The fourth National Innovation Policy Forum (NIPF) hosted by Cooperative Research Australia is this coming Monday 3 November 2025 in Canberra— a gathering that brings together leaders across government, business and research to explore how Australia can harness its innovation ecosystem for national advantage.

In this special pre-Forum episode of Tech Transfer Talks, NIPF Co-Patrons Catherine Livingstone AC and David Thodey AO share thoughtful and timely reflections on the opportunities before us. Catherine reminds us that 'we have no excuse now not to think deeply and long-term—innovation is not an optional accessory.' David adds, 'Stay the course. Grab the opportunity, make a difference and give it a go.'

Their conversation is a call to action: to translate our strengths in science, research and technology into the next decade of national prosperity—through collaboration, experimentation and execution. We explore the notion of moving the focus from innovation to experimentation and establishing a culture within government and industry that encourages experimentation to drive the productivity gains being sought throughout the private and public sectors.

With political stability providing a rare window for long-term planning and the outcomes of the Strategic Examination of R&D soon to be known, our conversations will focus on how we harness this moment to turn ideas into impact—aligning education, research, business R&D and policy to drive national advantage.

In this episode I had the opportunity to chat with Alex Zanghellini, exploring his journey from AI/computer science to enzymes, and the co-founding of Arzeda with Nobel Laureate David Baker.

Alex chose to bypass finance and found proteins as wonderful machines and became motivated by solving problems and finding products for market applications. Alex reflected on how discovery shows that something is possible, but that it is a small part of the journey to a commercial product, and that journey is the fun! We immediately reflected on the role of hope and the roles of hopium and OPM (being other people's money).

The early steps at Arzeda were taken through a fee-for-service model, with no venture backing. Alex reflected on how this impacted profitability and the opportunity this created to experiment and ascertain how ready the technology was. Identifying gaps allowed Arzeda to build on the technology licensed from the University of Washington and identify unmet market needs. This early phase of project-based revenue allowed the team to learn what technologies were needed to complement the translation of leads to products.

We reflected on the balancing between internal and external capabilities and the shift towards a partnering business model. The limitations of this model were discussed, including an inherent dependence on other parties for future license revenues, the lack of a clear valuation playbook for this sector, and no direct line of sight on manufacturing. We touched on some of the wisdom of Ganesh Kishore from Spruce Capital Partners around the need to have products in-house to capture value alongside external partnering. Further to these insights emerged the challenge of incumbency. This brought me back to the discussion we had with Ray Miller in Episode 3 around the Sorona journey to market, and more recent discussions with Roger Wyse in Episode 45 around the challenges of competing against fully depreciated assets.

Alex then shared his thoughts on how to find pockets of opportunity, given the breadth of product choices that industrial biotechnology has as product targets. Alex noted that while there are advisors and the business team, at the end of the day business development needs effort (elbow grease) and time; 'Never stop talking to industry and be ruthless in the assessment of opportunity.' We then reflected on time, and how to stay patient in business and market development and that tech transfer cannot be sped up. We discussed translation and the challenge of time was discussed (way back) in Episode 2 with Oleg Werbitzky from Alpha Lyncis and the realities of taking short cuts through this phase with Catherine Livingstone in Episode 50. The need to be transparent with investors around these factors and not getting 'over your skis' is critical in managing cashflow risk.

We spent a little time talking about 'pivoting' and discovered our mutual discomfort with the use of this phrase. We agreed that it means different things to different people, but Alex saw this as a need to add skills and competencies, not a change in business model. We touched on whether this might be an easy excuse for not learning from history? And on learning from history, we found ourselves discussing the broader challenges of due diligence. Alex noted that it's difficult to do this in industrial biotech as it's a multifaceted challenge and there is a need to find very experienced people to know what questions to ask – which may be challenging in such a young industry? Perhaps it is not appreciating the complexity of due diligence which makes so challenging?

We closed out our wide-ranging discussion by circling back on the venture financing story, when and why venture investment was sought, and the benefits of having optionality on when they sought venture finance. Alex then remarked that enzymes and biocatalysts are a revolution in the way we make things.

