September 18, 2025 • 38 mins
Professor Sharath Sriram was recently appointed as the new Chief Scientist of WA, providing independent, expert advice to the WA Government on topics important to the future of science and technology in the State. At our WA Life Sciences Innovation Hub’s Spotlight event he joined MTPConnect’s Dr Tracey Wilkinson for a fireside chat sharing his vision for science and technology in WA, his ambitions for the three years ahead, and insights from his first few months in the role.
Accomplished nanotech researcher and commercialisation champion, Professor Sharath spent 16 years at RMIT University in Melbourne most recently as director of the Discovery to Device manufacturing facility. In the last two years he also co-founded healthtech startups Fragment BioTech and Lubdub AI, and is the current president of the national peak body, Science & Technology Australia.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Natalie Vella (00:01):
This is the MTP Connect podcast, connecting you
with the people behind thelife-saving innovations driving
Australia's growing lifesciences sector from bench to
bedside for better health andwell-being.
Mtp Connect acknowledges thetraditional owners of country
that this podcast is recorded onand recognises that Aboriginal
(00:23):
and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples are Australia's first
storytellers and the holders offirst science knowledge.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (00:33):
I would like to acknowledge that we're
meeting on the lands of theWuljuk people of the Noongar
Nation and pay my respects totheir elders past, present and
emerging.
And the WA Life SciencesInnovation Hub is a partnership
between the state government,mtp Connect, australia's Life
Sciences Innovation Accelerator,and the University of Western
Australia, and we are here to doalmost anything to accelerate
(00:55):
the growth of WA's medtech,biotech, pharma sector.
You can call us your conciergeservice.
We are here to help.
Please reach out if there'sanything that we can do to
support you.
Now.
I'm delighted to introduce ourguest for tonight, WA's Chief
Scientist Sharath Sriramprofessor .
He's a distinguished scienceand research leader, an engineer
and an inventor.
He is renowned for creating anddelivering breakthrough
(01:18):
technologies in the fields ofnanoelectronics, sensors and
medical
Prof Sharath Srira (01:22):
technologies .
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (01:22):
.
He's been described as aresearch rock star and a
connector of commercialisation,which I stole from his
introduction at his press clubaddress from last year.
He's also co-founded a WA-basedmedtech startup called LubDub,
alongside Dr Nikhlesh Bapu andProfessor Guresh Davidi.
Please join me in welcomingProfessor Shreem.
Please join me in welcomingProfessor Sharam.
(01:50):
All right, so the way thatthese conversations usually
start is an introduction, andthe bio that I just gave for
Professor Sharam was very short,intentionally, because you are
better placed to introduceyourself.
So my first question to you istell us a little bit about
yourself and why you became ascientist.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:04):
I'd better be careful in calling myself a
scientist, because the engineersoften get offended that they
get all grouped under one term.
So I'd say I'm a bit of both.
I've been joking.
The role should be chiefscientist and engineer, like New
South Wales.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (02:19):
I'm married to an engineer, so he would
definitely bring me.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:22):
I think I got into what I do because I'm
by nature curious, and I thinkyou'll see threads of it
throughout why I'm in policy.
So when I see something notworking I have to fix it.
So it's a scientist engineer, apolicy issue, and so that was
the fundamental reason why Ibecame a scientist slash
engineer.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (02:43):
How does a professor at RMIT end up as WA's
chief scientist?
And what I'm really looking foris what appealed to you about
this role.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:52):
I'll talk about the appeal first and then
how or why.
I think within WA there's a lotof potential and, in my view,
untapped potential.
So we've been tapping into theresources under the ground but
not enough into the people andthe ideas and the government.
Intent is there and sosometimes it's about sharpening
the strategy.
So I think that was the realattraction, so probably right
(03:17):
time, right place that way.
How it happened, I really don'tknow.
I think it's just a combinationof factors.
In my career I've been aresearcher at the coal face,
applying for grants, handlingstudents, which I still do.
I patented, worked with a lotof companies, done
(03:37):
commercialization, seen thingsfail, seen things work and, like
I said, I've been active in thenational policy space trying to
fix funding systems, create newfunding systems and get it a
bit more interconnected.
I think those three elementsprobably made me a good fit for
what the state is after.
I think they are looking at howto again create a lot of
(04:01):
commercialization activity.
One of the other roles I'vedone extensively is I've built a
lot of shared infrastructure.
About 12 years back I built a$45 million semiconductor
fabrication facility and themodel was any early mid-career
researcher coming in.
They do not pay to use it.
They're able to essentially bebold, do risky projects, build
(04:24):
their track record,opportunities to then be on
their own two feet.
But it also means they aredoing risky projects.
They're not doing safe thingsbecause they're not charged.
They try things which theynormally wouldn't.
In the last 11 years thefacilities produced close to 50
patents and 35, 40 of them areby accident.
It's not what they set out todo and I think most scientists
(04:47):
in the room will understand.
Usually the thing you can'texplain is what actually hooks
you.
It keeps you awake and you see,that's where most opportunities
.
The straightforward line isobvious it's not as exciting.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (04:58):
I would agree with that entirely.
So West Australians, speakingas a West Australian born and
bred, are renowned for our I'mgoing to say this politely
independent spirit and ourrivalry, fierce rivalry, with
the East Coast and I think,hopefully well I'm assuming you
have realised that that is aliveand well.
In the first three months or sothat you've been in the role,
have you had any particularexperience of that or any
(05:20):
reflections on you thus far ofthat or any reflections?
Prof Sharath Sriram (05:24):
on your thus far.
I think that rivalry or feeling, I guess in some ways is fair,
in other ways is probably notFair, as in.
I think in a lot of fundingprograms there is an inherent
disadvantage being far removedfrom discussions, decision
making and strategies being setout for funding, and I think
being part of thoseconversations.
(05:45):
In how schemes are designed,priorities are defined, are key.
Obviously, in certain fundingschemes with 10% of the
population, WA gets 2.5%.
That, surely, is not just downto quality.
We are a risk-averse country.
Every peer review process isrisk-averse and so when it gets
to the fine margins, people aregoing to choose a known devil
(06:06):
over an unknown angel is what Isay.
So the people here need tocreate more visibility.
So I think so, flipping itaround, I always say look at
what you can do for your countryrather than what the country
can do for you.
Principle applies to everything.
So what can we do better sothat we are not at the
disadvantage?
So it's raising the profile ofwhat we communicate, what we do,
(06:29):
getting more people on peerreview panels, ensuring those
work robustly, bringing morepeople to the site to see the
great work going on because,like I said, most people are not
aware.
So for every event orconference we run in Perth,
combining a lot of site tools totake people to show them
activity within research labs,within startups, I think it just
(06:52):
raises the understanding.
Oh my god, I didn't even realizeall this is there.
The close related one isgenerally with how busy and
intense careers are.
People don't have time to sitand promote what they do.
Universities in that regard arepretty weak.
Their marketing is focused onstudent recruitment, not in
(07:14):
showcasing the outcomes createdby their research community.
So unless people have otheraccess, they really don't know
what's happening.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (07:22):
Yeah, so it feels a little bit like a tax.
I don't know about whateveryone else feels about the
geographical isolation is kindof a bit of a tax.
Have you had any brain waves,other than the things that
you've described, about how wecan pay that tax on it?
West Australians not solelybear the brunt of that tax, or
do you think it just theresponsibility sits with us?
Prof Sharath Sriram (07:43):
I think it could be a combination With
funding agencies havingaccountability in review
processes such that the biasdoesn't exist.
Say, for example, the NationalHealth and Medical Research
Council looking at the assessorpool to ensure there's a
diversity of assessors noteveryone from the East Coast
(08:03):
would matter, and I think therewere elements which were missing
.
Nhmrc have taken on boardfeedback already.
They're going to revise it.
They're going to create moreaccountability and visibility
within the assessor pool, sopeople can't just give a random
score, say things and walk away.
So I think there are things youcan do centrally to fix it too.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (08:23):
So I've already touched on that.
You started in June this year,so I want to ask how much time
you're spending on the groundhere on WA and how are you
enjoying the FIFO lifestyle?
