AUSTRALIA’S QUEST FOR THE BIONIC EYE: BARRIERS TO INNOVATION LEIGH DAYTON BA Honors with Distinction (University of California Berkeley) MA Anthropology (University of Alberta) Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts Macquarie University, Sydney This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy June 2017 “There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things”. Niccolò Machiavelli The Prince, 1513 Abstract It is a goal of successive Australian governments to develop an internationally competitive knowledge-based innovation system for the 21st Century. Yet despite the fact that Australia produces its share of the world’s scientific articles, in proportion to its population, and the existence of high-profile biomedical success stories such as Resmed’s devices for sleep disorders, Cochlear’s bionic ear and the Gardasil vaccine against human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, the effectiveness of national innovation is low when compared to other developed countries. The principle aim of this research is to derive new insight into the complex, often messy process driving the development of Australian biomedical and scientific technologies. While it takes a system-wide theoretical approach, it focuses on the “middle-ground” between fundamental science and final-stage commercialisation, using the bionic eye initiative as an extended case study. In the first part of the thesis, I review texts and archival documents pertaining to Australia’s innovation system policy, keeping in mind the National Innovation Systems framework. But in order to understand the drivers and dynamics of the system, it is necessary to view innovation from the participants’ perspectives. Following ethics approval, I recruited and interviewed 29 participants in the Australian Research Council’s Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology initiative, announced in 2009 and funded over 5 years. Using this mixed methodology, the study explores the interpersonal, political, cultural and organisational factors influencing innovation, as well as identifying possible points of intervention for governmental policy makers and leaders managing emerging fields of complex scientific and biomedical research. Key recommendations address identified barriers to innovation. 1 Statement of Candidate I certify that the work in this thesis entitled “Australia’s Quest for the Bionic Eye: Barriers to Innovation" has not been previously submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree to any other university or institution other than Macquarie University. I also certify that the thesis is an original piece of research and it has been written by me. Any help and assistance that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself have been appropriate acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all the information sources and literature used area indicated in the thesis. The research presented in this thesis was approved by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee, reference number: 5201300423 on 22 July 2013. Signature ………………………………….. Full Name: Leigh Dayton Date: ……………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements It goes without saying that at the top of my thank you list must go my supervisors Wendy Rogers, Katrina Hutchison and Lisa Wynn. They were fantastic. They read every word I wrote, made insightful contributions, and guided me masterfully through what can only be described as a very long rite of passage. I would also like to express my gratitude to friends and colleagues who listened to my ranting about everything from Australia’s inefficient innovation system and academic requirements to the sorry state of global politics. Special thanks must go to Janet Green, Estelle Lazer, and Aric Bendorf for reminding me that there is life after a PhD, and to my “cohort buddies” Rebacca Tock and Lanei Alexander for walking the tightrope with me. As well, I offer a special thank you to Patrick Lesslie who saved the day when my computer crashed about a month before submission, and to Janet Green for the timely loan of a stand-in computer. Finally, a tip of the hat must go to the many people – especially the participants in my case study --who patiently answered all my questions about the ins and outs of science and innovation in Australia. I hope I have represented your contributions accurately. Without you, I would have been lost. I began this intellectual journey as a former science journalist, frustrated by Australia’s inability to maximise its research expertise. I ended it as doctoral candidate, optimistic that things can change. When we humans stick together, we can make a difference. 3 Introduction “There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things.” Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince In April 2008, newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd held an ideas summit. He invited one thousand prominent Australians of diverse fields to attend the Australia 2020 Summit. Others joined in through local summits held across the country. The task was to “shape a vision for the nation’s future” and to discuss ways to meet “future challenges. (Government of Australia, Responding to the Australia 2020 Summit, 2009, pg 1) The weekend event -- co-chaired by Rudd and Melbourne University Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis -- generated hundreds of ideas, nine of which were picked up as new initiatives by the Rudd Government. On the list was “research in bionic vision science and technology to support the development of the bionic eye in Australia”. Given Australia was “a world leader in bionics’’, the implication was the nation would be the first to accomplish the task. (Government of Australia, Responding to the Australia 2020 Summit, 2009, pp 1, 111; Dayton, July 5, 2008) At the time of the summit I was the Science Writer at The Australian newspaper. I covered what in 2009 became the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology initiative, from Rudd’s 2008 announcement until late 2012 when I left the paper. Over those years, I watched and reported as quickly assembled groups competed for funding, as two consortia received grants, as progress within one consortium was dogged by interpersonal disputes. I watched and reported as a US competitor received approval to market its own bionic eye in Europe and the UK in 2011 and in 2013 in the US, shifting the goal post from inventing the first bionic eye to building the best bionic eye. As of mid-2017, neither Australian consortium has moved to Phase 1 clinical trials. 4 Why? More pointedly, why are cases like bionic eye case all too common? Why does Australia produce its share of the world’s scientific articles, in proportion to its population, but fall short on international innovation rankings when compared to other developed countries? This is despite high-profile biomedical success stories such as Resmed’s devices for sleep disorders, Cochlear’s bionic ear and the Gardasil vaccine against human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Unfortunately, such successes are few and far between. This dissertation is my opportunity to answer these questions. In doing so, I have a broad academic goal. I aim to derive new insight into the complex, often messy process driving the development and commercialisation of Australian biomedical technologies. To that end, my dissertation focusses on the “middle-ground” between fundamental science and final-stage commercialisation, using the bionic eye initiative as an extended case study. In the first part of the thesis, I review texts and archival documents pertaining to Australia’s innovation policy. This analysis is informed theoretically by National Innovation Systems framework. Then in order to understand the drivers and dynamics affecting the system, I explore innovation from the participants’ perspectives. Following ethics approval, I recruited and interviewed 29 participants in the Australian Research Council’s Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology initiative, announced in 2009 and funded over 5 years. Using this mixed methodology, my study explores the interpersonal, political, cultural and organizational factors influencing innovation, as well as identifying possible points of intervention for governmental policy makers and leaders managing emerging fields of complex scientific and biomedical research. Key recommendations address identified barriers to innovation. The first two chapters of the dissertation provide background information on the concept of innovation and the history of innovation in Australia. In Chapter 1, I focus on the history of the concept of innovation. I define innovation as a complex, iterative, goal-directed process involving players from different organisations who engage with one another in an environment shaped by social economic and political constraints. A critical examination of various models of innovation follows, and I argue that the 5 National Systems of Innovation model provides the most appropriate intellectual framework for the dissertation. The history and effectiveness of Australia’s national innovation system is discussed in Chapter 2. I argue that the nation’s colonial past created an environment in which home- grown scientific and technological advances were valued less than those developed by Britain (the ‘Mother Country’), and mineral and resource wealth substituted economically for intellectual