This conversation really covered some ground, and it was good for me to reflect on some of our very early and more recent conversations on the podcast and how things tied together through the experiences and journey of Arzeda. I was delighted to get a chance to unpack my issues with the term 'pivoting' but it also got me thinking more deeply around due diligence, why it may be harder that it looks, and some new ways to look at this important part of the new venture journey.

I hope you all get something from this insightful discussion with the CEO of a world-leading innovator.

In this episode, I had the chance to explore technology transfer through the lens of one of the world's most enduring and continuous cultures, Australia's indigenous peoples, with Professor Chris Matthews FTSE, Chair of ATSIMA (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mathematics Alliance), and Associate Dean (Indigenous Leadership and Engagement) at UTS.

Chris set the scene by sharing his journey to mathematics, his embracing of programming and Commodore 64s as a means to getting through school and his childhood. This was a form of escape from the systemic racism that permeated his schooling and early career. While in retrospect, the journey was 'bittersweet', it led Chris to his interest in numerical techniques that formed the basis of his undergraduate and postgraduate studies.

Chris found himself called back to his community, finding connection between culture and mathematics. This connection, in a sense, needed to be rediscovered as years of western philosophy and methodology was to be suspended in order to reconnect to country and people. This reconnection presented as a perspective on knowledge and in turn technology transfer. Aboriginal culture is dominated by relationships among people, tribes and the lands and ecosystems on which they live. That kinship with the ecosystem and each person's place within it was rediscovered through Chris's leadership at ATSIMA.

Knowledge transfer is a strict system, based on these connections and the roles and responsibilities of people within those systems. Chris offered some perspectives on the balance that exists and is maintained and the role of story and songlines in carrying the knowledge system between generations. This was beautifully demonstrated by Chris as he reflected on songlines that go back to the last ice age and how those stories of survival endure.

I then asked of Chris about any inherent ability to adapt and adopt technology through the ages. Chris spoke of how new things, and indeed new people, are positioned in the ecosystem and balance is maintained. He briefly touched on the impact of people being taken out of country. Chris then shared the story of bush mechanics, which had been made into a documentary many years ago and how aboriginal communities were early adopters of the automobile as a means to maintain connection.

We finally contrasted western technology transfer systems and how indigenous culture could and should interact. In his closing thoughts, Chris reflected on the Australian National Science Priorities and the opportunity that the inclusion of indigenous culture and concepts could create new opportunities for both understanding and a better science and technology system.

I found this a fascinating conversation, reminding me of Episode 30 the podcast where we discussed tech transfer and theology with John Bloomer and Spiegare's work with Amanda Garner many years ago when she was at ANFAB. It offered some challenges to the way we see technology transfer and opportunities to be better at considering the broader ecosystems we are working in – a theme that we explored recently with Dr John Howard in Episode 49. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a central theme that emerged for me was relationships and how the are built and endure through culture and time.

In our 50th episode, I had the great privilege of exploring innovation, productivity and the Australian Business Model with Catherine Livingstone AC. Catherine is a distinguished and extraordinary contributor Australian public and business communities, having held a range of roles including CEO of Cochlear, chair of Telstra, chair of CSIRO, chair of Commonwealth Bank of Australia and currently Chancellor of University of Technology Sydney.

In this extended conversation, we set the scene with some discussion around industry and neoliberal policy and explored the role government played in the formative stages of Cochlear. The Australian Business Model, an idea that has been in motion over the past few years, was discussed and the phase change that is underway, at both scale and speed. While the global market will sort things out, there are policy and government decisions to be made to either accept 'what is left over' in contrast to how can we take control of the future that Australia wants. Catherine noted that industry policy has been tarnished in recent years with a sense that this currently is seen as corporate welfare or grants. Australia needs to look at its comparative advantage and take this to globally competitive advantage. We discussed examples from Singapore and Taiwan, and reflected on the recent podcast with Dr John Howard around the impact of issues of design and policy.