Prof Sharath Sriram (08:34):
Really well .
So I do typically three days aweek.
Here one important aspect isemphasizing the national
connections.
So in a month I'm probably herethree weeks of the month, but
the other week I often spend inCanberra or Sydney driving our
agenda.
Because, like I said, unless wefix some of the central
(08:57):
policies, we can keep talkingamong ourselves.
We wouldn't see the change.
One of the other bigcoordination opportunities is
working with across all thechief scientists for the
different states.
Australia is too small for thestates to compete against each
other or we harm ourselvescompeting.
There's bigger opportunity tocollaborate, complement each
(09:19):
other to actually succeed.
Everyone doesn't need an MRNAfacility, for example.
There are different ways totackle it.
So I think that's just onetopic, but in many fields it
applies.
So I'm trying to also use theForum of the Australian Chiefs
of Scientists to coordinatebetter.
We've already had traction andmaybe with the current cohort
(09:40):
all of them are actually excitedabout actually doing it better,
picking different topics wepursue and bring everyone on
board.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (09:48):
So tell us about your vision for science
and technology in WesternAustralia and, particularly,
given the topic for tonight, therole of biomedical sector in
this.
Prof Sharath Sriram (09:59):
That's a big question.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (10:00):
It is a big question.
Prof Sharath Sriram (10:01):
I'll keep my answer short and then you can
go a bit deeper.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (10:03):
No, no, no, you can talk for as long as you
like.
Prof Sharath Sriram (10:05):
So one of the things is the state
government did announce a10-year science and technology
plan in November last year andthat was a signal of key
priorities.
The big opportunity is how weimplement those priorities, how
we use that to break down thetypical silos between university
industry.
We shouldn't even be talkingabout these right.
(10:27):
We should be focusing on whatis the grand challenge we are
trying to solve as a state, as anation, and bring the right
people in to do it.
So I think the implementationaround that is big opportunities
.
In the life sciences and I'mgoing to say life sciences
(10:48):
taking both medical andagriculture, because for me the
latter is a key strength in WAwhich is often overlooked While
the medical there are strongplayers and emerging players.
I think in both of them I thinkthere needs to be better
coordination.
In some of them we miss out onleading big bids because there's
a bit of coordination lacking.
Whether it's a CRC or a big ARCcenter, we are partnering on
(11:11):
all of them but we're notleading them.
But there is potential too.
The other big opportunity isshared facilities, so every lab
or every company trying to setup small piece of equipment
which they use one day a weekand relying on government
support to do it is not the bestuse of time, money or strategy.
(11:32):
So the more we can actuallycreate shared infrastructure
which people use on demand andas demand grows we can actually
grow that.
I think those are the bigopportunities for us as a state.
So that sits across sectors,but particularly in medtech.
When you have a wave ofstartups coming through, instead
of trying to giveinfrastructure grants of half a
million to two million toeveryone, you invest it in a
(11:54):
shared facility and havevouchers for them to access it.
I think that would be a betterway to go.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (11:59):
So those are really quite practical and
pragmatic visions.
But if you think big and like,do you have any kind of ambition
or vision for what you think itmight be, say, three years time
?
Is there something inparticular that you'd really
like to look back and go?
Yes, we, you know, cracked thatnut or resolved that challenge
(12:21):
or achieved that.
Prof Sharath Sriram (12:24):
I think the real win would be if we invest
and establish capabilities whichare not on a short-term
timeframe.
We shouldn't chase buzzwords.
It has to be underpinningcapabilities which will serve us
whatever the new trend is.
I mean, if you take AI, forexample, that's a buzzword.
It used to be called deeplearning, it used to be called
(12:44):
deep learning, it used to becalled machine learning, neural
networks, signal processing it'sall the same thing.
It's just advancements, so Ithink, and it all relies on
processing solid mathematics.
So I think in every field thereis a base capability we need
and that's what we should betraining our incoming talent on
the potential, people on theline through vocational
(13:06):
education and enabling that.
So for me, that is really whatI'm after.
Anything we invest in shouldhave that decadal horizon, not
just a short term win.
I think there are a lot ofgovernance challenges in how we
set these up right, because ithas to be a true partnership.
It shouldn't be about growingempires and control.
(13:27):
So there has to be a modelwhere, if there is a shared
facility, there is a way foranyone to be an equal partner or
a percentage partner in it,that you co-locate your
capabilities and people stillget to use it.
The challenge often when I worka lot with industries, they
just don't know what exists.
They don't know who to go talkto.
(13:47):
Yes, you have a conciergeservice here for the state for
one sector, but even they maynot know everything which exists
because there's so muchopaqueness in the sector.
So I think sometimes breakingthose silos down to create that
visibility is the key.
There are much better ways togovern some of the schemes which
are out there, and I think itgoes back to what I was saying
(14:08):
earlier.
A lot of incentives in thesystem force people to think
about their next big win thenwhat is the best thing for our
sector or the country?
So I think changing incentivesand programs so people really
take a step back and look atdelivering, for that could help.
And those incentives lay acrossmultiple things Grant funding,
(14:29):
promotions, the way people haveto sell themselves as an
individual leader rather than anenabler.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (14:37):
So you've been in the role.
How many days Are you keepingtrack of how many days?
Prof Sharath Sriram (14:41):
No, I'm not no you're not.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (14:42):
I think it's less than three months,
though, right, so what have youbeen up to in that time?
Prof Sharath Sriram (14:49):
I've spent time understanding the current
government priorities, thecurrent strategies out there
Most of it I knew, coming intothe role, but digging deep into
how they're planning to rollthem out and deliver, the
timelines, the approaches, etcetera.
Obviously being out and aboutseeing places, especially in
(15:10):
topics, I am not familiar withthe hidden stories which I
should be shining a light on,especially in the national
context.
One thing I did which mightinterest people in the room is I
brought together all the techtransfer officers of the
universities and medicalresearch institutes together in
a room, challenge them on how dowe exchange perceptions of ease
(15:33):
of working together, simpler IPpolicies, better transfer of IP
to industry.
The basic principle of owning100% of $0 is $0.
So you better give away the IPand have a win for everyone.
So I think some of these arelike those culture change
conversations.
I think it's yeah, it's been avery mixed bag, so most days
(15:59):
have been, starting frombreakfast to evening, events
like this.
So a lot to find out.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (16:04):
So we're working you hard.
Will you continue on with thatas the tech transfer kind of
conversation?
Is that a ongoing one?
Prof Sharath Sriram (16:13):
There's a lot to do in that place.
See, I think if our ambition isto harness the ideas we have
and make them into products, weneed a lot of momentum in it and
a change in approach.
And one thing I keep saying isthere's no dearth of funds out
there.
If people think there's nomoney in the system, that's not
(16:34):
true.
We don't have ideas ready formoney to pay for it.
It's more of that readiness ofour ideas.
For example, there are venturefunds worth 80 to 200 million
being set up.
Every day.
I hear so many people in thenetworks raising money
effortlessly to start investingin tech companies.
(16:54):
There are three of them, closeto $160 million, wanting to land
in WA for life sciences.
So it's not the access to money, it is about getting our ideas
to maturity such that they areready for that level of
investment.
There's a term going aroundquite a bit about absorptive
capacity, so that absorptivecapacity goes two ways.
(17:15):
If you give an immature companyfive million, they're going to
probably squander it and it's aninvestment which goes nowhere.
But similarly, if you'regenerating so many ideas or
inventions, who's absorbing itin your market?
If our small and mediumenterprises are not ready for it
, then it always has to gooverseas and then we complain
about it.
(17:35):
So it is going to take time tohave that culture shift and the
sector to be ready.
I think the challenges or gapsare very common across all the
states and jurisdictions.
I put them into three buckets.
One is the real gap aroundpeople and their training in
(17:58):
different areas.
If I break that down further,as a country we heavily
emphasize higher educationunnecessarily.
We sort of demean vocationaleducation and if we need
cutting-edge industries withstable production it's going to
be technical trained staff whounderstand compliance and
(18:18):
quality.
So we need to look at it as afull pipeline.
Everyone doesn't need a highered or PhD.
They may be really good withtheir hands in running
facilities.
