research institute
and industry researchers, government representatives and research users. A legal advisory framework
is required so that researchers understand their rights and obligations, but are free to focus on their
scientific tasks and leave any legal queries to those specialising in the area. Establishment of such a
framework through the Advisory Group would be very useful.
3. Roadmap Investment Plan – Developing industry-led research facilities with significant government
funding should be a priority. Currently many major companies such as APA group, VicRoads,
Melbourne Water and Telstra no longer have their own research teams or facilities. It would be
logical to develop a government-funded facilities to meet their long-term research and development
needs. Co-funding models are needed to facilitate this.
4. Address the Needs of Complementary Initiatives – Australia needs infrastructure that supports
evidence to practice through clinical trials infrastructure, health service research infrastructure and
infrastructure that allows access to available data sets. In addition, there is a need for infrastructure
that moves the nation towards an organised approach and funding for the translation of omic
platform technologies to the bedside. Australia is significantly behind in implementing this technology
to patients. Infrastructure is needed that links omics, clinical data and population based data that can
be leveraged for both prevention science and clinical care. The development of a human haptics bank
would also be beneficial. This infrastructure would facilitate the capture of the entire human body’s
anatomic characteristics digitally for use in virtual patient studies and the development of hapticallyenabled surgeries on a personalised basis.
5. Skilled Workforce – Universities should be responsible for HDR training and high level technical
training. RIs should be responsible for high level technical training. In science, high-end equipment
needs high-end skills. In the humanities and social sciences, curation and management of archives
relies heavily on the quality of the associated workforce. One of the major challenges in the use of
high-end science equipment is in finding, developing and keeping staff who have specific skills. We
believe it would be beneficial to have access to funding for training in areas where there is a distinct
skill shortage. Having said this, there is an additional need to develop researchers with new skill sets
related to emergent technologies.
6. Existing Landmark Facilities – Infrastructure dealing with emerging infectious diseases must be
considered in the roadmap. AAHL is an important global, national and local infrastructure. In addition
to continuing investment in this and other ‘landmark facilities’, new research facilities are needed in
emerging areas such as energy conversion and storage, two-dimensional nanomaterials and
environments. In energy storage, i.e. batteries, in-situ testing devices for X-ray diffraction using
synchrotron radiation are critical to understand the storage mechanism and battery failure, which will
help to improve new battery fabrication and quality. In the 2D nanomaterials area, advanced electron
microscopes are required to study the 2D structures. In addition, in-situ measurement systems are
critical to test individual nanosheet for different properties including mechanical, physical and
electronic properties, which cannot be done using conversional instrumentation. High usage cost of
existing facilities is one reason for the low number of users for some facilities such as MCN, and more
funding is required to lower the usage fee.
7. Coordinated Approach to International Engagement – Australia does not need to have all major
facilities, but it would be of great benefit if access to international facilities was supported to further
develop and enhance our research capability and contribute to the global challenges with which we
are faced. Where the international facilities are world class and it would be cost-prohibitive to
develop, maintain and resource in Australia, access to international facilities should be prioritised
over developing national facilities. There will also be cases where we are not seeking to be world class
in terms of national infrastructure, but where we want to support relatively small but high
performing groups, or where Australia has already established strong links with an international
facility. Where access to top quality overseas infrastructure is possible and assurance of continuity
and quality of access is available, Australia should take advantage of this rather than promote
duplication of facilities.
8. Raise Awareness – Outreach should focus specifically on research infrastructure pertinent to the
nine Roadmap focus areas. The outreach should be an Australian Government initiative directed
toward government agreements as well as industry, research collaborators and end-users, both existing
and prospective. It should be a program of outreach, not a one-off or single-pronged initiative.
9. National High Performance Computing – Australia needs improved training in data management,
data processing, HPC solutions development for diverse communities: training is needed as part of
research infrastructure. The Government should make the most economic, financial and accounting
data ‘open’ and readily available for academic research purposes, that is, for research that
demonstrates either policy implications and/or demonstrable social and economic benefits. Purchase
by research institutions of databases that are necessary for research into economic, econometric and
accounting and financial issues of national importance should be included within research
infrastructure investment by Government and should be part of the Roadmap. The Federal
Government should adopt the US Government’s ‘Open Government Initiative’ and develop data
policy along the lines of transparency and on principles related to participation and collaboration.