We also explored the question of 'what is productivity?' and drew parallels with health, in that everyone really wants it but it's rather tricky to define! We discussed productivity and introduced the ideas of capital and technology deepening as a means to this very broad end. Catherine noted that solutions are at disaggregated levels and different in market and non-market sectors, and reflected on a recently published McKinsey study from the USA. Catherine introduced the need for investible propositions and the role of government signalling through policy and its convening power. We agreed that thoughtful design of industry policy needs to be at the centre of government thinking around what Australia's future business model could be.

Catherine also contended that Australia has a challenge around research translation. We teased out what this means and connected the concept to investible propositions, reflecting back on the Cochlear experience. In identifying that Australia has a deep tradition in integrating technologies, we then explored why the capability to integrate hasn't found its way into Australia's ability to translate. We touch on factors such as management impatience, (sporadic) government funding and (changing) policy settings. The 'Missing Middle' was the centrepiece of the 2023 National Innovation Policy Forum. Catherine and I discussed whether there is, in fact, a missing middle and whether this nomenclature is helpful in improving Australia's 'innovation' translation performance.

A concept that we've had on the podcast for some time is that Australia has a 'demand side problem with innovation'. Catherine suggested that we are not good at communicating our successes, with a lot of innovation adopted internally and not necessarily in the form of a new venture. We noted that if you don't have sectors looking to solve problems, or don't have the sectors, you don't have the problems! We then reflected on the need for government to become a demanding customer and how they may not be geared that way. I reflected on our recent discussion with Kerstin Oberprieler and her government procurement experience. Our conversation with Catherine reflected on a combination of risk aversion and brand familiarity driving current government procurement. Catherine noted that with things moving quickly, it's harder for people, and specifically, bureaucrats, to be immersed in and informed as a purchaser. How do industry and government build better connection to be well informed buyers and sellers?

We closed our conversation with Catherine outlining her hopes for the upcoming Economic Reform Roundtable. Catherine shared an ambition for a whole-of-system review, where choices are made that are consistent in scale and impact – not laundry lists. Furthermore, activities should be implementable and their interdependence recognised, for which a systems view is required.

This was an extraordinary conversation, exploring a range of perspectives around the intersections of the innovation system, and government and business needs. While we touched on this in our most recent discussion with Dr John Howard in Episode 49, the discussion with Catherine connected to so many themes that we have explored in the podcast from case studies connected to translation with Ray Miller, Alan Finkel, Victor Pantano and Tony Peacock through to the 2024 National Innovation Policy Forum reflection with Jane O'Dwyer.

This is a rather timely discussion, as I had the chance to discuss innovation policy, ecosystems and the domestic politics that have influenced the last three decades of innovation in Australia with Dr John Howard, founder of the Acton Institute for Policy Research and Innovation. The timeliness is due to his recent publication Thinking in Public: Australia's Missing Innovation Policy - Will it Ever Be Found? that is now available at Amazon (Paperback) and for the Kindle version.

We start our conversation around John's entry into the innovation policy world, which started with an ARC project commissioned on university – business relationships from near the turn of the century. John then embarked on his PhD on the triple helix model which prompted in John's mind the broader question of "how does it actually work?" A key report that emerged from our conversation with a report commissioned by (the then) Department of Industry, Science and Resources on the The Emerging Business of Knowledge Transfer, which is an early artefact in the recognition of the role of Technology Transfer in the innovation system.

We then explore theories of innovation and how the concept of linear flow where inputs are the focus rather than outcomes or impact has been the dominant paradigm. John reflects on how EU ecosystems have evolved but not translated to our local system concluding that while we like simple solutions, innovation is complex and exists in complex adaptive systems, however systems theory is bringing new insights. We then reflect on domestic industry policy settings, looking back to Senator John Button in the 1990's and how industry policy did not appear to connect to or evolve with innovation policy.