So I think that balance oftalent how do you actually
create different pathways andvalue them I think is important.
The close related one isbecause of incentives in the
(18:38):
system.
We do produce too many PhDs ata rate because you're on the
clock, because you want to getthe completion income, not
because they're ready.
So the readiness of our PhD isgoing out with the right
understanding, not of justresearch, problem solving and
the depth of expertise in theirfield, but what all they can do
(18:59):
with that knowledge?
The commercialization piece,the compliance piece, how do
they inform policy?
Because that's a gap.
You could take a PhD, get intogovernment policy, work with the
public sector and raise thestandard, because it has to be a
closed loop.
You can't keep talking toyourself and your colleagues.
So for me that people bit is acapability gap throughout the
system.
(19:19):
One example which works,because it's not all doom and
gloom, is a program called theScience Policy Fellows.
We run nationally.
So that allows PhDs, postdocs,to get a one-year fellowship
into federal governmentdepartments so they can pick
departments or spend six monthsin foreign affairs, six months
(19:43):
in department of environment.
So it creates two things aknowledge for them for how
policy is made, because it'snever linear.
There are so many factors theywould never consider as a
researcher.
Two is it gives the departmentstaff access to a potential
expert, not on a particulartopic, but on how you do
research based decision-making,how do you look at the data, how
(20:06):
do you analyze, how do you drawinsights.
So that becomes a truepartnership in raising the way
policies are designed.
So I think that people bit iscore and so many layers to it
you can get into it.
The second one across Australia.
The challenge is we talk a lotabout precincts and spaces but I
(20:29):
can't point to a singlesuccessful one and those are
usually the focal point aroundwhich every activity nucleates.
So in medtech we always talkabout the Texas Medical Device
Center.
It grew as a nucleus.
Companies co-locate servicedesign firms, co-locate IP firms
, vcs.
Until we get that critical massin a few sectors, I think it's
(20:53):
very tough to grow Because onlythen you see companies of
different stages, you have aready talent pool to tap into
that company and we should beopen right Companies will fail,
but if that company fails, thenetwork around has the
absorptive capacity to take allthe staff, the trained and
talented people.
So I think really pushingforward to get a few precincts
which work, which are long-termplanned, it's not going to be a
(21:17):
success overnight.
So that patient game I think iskey.
The closely related bit is theinfrastructure piece.
There's often this talk aboutvalue of death and it's never a
single value.
There are multiple values ofdeath.
The first one is, if you'reespecially in the research
(21:38):
university sector, is getting IPout of the university is the
first value of death, how it'sactually seamlessly handed over
to industry or a spin out.
The second value of death istaking that proven concept past
a trial.
So how do you actually getaccess to enough devices to do
that?
That's one thing.
I always use the technologyvalue of debt, because the
(22:00):
moment you can tap into a placewhich can make enough devices,
you'll have evidence andinvestment flows.
So it's not a lack of money,it's a lack of evidence.
So I think the last bit is themanufacturing one which you
should be tackling through thesecond value of death.
If you do it right, that one'staken care of and being
pragmatic right, you would neverbe able to manufacture in
(22:23):
Australia for the world, but youneed to own the IP so that it's
made by Australian intellectualproperty and the royalty flows
back to us.
So I think that baseinfrastructure is key, whether
it's a made in WA or a futuremade in Australia strategy.
For them to work, that pilot orproduction infrastructure is
(22:44):
key.
The last one, I think, is justa culture change.
We are very risk averse.
We don't want things to fail.
We think they'll point a fingerat someone and say you should
have decided better, and I thinkthat has to go, because that's
what is holding us back fromactually delivering products.
(23:06):
So the more intellectualproperty ideas, you can actually
get further along the chain,and we should use our parliament
houses, the design.
There'll be a lot at the bottomand it'll narrow right to the
top and take that for grantedand so keep allowing things to
go through the pipeline it'sokay if it fails and use that
(23:28):
knowledge to keep doing better.
So I think I'd say it's a mixof those elements.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (23:33):
So you're also President of Science and
Technology Australia still.
Prof Sharath Sriram (23:37):
Until November this year.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (23:41):
That's a lot of hats and, given what you
were just talking about, I'minterested in reflections on
your time as the President andthe things that you've been a
vocal proponent of.
One in particular isAustralia's investment in R&D,
which I think everyone herewould like to see also increased
, so I'm wondering if you've gotany, if there's any way that
you can influence that in WA.
(24:01):
But then also the other policypoints that you've been
advocating for around diversityand inclusion, innovation and
long-term strategy and earlymid-career researchers.
So any reflections on thatspace?
Given your now WA hat has beenadded to your president one, see
, I think a lot of the policyaspects right.
Prof Sharath Sriram (24:24):
If you're advocating for a particular
spend as a percentage of GDP onR&D, it benefits every level.
One of the challenges is howdoes everyone play their part in
the system?
Australia has been I'm worriedto use the word fortunate, but
our higher education system hasbeen fortunate to have a lot of
(24:44):
capital.
So our higher education R&Dspend has been
disproportionately high comparedto most countries.
So the government's acronym isHERD.
While the governmentexpenditure on R&D has been
steadily dropping, our businessexpenditure on R&D has been
steadily dropping.
Those drops had been hidden abit by HERD because universities
(25:05):
are spending more, because itpushed up their rankings, it
created more students.
Now, when that system has beendisturbed, I think we are seeing
the real consequences.
But it's always easy to sayspend more money, right, and I
think that's the narrative whichpeople go with and that's very
harmful.
Whenever I do a proposal or apolicy position, I try to, yes,
(25:31):
explain what Treasury likes,what the return on investment is
, but I also like to outlinewhat is the opportunity cost.
So if we don't do something now, what is it going to cost us in
10 years' time?
How many jobs could we havecreated?
How much revenue would havecome into the country.
What are the social orenvironmental impacts?
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (25:50):
And I think opportunity cost being part of
policy and decision-making notbeing a key part of it, I feel
is a big drawback so we talkedabout ecosystems sort of with
precincts, and I know that it'san area in terms of investment
in strategy and innovationstrategy that you're interested
in.
So what would an innovationecosystem look like in WA that
(26:13):
was really successful?
What do you think are the keyingredients that we need to work
on to make it really hum?
Prof Sharath Sriram (26:19):
I think if you were to define success down
the track right, it would bethree things.
People are fighting to be in it, whether they're from WA or
elsewhere, and the real testwould be from elsewhere.
They want to be part of thatecosystem.
Two is the companies which aregrowing.
See, companies would grow.
They'll have to grow out ofthat ecosystem, but they want to
leave their R&D in there andthen they feel the ecosystem is
(26:42):
working because they want tostill be part of that research
framework.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (26:46):
So they keep a footprint here, but they
expand over Exactly, they don'tjust completely leave.
Prof Sharath Sriram (26:51):
Yeah, so the manufacturing may go
elsewhere, but version three oftheir product, version four of
their product the R&D stayswithin that ecosystem.
So that means your ecosystem isworking because they see that's
where that innovation activityis happening.
And the third real test wouldbe we are not even talking about
whether it's academia, industryor whatever sector.
(27:11):
It is actually that ecosystemthat becomes the identity.
You don't care about whetherthe idea came out of a medical
research institute or auniversity or a company.
It's just seamless and theperson who's worked in this can
move across and they're notpenalized for it.
And I think that's been thebiggest challenge in why our
ecosystem has failed.
(27:31):
Because we don't allow crossmobility.
A person moves from academia togovernment, has no way back
into academia or industry.
So I think those are theelements we have to change.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (27:45):
People are a real important part.
Does anyone know of anyone thathas done that?
Transferred between government,research, research industry?
Prof Sharath Sriram (27:55):
So actually , when I mentioned the science
policy fellows.
People have done that.
So people have left researchand academia, done the science
policy fellowship, understoodhow things work.
One of them went into TGA, theTherapeutic Goods Administration
, and runs their research onconsequences.
So they're using their researchskills, policy skills, in a
(28:17):
very different research policylens and a few examples along
those lines I've seen work, butit's very rare.
But a closely related one, givenyou mentioned science and
technology, we pushed a lot forchanging metrics in grant
programs.
So there's the AustralianResearch Council industry
(28:37):
fellowships.
So if any of you have appliedfor it, it does not ask for a
publication track record, itasks for a two page CV.
So it moves away from thetraditional metrics.
Yes, it's the AustralianResearch Council funding it, but
it's looking at are you thecapable, right fit person for
the role?
And similarly, theapplication's not asking for a
(28:58):
ten page full research plan.
The whole idea is if you'reinnovative.
The plan you wrote todaydoesn't apply in three months
time, so we really have to moveaway from it.
It has to be the big principlesIs there a market need?
What is the problem you'retrying to fix and why are you
the right person for it?
It's only run a couple ofrounds, but already we're seeing
some people from industrytaking on roles within
(29:19):
university because they knowthere's good activity.
There's extremely goodinfrastructure and I think
people in Australia don'trealize we have amazing research
infrastructure.
There can be challenges ingovernance, but it is actually
top of the line and constantlyupgraded.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (29:36):
So do you think we can take national
programs like these that areworking and like run more of it
in WA and copy what's workingelsewhere?
Prof Sharath Sriram (29:45):
My simpler answer is to work with those
funding agencies.
Take the reserve list of the WApeople who missed out and just
fund them.
Don't add an extra layer.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (29:55):
WA Health does that already with the Near
Mess Awards.
Exactly yeah which has beenquite successful.
Prof Sharath Sriram (29:59):
So there's enough out there.
You can easily partner withthose agencies and do it and
provide feedback on what's notworking for our fit right.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (30:08):
Yep.
So what surprised or excitedyou most that you've discovered
since you started in June?
Prof Sharath Sriram (30:15):
I think the sad thing is no real surprises
In the context of you thinkit'll be different to the
federal government.
It all moves very fast.
No, it doesn't, because thesmaller ecosystem.
You'd hope it's moving faster,but no so.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (30:33):
I was hoping I'd be pleasantly
surprised, but the good thing is, yeah, bureaucracy is still
bureaucracy okay and it doesn'tmatter where you are, it's there
.
Prof Sharath Sriram (30:39):
But to me the positive, like I said, that
is intent and it's actually verycollaborative.
I don't see universitiesrefusing to work with each other
, like most of the programs andbids I see have multiple W
universities on them together.
I think that's actually quiterefreshing compared to the East
(31:01):
Coast and people may not realizeit.
Maybe the isolation makespeople work together more, but
actually it is a positive.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (31:08):
Yeah, I've observed that too.
I think we're reallycollaborative.
So how do we increase thatcollaboration to include
industry with academia?
Prof Sharath Sriram (31:19):
I think it's referred to in the 10-year
science and tech plan and it's aquestion of how we implement it
.
Without looking at theboundaries, looking at what
grand challenges we want tosolve for WA through centers of
excellence, having bids aroundthat which are, then you come
together as the right people todo it right, whether it's
industry-led, academia-led orit's a proper partnership.
(31:42):
I think that's a good approach.
Interestingly, I heard whichwas a surprise that in the past
there used to be a centres ofexcellence scheme in WA which
worked well, so I've asked formore information on that because
I'm very curious.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (31:54):
So am I.
I don't know if you've noticedit, but Shirath, I find, is a
really eloquent communicator ofscience and technology.
If any of you go back onYouTube and listen to his press
club address that I referred toat the beginning from last year,
and I think that you'll allagree that it's something that
he does with difficult conceptslike microchips and that I just
(32:18):
don't understand at all, being abiological scientist.
Prof Sharath Sriram (32:20):
But now shouldn't you understand,
because you listened to myspeech.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (32:22):
Sure, yeah, while I was cooking dinner.
Excellent point, well made.
Have you always had a knack forcommunicating science, or is it
something that you've activelyhad to work on?
Prof Sharath Sriram (32:36):
I think most of this you get better with
practice, but for me, thefundamental principle of you
doing research in the Australiansystem is a privilege.
The taxpayer funds it.
However poor we cry, whateverelement we do is still taxpayer
funded, and so it is our duty toconvince them why it's worth it
(32:56):
and inspire people to see whatthe opportunities are.
And so, obviously, as aresearcher, I started by the
usual thing of writing a paper,publishing it.
Then I was like that's not theend game, what do you do more
with it?
So we started actually doingmedia releases and this time we
started doing there was a lot ofpushback- From the university.
No, from the sector.
(33:17):
Like your peer reviewers wouldcomment, they are dumbing down
the science.
So that can hurt.
That's the discoverer's nature.
But the whole point is I'mtrying to make it accessible.
You bring people along on thejourney, get them hooked in.
They'll ask you more questions.
Then you get into the detail.
You can't be high and mightyand scare them away with the
(33:37):
detail from day one, and so Ithink that fine balance in the
communication piece wasimportant.
And I think the second aspectof it is often every project has
a long-term value and the valuecould be making people's lives
better, could be making theplanet better, and I think
communicating that value is veryimportant if you want young
(33:59):
people to actually get on thejourney of STEM.
I've spoken at multiple schoolsand whenever I talk in girls'
schools, that communicationpiece I feel is transformative,
because most girls don't pursuea career for a job.
They pursue it because it has asense of value, they feel they
can make a difference.
I'm really simplifying it, butunless they get that value of
(34:23):
what this field can do to others, I don't think they'd pursue it
.
So I think it is a role ofcommunication to actually
highlight that I did a talk in agirl's school on ICT.
So information and computingtechnology, thinking about it
super dry.
It's networking, it's a lot ofmicrochips, but obviously I
didn't focus on that.
I focused on the differentthematic things which are
(34:44):
enabled by it.
Microchips now make cars drive.
Without a microchip, there's nocar.
Pretty much.
A microchip is what is used ina hospital to save a person's
life, to do an ultrasound, tolook at the image, and you don't
need to be designing amicrochip right.
You could design the productwhich incorporates it, you could
(35:05):
do the service design to makeit user-friendly, and there are
so many layers to it, and so Ithink bringing them along on
that journey is key.
That's one of the reasons you'dcommunicate.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (35:15):
So I've got one last question here on my
list.
This is a juicy one and I thinkyou've already alluded to it,
but I wanted to explicitly askyou.
So, going back to the lowsuccess rate in national grant
schemes, what advice would yougive scientists and researchers
engineers that might be in theroom or listening how to be more
(35:36):
competitive, and what shouldthe state do to support them?
Prof Sharath Sriram (35:40):
Given your question, I think there's three
parts to it.
The first one what should anindividual do?
Make your work more visible?
Communicate actively, whetherit's in simple language, through
media, through going to eventson the East Coast.
But the close related one isplease don't think of Australia.
Think of being the best in theworld.
Then Australia will follow.
(36:02):
Your competition is not withthe East Coast, it's with the
world.
So I think that's what we needto be aspiring to.
The second bit is what can thegovernment do?
People may not like to hear it,but the government has to give
signals of priorities and pickwinners.
We can't do everything.
If we do everything, we'll bebelow average, and so that's the
(36:24):
signal the government can do.
We back these areas, even iffederally they don't.
We'll back it till we arebetter and the feds follow us
with money, and so sometimesjust pick winners, pursue it.
Any external money is icing onthe cake.
It's not the cake.
So I think that determinedstrategy has to be there.
And the third one I would sayis just bringing more people
(36:49):
along to show the good workwhich is happening.
I really think that lack ofvisibility always hurts us.
For example, I once sent adelegation from Singapore to
visit WA because they weretrying to see which area or
person they partner with forclinical trials, and I don't
think most people in WA knewactually how good our clinical
trial system is.
Visit WA because they weretrying to see which area or
person they partner with forclinical trials, and I don't
think most people in WA knewactually how good our clinical
trial system is.
It's one of the most integratedwithin each unit and actually
(37:14):
one of the cheapest in the worldfor highest quality clinical
trials.
So now we do have a WA clinicaltrial strategy but sometimes
when you're so close to it youtake it for granted.
You need an external lens tolook at it and shine a light on.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (37:29):
Thank you for that.
Well, I'm looking forward tothe WLF Sciences Innovation Hub
continuing to support lots ofthose activities, and I am going
to draw the evening to a closeand begin by asking you to thank
Professor Shroom for histhoughts.