John then gave a working example of the Danish windfarm ecosystem and the policy and systems, where we explore the complementary concepts of value pools and supply chains and the need to coordinate 'across silos' to get outcomes, otherwise you get a lot of inputs. I suggested that the currency of announceables may in part be driving part of the malaise in innovation system coordination. John broadened that challenge across federal, state and local government administrations, approaching similar problems with different strategies with limited alignment around implementation – an area that he and Mark Dodgson have frequently commented upon.

We briefly explored the concept of risk in the domestic innovation system. John pointed to the growth in integrity agencies over recent years in the public and private sectors. While we have previously touched in risk in the podcast, for example with Anne Marie Perret, Jane O'Dwyer (and hopefully with Greg Harper in the coming months), John brought a broader lens to this issue as we concluded that the 'threat of consequence will naturally drive risk appetite down'.

We close out the discussion discussing a range of examples that evidence that innovation ecosystems and technology transfer are working in Australia, despite some of the headlines that may be around. We reflect on the emergence of medical innovation ecosystem in Melbourne, the rural development corporations across Australian agroforestry industries and reflect on the benefits of stable policy, funding and bipartisan multi-government support. In reflecting on these successful examples, we touched on the importance of new methods and approaches and the importance of timing, and the challenges of being too early with innovations.

This was a conversation reviewing the policy and political foundations of the innovation ecosystem and tied together a lot of themes that we have been exploring over the journey around risk, value pools and how to celebrate our successes.

In this episode we had a chance to discuss the world of startups, gamification and behavioural change with Dr Kerstin Oberprieler. Kerstin successfully developed, launched and exited PentaQuest, a platform-based behavioural change product and continues to consult into the area of corporate culture, change and behaviour.

I started by asking Kerstin about gamification and human-centred behavioural change. Kerstin's journey into gamification was fascinating, discovering an interest in business and psychology. She came across gamification as an emerging research area as her undergraduate and doctoral studies unfolded. The journey started during her studies, finding market pull and interest in how gamification could be used to support organisational change. This started through the development of a 'classical' game, with pen and paper, but the challenge was to develop a game that would make a business.

Kerstin shared the challenges of building a digital product, juggling access to coding skills, engaging with clients and obligations a supportive employer. This period allowed for the testing of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and identifying important aspects to enhance user and customer experience.

Kerstin's first client came through unexpected circumstances arising from a conference presentation and audience members seizing the concept and championing early experimentation within their organisation. This is a particularly interesting aspect of the journey in the context of current discussions around Australian industry demand for innovation and technology and the role procurement plays in nurturing new businesses – live conversations at the Cooperative Research Australia National Innovation Policy Forum which has been facilitated by Kerstin the past couple of years. Encouragingly, the first customer became an advocate for the product creating opportunities in adjacent parts of their organisation.

Kerstin shares her reflections on deciding to move full time into PentaQuest after years of testing and development. This involved building an organisation to meet the growing demand for products, the need to build a salesforce and greater flexibility into the product platform. Kerstin also shared the experience of the platform dropping out for a period, and the impacts on clients and reputation. We have reflected on time and timing in earlier podcasts, and Kerstin reflected on the impact that the COVID pandemic had on business growth. The inflection in sales growth lead to a decision to sell the business and Kerstin shared some of the process she went through to find a buyer with aligned interests.

This was a great conversation about the journey from concept through commercialisation to conclusion for a founder. I also reflected on the importance of behavioural change in tech transfer and uptake of new products and concepts, making this a doubly interesting conversation for me!

In this episode we had a chance to discuss the pre-emptive wind up of Ten Carbon Chemistry with Dr Tony Peacock. Earlier this year, Tony candidly posted on LinkedIn some of the story behind the journey and the recent decision to wind up the company, returning the IP to Wintermute Biomedical and I was very keen to explore the story behind this decision.

Tony has been involved in tech transfer in many roles, most notably Managing Director of the Pig R&D Corporation (a forerunner of Australian Pork Limited), Chief Executive of Cooperative Research Australia, Chairman of Wintermute Biomedical, as well as a consultant to CRC bids and angel investor. We started by exploring our perspectives on what technology transfer is and discussed that perhaps the name suggests a simple handover where, in fact, tech transfer is a complex and ongoing set of interactions and iterations to enable success.