Caroline Duell (37:51):
You've been listening to the MTP Connect
podcast.
This podcast is produced on thelands of the Wurundjeri people
here in Narm, Melbourne.
Thanks for listening to theshow.
If you love what you heard,share our podcast and follow us
for more.
Until next time.
This is the MTP Connect podcast, connecting you
with the people behind thelife-saving innovations driving
Australia's growing lifesciences sector from bench to
bedside for better health andwell-being.
Mtp Connect acknowledges thetraditional owners of country
that this podcast is recorded onand recognises that Aboriginal
(00:23):
and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples are Australia's first
storytellers and the holders offirst science knowledge.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (00:33):
I would like to acknowledge that we're
meeting on the lands of theWuljuk people of the Noongar
Nation and pay my respects totheir elders past, present and
emerging.
And the WA Life SciencesInnovation Hub is a partnership
between the state government,mtp Connect, australia's Life
Sciences Innovation Accelerator,and the University of Western
Australia, and we are here to doalmost anything to accelerate
(00:55):
the growth of WA's medtech,biotech, pharma sector.
You can call us your conciergeservice.
We are here to help.
Please reach out if there'sanything that we can do to
support you.
Now.
I'm delighted to introduce ourguest for tonight, WA's Chief
Scientist Sharath Sriramprofessor .
He's a distinguished scienceand research leader, an engineer
and an inventor.
He is renowned for creating anddelivering breakthrough
(01:18):
technologies in the fields ofnanoelectronics, sensors and
medical
Prof Sharath Srira (01:22):
technologies .
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (01:22):
.
He's been described as aresearch rock star and a
connector of commercialisation,which I stole from his
introduction at his press clubaddress from last year.
He's also co-founded a WA-basedmedtech startup called LubDub,
alongside Dr Nikhlesh Bapu andProfessor Guresh Davidi.
Please join me in welcomingProfessor Shreem.
Please join me in welcomingProfessor Sharam.
(01:50):
All right, so the way thatthese conversations usually
start is an introduction, andthe bio that I just gave for
Professor Sharam was very short,intentionally, because you are
better placed to introduceyourself.
So my first question to you istell us a little bit about
yourself and why you became ascientist.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:04):
I'd better be careful in calling myself a
scientist, because the engineersoften get offended that they
get all grouped under one term.
So I'd say I'm a bit of both.
I've been joking.
The role should be chiefscientist and engineer, like New
South Wales.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (02:19):
I'm married to an engineer, so he would
definitely bring me.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:22):
I think I got into what I do because I'm
by nature curious, and I thinkyou'll see threads of it
throughout why I'm in policy.
So when I see something notworking I have to fix it.
So it's a scientist engineer, apolicy issue, and so that was
the fundamental reason why Ibecame a scientist slash
engineer.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (02:43):
How does a professor at RMIT end up as WA's
chief scientist?
And what I'm really looking foris what appealed to you about
this role.
Prof Sharath Sriram (02:52):
I'll talk about the appeal first and then
how or why.
I think within WA there's a lotof potential and, in my view,
untapped potential.
So we've been tapping into theresources under the ground but
not enough into the people andthe ideas and the government.
Intent is there and sosometimes it's about sharpening
the strategy.
So I think that was the realattraction, so probably right
(03:17):
time, right place that way.
How it happened, I really don'tknow.
I think it's just a combinationof factors.
In my career I've been aresearcher at the coal face,
applying for grants, handlingstudents, which I still do.
I patented, worked with a lotof companies, done
(03:37):
commercialization, seen thingsfail, seen things work and, like
I said, I've been active in thenational policy space trying to
fix funding systems, create newfunding systems and get it a
bit more interconnected.
I think those three elementsprobably made me a good fit for
what the state is after.
I think they are looking at howto again create a lot of
(04:01):
commercialization activity.
One of the other roles I'vedone extensively is I've built a
lot of shared infrastructure.
About 12 years back I built a$45 million semiconductor
fabrication facility and themodel was any early mid-career
researcher coming in.
They do not pay to use it.
They're able to essentially bebold, do risky projects, build
(04:24):
their track record,opportunities to then be on
their own two feet.
But it also means they aredoing risky projects.
They're not doing safe thingsbecause they're not charged.
They try things which theynormally wouldn't.
In the last 11 years thefacilities produced close to 50
patents and 35, 40 of them areby accident.
It's not what they set out todo and I think most scientists
(04:47):
in the room will understand.
Usually the thing you can'texplain is what actually hooks
you.
It keeps you awake and you see,that's where most opportunities
.
The straightforward line isobvious it's not as exciting.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (04:58):
I would agree with that entirely.
So West Australians, speakingas a West Australian born and
bred, are renowned for our I'mgoing to say this politely
independent spirit and ourrivalry, fierce rivalry, with
the East Coast and I think,hopefully well I'm assuming you
have realised that that is aliveand well.
In the first three months or sothat you've been in the role,
have you had any particularexperience of that or any
(05:20):
reflections on you thus far ofthat or any reflections?
Prof Sharath Sriram (05:24):
on your thus far.
I think that rivalry or feeling, I guess in some ways is fair,
in other ways is probably notFair, as in.
I think in a lot of fundingprograms there is an inherent
disadvantage being far removedfrom discussions, decision
making and strategies being setout for funding, and I think
being part of thoseconversations.
(05:45):
In how schemes are designed,priorities are defined, are key.
Obviously, in certain fundingschemes with 10% of the
population, WA gets 2.5%.
That, surely, is not just downto quality.
We are a risk-averse country.
Every peer review process isrisk-averse and so when it gets
to the fine margins, people aregoing to choose a known devil
(06:06):
over an unknown angel is what Isay.
So the people here need tocreate more visibility.
So I think so, flipping itaround, I always say look at
what you can do for your countryrather than what the country
can do for you.
Principle applies to everything.
So what can we do better sothat we are not at the
disadvantage?
So it's raising the profile ofwhat we communicate, what we do,
(06:29):
getting more people on peerreview panels, ensuring those
work robustly, bringing morepeople to the site to see the
great work going on because,like I said, most people are not
aware.
So for every event orconference we run in Perth,
combining a lot of site tools totake people to show them
activity within research labs,within startups, I think it just
(06:52):
raises the understanding.
Oh my god, I didn't even realizeall this is there.
The close related one isgenerally with how busy and
intense careers are.
People don't have time to sitand promote what they do.
Universities in that regard arepretty weak.
Their marketing is focused onstudent recruitment, not in
(07:14):
showcasing the outcomes createdby their research community.
So unless people have otheraccess, they really don't know
what's happening.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (07:22):
Yeah, so it feels a little bit like a tax.
I don't know about whateveryone else feels about the
geographical isolation is kindof a bit of a tax.
Have you had any brain waves,other than the things that
you've described, about how wecan pay that tax on it?
West Australians not solelybear the brunt of that tax, or
do you think it just theresponsibility sits with us?
Prof Sharath Sriram (07:43):
I think it could be a combination With
funding agencies havingaccountability in review
processes such that the biasdoesn't exist.
Say, for example, the NationalHealth and Medical Research
Council looking at the assessorpool to ensure there's a
diversity of assessors noteveryone from the East Coast
(08:03):
would matter, and I think therewere elements which were missing
.
Nhmrc have taken on boardfeedback already.
They're going to revise it.
They're going to create moreaccountability and visibility
within the assessor pool, sopeople can't just give a random
score, say things and walk away.
So I think there are things youcan do centrally to fix it too.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (08:23):
So I've already touched on that.
You started in June this year,so I want to ask how much time
you're spending on the groundhere on WA and how are you
enjoying the FIFO lifestyle?
Prof Sharath Sriram (08:34):
Really well .
So I do typically three days aweek.
Here one important aspect isemphasizing the national
connections.
So in a month I'm probably herethree weeks of the month, but
the other week I often spend inCanberra or Sydney driving our
agenda.
Because, like I said, unless wefix some of the central
(08:57):
policies, we can keep talkingamong ourselves.
We wouldn't see the change.
One of the other bigcoordination opportunities is
working with across all thechief scientists for the
different states.
Australia is too small for thestates to compete against each
other or we harm ourselvescompeting.
There's bigger opportunity tocollaborate, complement each
(09:19):
other to actually succeed.
Everyone doesn't need an MRNAfacility, for example.
There are different ways totackle it.
So I think that's just onetopic, but in many fields it
applies.
So I'm trying to also use theForum of the Australian Chiefs
of Scientists to coordinatebetter.
We've already had traction andmaybe with the current cohort
(09:40):
all of them are actually excitedabout actually doing it better,
picking different topics wepursue and bring everyone on
board.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (09:48):
So tell us about your vision for science
and technology in WesternAustralia and, particularly,
given the topic for tonight, therole of biomedical sector in
this.
Prof Sharath Sriram (09:59):
That's a big question.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (10:00):
It is a big question.
Prof Sharath Sriram (10:01):
I'll keep my answer short and then you can
go a bit deeper.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (10:03):
No, no, no, you can talk for as long as you
like.
Prof Sharath Sriram (10:05):
So one of the things is the state
government did announce a10-year science and technology
plan in November last year andthat was a signal of key
priorities.
The big opportunity is how weimplement those priorities, how
we use that to break down thetypical silos between university
industry.
We shouldn't even be talkingabout these right.
(10:27):
We should be focusing on whatis the grand challenge we are
trying to solve as a state, as anation, and bring the right
people in to do it.
So I think the implementationaround that is big opportunities
.
In the life sciences and I'mgoing to say life sciences
(10:48):
taking both medical andagriculture, because for me the
latter is a key strength in WAwhich is often overlooked While
the medical there are strongplayers and emerging players.
I think in both of them I thinkthere needs to be better
coordination.
In some of them we miss out onleading big bids because there's
a bit of coordination lacking.
Whether it's a CRC or a big ARCcenter, we are partnering on
(11:11):
all of them but we're notleading them.
But there is potential too.
The other big opportunity isshared facilities, so every lab
or every company trying to setup small piece of equipment
which they use one day a weekand relying on government
support to do it is not the bestuse of time, money or strategy.
(11:32):
So the more we can actuallycreate shared infrastructure
which people use on demand andas demand grows we can actually
grow that.
I think those are the bigopportunities for us as a state.
So that sits across sectors,but particularly in medtech.
When you have a wave ofstartups coming through, instead
of trying to giveinfrastructure grants of half a
million to two million toeveryone, you invest it in a
(11:54):
shared facility and havevouchers for them to access it.
I think that would be a betterway to go.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (11:59):
So those are really quite practical and
pragmatic visions.
But if you think big and like,do you have any kind of ambition
or vision for what you think itmight be, say, three years time
?
Is there something inparticular that you'd really
like to look back and go?
Yes, we, you know, cracked thatnut or resolved that challenge
(12:21):
or achieved that.
Prof Sharath Sriram (12:24):
I think the real win would be if we invest
and establish capabilities whichare not on a short-term
timeframe.
We shouldn't chase buzzwords.
It has to be underpinningcapabilities which will serve us
whatever the new trend is.
I mean, if you take AI, forexample, that's a buzzword.
It used to be called deeplearning, it used to be called
(12:44):
deep learning, it used to becalled machine learning, neural
networks, signal processing it'sall the same thing.
It's just advancements, so Ithink, and it all relies on
processing solid mathematics.
So I think in every field thereis a base capability we need
and that's what we should betraining our incoming talent on
the potential, people on theline through vocational
(13:06):
education and enabling that.
So for me, that is really whatI'm after.
Anything we invest in shouldhave that decadal horizon, not
just a short term win.
I think there are a lot ofgovernance challenges in how we
set these up right, because ithas to be a true partnership.
It shouldn't be about growingempires and control.
(13:27):
So there has to be a modelwhere, if there is a shared
facility, there is a way foranyone to be an equal partner or
a percentage partner in it,that you co-locate your
capabilities and people stillget to use it.
The challenge often when I worka lot with industries, they
just don't know what exists.
They don't know who to go talkto.
(13:47):
Yes, you have a conciergeservice here for the state for
one sector, but even they maynot know everything which exists
because there's so muchopaqueness in the sector.
So I think sometimes breakingthose silos down to create that
visibility is the key.
There are much better ways togovern some of the schemes which
are out there, and I think itgoes back to what I was saying
(14:08):
earlier.
A lot of incentives in thesystem force people to think
about their next big win thenwhat is the best thing for our
sector or the country?
So I think changing incentivesand programs so people really
take a step back and look atdelivering, for that could help.
And those incentives lay acrossmultiple things Grant funding,
(14:29):
promotions, the way people haveto sell themselves as an
individual leader rather than anenabler.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (14:37):
So you've been in the role.
How many days Are you keepingtrack of how many days?
Prof Sharath Sriram (14:41):
No, I'm not no you're not.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (14:42):
I think it's less than three months,
though, right, so what have youbeen up to in that time?
Prof Sharath Sriram (14:49):
I've spent time understanding the current
government priorities, thecurrent strategies out there
Most of it I knew, coming intothe role, but digging deep into
how they're planning to rollthem out and deliver, the
timelines, the approaches, etcetera.
Obviously being out and aboutseeing places, especially in
(15:10):
topics, I am not familiar withthe hidden stories which I
should be shining a light on,especially in the national
context.
One thing I did which mightinterest people in the room is I
brought together all the techtransfer officers of the
universities and medicalresearch institutes together in
a room, challenge them on how dowe exchange perceptions of ease
(15:33):
of working together, simpler IPpolicies, better transfer of IP
to industry.
The basic principle of owning100% of $0 is $0.
So you better give away the IPand have a win for everyone.
So I think some of these arelike those culture change
conversations.
I think it's yeah, it's been avery mixed bag, so most days
(15:59):
have been, starting frombreakfast to evening, events
like this.
So a lot to find out.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (16:04):
So we're working you hard.
Will you continue on with thatas the tech transfer kind of
conversation?
Is that a ongoing one?
Prof Sharath Sriram (16:13):
There's a lot to do in that place.
See, I think if our ambition isto harness the ideas we have
and make them into products, weneed a lot of momentum in it and
a change in approach.
And one thing I keep saying isthere's no dearth of funds out
there.
If people think there's nomoney in the system, that's not
(16:34):
true.
We don't have ideas ready formoney to pay for it.
It's more of that readiness ofour ideas.
For example, there are venturefunds worth 80 to 200 million
being set up.
Every day.
I hear so many people in thenetworks raising money
effortlessly to start investingin tech companies.
(16:54):
There are three of them, closeto $160 million, wanting to land
in WA for life sciences.
So it's not the access to money, it is about getting our ideas
to maturity such that they areready for that level of
investment.
There's a term going aroundquite a bit about absorptive
capacity, so that absorptivecapacity goes two ways.
(17:15):
If you give an immature companyfive million, they're going to
probably squander it and it's aninvestment which goes nowhere.
But similarly, if you'regenerating so many ideas or
inventions, who's absorbing itin your market?
If our small and mediumenterprises are not ready for it
, then it always has to gooverseas and then we complain
about it.
(17:35):
So it is going to take time tohave that culture shift and the
sector to be ready.
I think the challenges or gapsare very common across all the
states and jurisdictions.
I put them into three buckets.
One is the real gap aroundpeople and their training in
(17:58):
different areas.
If I break that down further,as a country we heavily
emphasize higher educationunnecessarily.
We sort of demean vocationaleducation and if we need
cutting-edge industries withstable production it's going to
be technical trained staff whounderstand compliance and
(18:18):
quality.
So we need to look at it as afull pipeline.
Everyone doesn't need a highered or PhD.
They may be really good withtheir hands in running
facilities.
So I think that balance oftalent how do you actually
create different pathways andvalue them I think is important.
The close related one isbecause of incentives in the
(18:38):
system.
We do produce too many PhDs ata rate because you're on the
clock, because you want to getthe completion income, not
because they're ready.
So the readiness of our PhD isgoing out with the right
understanding, not of justresearch, problem solving and
the depth of expertise in theirfield, but what all they can do
(18:59):
with that knowledge?