We started exploring the rationale to the formation of this new venture. The venture was designed to enable Wintermute to continue its strong focus on biomedical applications while exploring opportunities in agricultural and industrial chemical markets. The formation of the new venture enabled market development and the positioning of the novel chemistry with different partners working who had different technical, market and regulatory needs.

The timing of the venture was particularly interesting, (Launching in the time of COVID), which distorted demand for cleaning and hygiene solutions. We discussed how market structure and big brands can create opportunity and challenges in entering consumer facing market segments. The inherent risk to well known brands to adopt formulation change became a challenge. Regulations set around older chemistries presented challenges with a new mode of action. Agriculture applications emerged where the technology received interest as a fungicide resistance solution.

Tony introduced the 2:2:1/2 rule – that biotech takes twice as long as expected, with twice the resources envisaged and half the revenue generated! We particularly focussed on the timing issue, with various delays in trials and paths to market impeding the return on investment. The importance of market pull, or the role of the desperate customer as Paul Bryan mentioned in an earlier podcast, was also explored where Tony described the initial enthusiasm amongst glass recyclers for the product and getting and holding the attention from (potential) customers.

We then explored the governance and management that oversaw the decision to wind up the company. Tony reflected on the importance of governance and the need to think beyond risk management, an area we discussed with Anne-Maree Perret in an earlier governance podcast. We discussed the importance of clear financials, the role of the founder and having a focused management team to bring the venture into maturity. In reflecting on the journey, Tony reinforced the need for due diligence and wearing a black hat in assessing opportunities and recognise that new ventures take time and energy.

In this extended episode we had our first three-peat, with Paul Martin from Spitfire Research rejoining the podcast. When he first joined us in February and April of 2023, we had a terrific discussion on the diseconomies of scale, hydrogen and hopium, and it seemed timely to revisit the outlook for scale and technology transfer in the hydrogen market.

It was great to explore why funding has continued to flow towards hydrogen in the face of the techno-economic and thermodynamic challenges that these investments are seeking to overcome. We discussed the notion of predatory delay and the emerging infrastructure challenges of connecting renewables to the transmission infrastructure. Paul also debunked the underlying assumption that Wright's Law is broadly applicable to reducing capital costs whereas the cost improvements are largely restricted to hydrogen electrolysers and note the balance of plant. We also explore the importance of reserves and resources.

Paul then offered a reprise of why the techno-economics simply don't work for green hydrogen with current black hydrogen prices at around USD 1.00 – 1.50 / kg EXW. We contrast two (polar) scenarios where we assume free capital or free electrons to try to make the numbers work. We conclude that a carbon pricing mechanism is needed to get green hydrogen competitive with current production routes. Paul referred to his discussions with Michael Cembalest and the recent JP Morgan Energy Paper as moved into discussions around e-fuels.

We briefly explored the outlook for renewable fuels and reflected on policy history, our podcasts with Paul Bryan in March 2022 and April 2022 and the differences between price of sale (to market) and cost of production (at refinery). We discussed why harder to abate sectors (such as aviation) are getting their efforts underway while easier to abate sectors (such as land transport) appear less systematic in the uptake of low-carbon energy alternatives. Paul introduced the concept of the time value of CO2 in the atmosphere and the need to make quicker inroads into atmospheric reduction.

Is there a place for industrial green hydrogen? Paul brings us to Michael Liebreich cost per ton of abatement rankings and reflected on some of the confusion that has arisen around using hydrogen as a decarbonisation strategy rather than decarbonising hydrogen (in its current industrial applications – which for the avoidance of doubt rarely if ever is an energy carrier). In the absence of policy, super additive benefits are needed (beyond carbon reduction) to drive consumer and industrial product uptake.