The commercialization piece,the compliance piece, how do
they inform policy?
Because that's a gap.
You could take a PhD, get intogovernment policy, work with the
public sector and raise thestandard, because it has to be a
closed loop.
You can't keep talking toyourself and your colleagues.
So for me that people bit is acapability gap throughout the
system.
(19:19):
One example which works,because it's not all doom and
gloom, is a program called theScience Policy Fellows.
We run nationally.
So that allows PhDs, postdocs,to get a one-year fellowship
into federal governmentdepartments so they can pick
departments or spend six monthsin foreign affairs, six months
(19:43):
in department of environment.
So it creates two things aknowledge for them for how
policy is made, because it'snever linear.
There are so many factors theywould never consider as a
researcher.
Two is it gives the departmentstaff access to a potential
expert, not on a particulartopic, but on how you do
research based decision-making,how do you look at the data, how
(20:06):
do you analyze, how do you drawinsights.
So that becomes a truepartnership in raising the way
policies are designed.
So I think that people bit iscore and so many layers to it
you can get into it.
The second one across Australia.
The challenge is we talk a lotabout precincts and spaces but I
(20:29):
can't point to a singlesuccessful one and those are
usually the focal point aroundwhich every activity nucleates.
So in medtech we always talkabout the Texas Medical Device
Center.
It grew as a nucleus.
Companies co-locate servicedesign firms, co-locate IP firms
, vcs.
Until we get that critical massin a few sectors, I think it's
(20:53):
very tough to grow Because onlythen you see companies of
different stages, you have aready talent pool to tap into
that company and we should beopen right Companies will fail,
but if that company fails, thenetwork around has the
absorptive capacity to take allthe staff, the trained and
talented people.
So I think really pushingforward to get a few precincts
which work, which are long-termplanned, it's not going to be a
(21:17):
success overnight.
So that patient game I think iskey.
The closely related bit is theinfrastructure piece.
There's often this talk aboutvalue of death and it's never a
single value.
There are multiple values ofdeath.
The first one is, if you'reespecially in the research
(21:38):
university sector, is getting IPout of the university is the
first value of death, how it'sactually seamlessly handed over
to industry or a spin out.
The second value of death istaking that proven concept past
a trial.
So how do you actually getaccess to enough devices to do
that?
That's one thing.
I always use the technologyvalue of debt, because the
(22:00):
moment you can tap into a placewhich can make enough devices,
you'll have evidence andinvestment flows.
So it's not a lack of money,it's a lack of evidence.
So I think the last bit is themanufacturing one which you
should be tackling through thesecond value of death.
If you do it right, that one'staken care of and being
pragmatic right, you would neverbe able to manufacture in
(22:23):
Australia for the world, but youneed to own the IP so that it's
made by Australian intellectualproperty and the royalty flows
back to us.
So I think that baseinfrastructure is key, whether
it's a made in WA or a futuremade in Australia strategy.
For them to work, that pilot orproduction infrastructure is
(22:44):
key.
The last one, I think, is justa culture change.
We are very risk averse.
We don't want things to fail.
We think they'll point a fingerat someone and say you should
have decided better, and I thinkthat has to go, because that's
what is holding us back fromactually delivering products.
(23:06):
So the more intellectualproperty ideas, you can actually
get further along the chain,and we should use our parliament
houses, the design.
There'll be a lot at the bottomand it'll narrow right to the
top and take that for grantedand so keep allowing things to
go through the pipeline it'sokay if it fails and use that
(23:28):
knowledge to keep doing better.
So I think I'd say it's a mixof those elements.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (23:33):
So you're also President of Science and
Technology Australia still.
Prof Sharath Sriram (23:37):
Until November this year.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (23:41):
That's a lot of hats and, given what you
were just talking about, I'minterested in reflections on
your time as the President andthe things that you've been a
vocal proponent of.
One in particular isAustralia's investment in R&D,
which I think everyone herewould like to see also increased
, so I'm wondering if you've gotany, if there's any way that
you can influence that in WA.
(24:01):
But then also the other policypoints that you've been
advocating for around diversityand inclusion, innovation and
long-term strategy and earlymid-career researchers.
So any reflections on thatspace?
Given your now WA hat has beenadded to your president one, see
, I think a lot of the policyaspects right.
Prof Sharath Sriram (24:24):
If you're advocating for a particular
spend as a percentage of GDP onR&D, it benefits every level.
One of the challenges is howdoes everyone play their part in
the system?
Australia has been I'm worriedto use the word fortunate, but
our higher education system hasbeen fortunate to have a lot of
(24:44):
capital.
So our higher education R&Dspend has been
disproportionately high comparedto most countries.
So the government's acronym isHERD.
While the governmentexpenditure on R&D has been
steadily dropping, our businessexpenditure on R&D has been
steadily dropping.
Those drops had been hidden abit by HERD because universities
(25:05):
are spending more, because itpushed up their rankings, it
created more students.
Now, when that system has beendisturbed, I think we are seeing
the real consequences.
But it's always easy to sayspend more money, right, and I
think that's the narrative whichpeople go with and that's very
harmful.
Whenever I do a proposal or apolicy position, I try to, yes,
(25:31):
explain what Treasury likes,what the return on investment is
, but I also like to outlinewhat is the opportunity cost.
So if we don't do something now, what is it going to cost us in
10 years' time?
How many jobs could we havecreated?
How much revenue would havecome into the country.
What are the social orenvironmental impacts?
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (25:50):
And I think opportunity cost being part of
policy and decision-making notbeing a key part of it, I feel
is a big drawback so we talkedabout ecosystems sort of with
precincts, and I know that it'san area in terms of investment
in strategy and innovationstrategy that you're interested
in.
So what would an innovationecosystem look like in WA that
(26:13):
was really successful?
What do you think are the keyingredients that we need to work
on to make it really hum?
Prof Sharath Sriram (26:19):
I think if you were to define success down
the track right, it would bethree things.
People are fighting to be in it, whether they're from WA or
elsewhere, and the real testwould be from elsewhere.
They want to be part of thatecosystem.
Two is the companies which aregrowing.
See, companies would grow.
They'll have to grow out ofthat ecosystem, but they want to
leave their R&D in there andthen they feel the ecosystem is
(26:42):
working because they want tostill be part of that research
framework.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (26:46):
So they keep a footprint here, but they
expand over Exactly, they don'tjust completely leave.
Prof Sharath Sriram (26:51):
Yeah, so the manufacturing may go
elsewhere, but version three oftheir product, version four of
their product the R&D stayswithin that ecosystem.
So that means your ecosystem isworking because they see that's
where that innovation activityis happening.
And the third real test wouldbe we are not even talking about
whether it's academia, industryor whatever sector.
(27:11):
It is actually that ecosystemthat becomes the identity.
You don't care about whetherthe idea came out of a medical
research institute or auniversity or a company.
It's just seamless and theperson who's worked in this can
move across and they're notpenalized for it.
And I think that's been thebiggest challenge in why our
ecosystem has failed.
(27:31):
Because we don't allow crossmobility.
A person moves from academia togovernment, has no way back
into academia or industry.
So I think those are theelements we have to change.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (27:45):
People are a real important part.
Does anyone know of anyone thathas done that?
Transferred between government,research, research industry?
Prof Sharath Sriram (27:55):
So actually , when I mentioned the science
policy fellows.
People have done that.
So people have left researchand academia, done the science
policy fellowship, understoodhow things work.
One of them went into TGA, theTherapeutic Goods Administration
, and runs their research onconsequences.
So they're using their researchskills, policy skills, in a
(28:17):
very different research policylens and a few examples along
those lines I've seen work, butit's very rare.
But a closely related one, givenyou mentioned science and
technology, we pushed a lot forchanging metrics in grant
programs.
So there's the AustralianResearch Council industry
(28:37):
fellowships.
So if any of you have appliedfor it, it does not ask for a
publication track record, itasks for a two page CV.
So it moves away from thetraditional metrics.
Yes, it's the AustralianResearch Council funding it, but
it's looking at are you thecapable, right fit person for
the role?
And similarly, theapplication's not asking for a
(28:58):
ten page full research plan.