We then explore some policy interventions and Paul contends that subsidises make sense where Wright's Law is likely to apply, and in turn support technology scaling. We discussed the development of battery technology reflecting on LFP market trajectory and the scale-up challenges for sodium ion technology. We reflected different approaches to capital for technology scale up, and the importance of patience. We specifically touched on the Biden Administration Loans Office and a recent podcast with Jigar Shah on Cleaning Up podcast, as an example of targeted policy support.

Paul and I conclude our conversation with Paul reframing the question we are trying to answer. We should not be thinking 'what we burn?', but 'how we provide energy services?'.

In this episode, I had the great pleasure of catching up with Roger Wyse, Founder and Managing Partner at Spruce Capital Partners. I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Roger over the past decade (or more) and have always found his insights of great value and was delighted to have the chance to discuss his experiences and learnings.

Roger reflected on his early experiences at Burrill and the opportunities and challenges of being the first biobased economy venture fund. He then looked back on the early syndication efforts in building the fund and the journey to establishing Spruce Capital Partners in 2013. Spruce was seeking true disruptors, yet in bioeconomy, disruption is an oxymoron! Producers are conservative as they notionally have '40 shots on goal' (i.e. 40 growing seasons) and industrial biotech is conservative as consumer facing companies have brands to protect. We also reflected on the motivations and time horizons associated with different limited partners.

We discussed time associated with the market forming actions from regulators, such as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and market constraining actions from (same) regulators in securing approvals to construct processing plants or introducing technologies to market. Roger noted that in terms of time, society now has a 100-year environmental debt that we need to start to pay off!

It came to light that the technology transfer process from research institution to commercial partner in the US and Australian systems have eerie similarities! IP valuation disparities and divergent incentives amongst the parties can make alignment and deal finalisation time consuming. We speculated that this may in fact be the first of the 'valleys of death' that a licensee or venture might face!

Roger co-authored a discussion paper Building a Robust Bioeconomy: A Statement of Concern and Call to Action in October 2023, which explores the convergence of enabling technologies to accelerate the concept to commercialisation process. Reducing the time to market requires market, product and development processes to be undertaken in parallel, rather than the near linear fashion they are today. This requires patient capital alongside a systematic engagement across the stakeholders (or value pool participants). Roger also noted that there are process engineering expertise and infrastructure challenges to support scaleup and bridging product to market challenges.

In this episode I had the opportunity to discuss the genesis and history of Science Meets Parliament (SMP) with Science and Technology Australia running of the 25th SMP in February 2025.

Drs Cathy Foley, Jeremy Brownlie and Ken Baldwin, joined me to explore the origins of the event, how the event has evolved and why it remains a centrepiece to informing parliamentarians of the central role STEM plays in society and the economy.

Ken reflected on the need to focus on science for one or two days, to "flood the parliament with scientists" with a mandate to inform parliamentarians – it wasn't about lobbying. As it happened, the idea was "pushing on an open door" with early bipartisan support. It was noted that it was in fact STA's predecessor, the Forum of Australian Science and technoIlogical Societies that initiated the SMP concept and talked of the challenges of coordination in bringing a new event onto the calendar.

Cathy noted that scientists have unique knowledge, and the event offered members and scientists a forum through which to learn more how they think and the issues they are seeking to address. Cathy reflected on her own experiences at SMP and the life changing exposure that it creates for scientists creating a new dialogue as equals with parliamentarians, offering information on what science can offer. In turn, this brings science to front of mind for politicians, akin to the idea of bringing innovation to the centre of policy making explored at the most recent National Innovation Policy Forum.

Jeremy noted that science and government are both complex systems and that the issues of the day change, highlighting the need for broad science engagement to reflect the breadth of challenges and opportunities being met by parliament. This forum allowed for new ideas to be shared where there is a receptivity to new concepts that could be shared thoughtfully. He noted that parliamentarians are tuned to authenticity, which is an enduring strength of SMP.

We wrapped our conversation reflecting on the challenges that modern media has brought on communicating science and the importance of direct conversations, trust and rigorous science being the cornerstones of social license between the science community and parliament.