The whole idea is if you'reinnovative.
The plan you wrote todaydoesn't apply in three months
time, so we really have to moveaway from it.
It has to be the big principlesIs there a market need?
What is the problem you'retrying to fix and why are you
the right person for it?
It's only run a couple ofrounds, but already we're seeing
some people from industrytaking on roles within
(29:19):
university because they knowthere's good activity.
There's extremely goodinfrastructure and I think
people in Australia don'trealize we have amazing research
infrastructure.
There can be challenges ingovernance, but it is actually
top of the line and constantlyupgraded.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (29:36):
So do you think we can take national
programs like these that areworking and like run more of it
in WA and copy what's workingelsewhere?
Prof Sharath Sriram (29:45):
My simpler answer is to work with those
funding agencies.
Take the reserve list of the WApeople who missed out and just
fund them.
Don't add an extra layer.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (29:55):
WA Health does that already with the Near
Mess Awards.
Exactly yeah which has beenquite successful.
Prof Sharath Sriram (29:59):
So there's enough out there.
You can easily partner withthose agencies and do it and
provide feedback on what's notworking for our fit right.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (30:08):
Yep.
So what surprised or excitedyou most that you've discovered
since you started in June?
Prof Sharath Sriram (30:15):
I think the sad thing is no real surprises
In the context of you thinkit'll be different to the
federal government.
It all moves very fast.
No, it doesn't, because thesmaller ecosystem.
You'd hope it's moving faster,but no so.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (30:33):
I was hoping I'd be pleasantly
surprised, but the good thing is, yeah, bureaucracy is still
bureaucracy okay and it doesn'tmatter where you are, it's there
.
Prof Sharath Sriram (30:39):
But to me the positive, like I said, that
is intent and it's actually verycollaborative.
I don't see universitiesrefusing to work with each other
, like most of the programs andbids I see have multiple W
universities on them together.
I think that's actually quiterefreshing compared to the East
(31:01):
Coast and people may not realizeit.
Maybe the isolation makespeople work together more, but
actually it is a positive.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (31:08):
Yeah, I've observed that too.
I think we're reallycollaborative.
So how do we increase thatcollaboration to include
industry with academia?
Prof Sharath Sriram (31:19):
I think it's referred to in the 10-year
science and tech plan and it's aquestion of how we implement it
.
Without looking at theboundaries, looking at what
grand challenges we want tosolve for WA through centers of
excellence, having bids aroundthat which are, then you come
together as the right people todo it right, whether it's
industry-led, academia-led orit's a proper partnership.
(31:42):
I think that's a good approach.
Interestingly, I heard whichwas a surprise that in the past
there used to be a centres ofexcellence scheme in WA which
worked well, so I've asked formore information on that because
I'm very curious.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (31:54):
So am I.
I don't know if you've noticedit, but Shirath, I find, is a
really eloquent communicator ofscience and technology.
If any of you go back onYouTube and listen to his press
club address that I referred toat the beginning from last year,
and I think that you'll allagree that it's something that
he does with difficult conceptslike microchips and that I just
(32:18):
don't understand at all, being abiological scientist.
Prof Sharath Sriram (32:20):
But now shouldn't you understand,
because you listened to myspeech.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (32:22):
Sure, yeah, while I was cooking dinner.
Excellent point, well made.
Have you always had a knack forcommunicating science, or is it
something that you've activelyhad to work on?
Prof Sharath Sriram (32:36):
I think most of this you get better with
practice, but for me, thefundamental principle of you
doing research in the Australiansystem is a privilege.
The taxpayer funds it.
However poor we cry, whateverelement we do is still taxpayer
funded, and so it is our duty toconvince them why it's worth it
(32:56):
and inspire people to see whatthe opportunities are.
And so, obviously, as aresearcher, I started by the
usual thing of writing a paper,publishing it.
Then I was like that's not theend game, what do you do more
with it?
So we started actually doingmedia releases and this time we
started doing there was a lot ofpushback- From the university.
No, from the sector.
(33:17):
Like your peer reviewers wouldcomment, they are dumbing down
the science.
So that can hurt.
That's the discoverer's nature.
But the whole point is I'mtrying to make it accessible.
You bring people along on thejourney, get them hooked in.
They'll ask you more questions.
Then you get into the detail.
You can't be high and mightyand scare them away with the
(33:37):
detail from day one, and so Ithink that fine balance in the
communication piece wasimportant.
And I think the second aspectof it is often every project has
a long-term value and the valuecould be making people's lives
better, could be making theplanet better, and I think
communicating that value is veryimportant if you want young
(33:59):
people to actually get on thejourney of STEM.
I've spoken at multiple schoolsand whenever I talk in girls'
schools, that communicationpiece I feel is transformative,
because most girls don't pursuea career for a job.
They pursue it because it has asense of value, they feel they
can make a difference.
I'm really simplifying it, butunless they get that value of
(34:23):
what this field can do to others, I don't think they'd pursue it
.
So I think it is a role ofcommunication to actually
highlight that I did a talk in agirl's school on ICT.
So information and computingtechnology, thinking about it
super dry.
It's networking, it's a lot ofmicrochips, but obviously I
didn't focus on that.
I focused on the differentthematic things which are
(34:44):
enabled by it.
Microchips now make cars drive.
Without a microchip, there's nocar.
Pretty much.
A microchip is what is used ina hospital to save a person's
life, to do an ultrasound, tolook at the image, and you don't
need to be designing amicrochip right.
You could design the productwhich incorporates it, you could
(35:05):
do the service design to makeit user-friendly, and there are
so many layers to it, and so Ithink bringing them along on
that journey is key.
That's one of the reasons you'dcommunicate.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (35:15):
So I've got one last question here on my
list.
This is a juicy one and I thinkyou've already alluded to it,
but I wanted to explicitly askyou.
So, going back to the lowsuccess rate in national grant
schemes, what advice would yougive scientists and researchers
engineers that might be in theroom or listening how to be more
(35:36):
competitive, and what shouldthe state do to support them?
Prof Sharath Sriram (35:40):
Given your question, I think there's three
parts to it.
The first one what should anindividual do?
Make your work more visible?
Communicate actively, whetherit's in simple language, through
media, through going to eventson the East Coast.
But the close related one isplease don't think of Australia.
Think of being the best in theworld.
Then Australia will follow.
(36:02):
Your competition is not withthe East Coast, it's with the
world.
So I think that's what we needto be aspiring to.
The second bit is what can thegovernment do?
People may not like to hear it,but the government has to give
signals of priorities and pickwinners.
We can't do everything.
If we do everything, we'll bebelow average, and so that's the
(36:24):
signal the government can do.
We back these areas, even iffederally they don't.
We'll back it till we arebetter and the feds follow us
with money, and so sometimesjust pick winners, pursue it.
Any external money is icing onthe cake.
It's not the cake.
So I think that determinedstrategy has to be there.
And the third one I would sayis just bringing more people
(36:49):
along to show the good workwhich is happening.
I really think that lack ofvisibility always hurts us.
For example, I once sent adelegation from Singapore to
visit WA because they weretrying to see which area or
person they partner with forclinical trials, and I don't
think most people in WA knewactually how good our clinical
trial system is.
Visit WA because they weretrying to see which area or
person they partner with forclinical trials, and I don't
think most people in WA knewactually how good our clinical
trial system is.
It's one of the most integratedwithin each unit and actually
(37:14):
one of the cheapest in the worldfor highest quality clinical
trials.
So now we do have a WA clinicaltrial strategy but sometimes
when you're so close to it youtake it for granted.
You need an external lens tolook at it and shine a light on.
Dr Tracey Wilkinson (37:29):
Thank you for that.
Well, I'm looking forward tothe WLF Sciences Innovation Hub
continuing to support lots ofthose activities, and I am going
to draw the evening to a closeand begin by asking you to thank
Professor Shroom for histhoughts.
Caroline Duell (37:51):
You've been listening to the MTP Connect
podcast.
This podcast is produced on thelands of the Wurundjeri people
here in Narm, Melbourne.
Thanks for listening to theshow.
If you love what you heard,share our podcast and follow us
for more.
Until next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.