The 2011 Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure ...

Response to
“The 2011 Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure Discussion Paper”
Summary of Response
Investment in characterisation tools which can be used across a wide variety of research areas is critical for
success in the core areas of good Health and Frontier Technologies. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR)
is both a powerful experimental technique and characterisation tool with applications in fields ranging from
Medicine and Biology, to Nanotechnology, Materials Science, Chemistry, Physics, and even Archaeology.
Given the wide impact of EPR, and recent technological developments in the field, we suggest that the
Australian EPR community be supported through appropriate investment in state of the art pulsed high field
EPR, electron nuclear double resonance (ENDOR) and electron-electron double resonance (ELDOR)
infrastructure (currently lacking in Australia) to ensure the continued availability of world leading expertise
and equipment to support scientific research in Australia.
Background - EPR
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (or electron spin resonance) is an experimental tool which allows the
manipulation, detection of unpaired electron spins and the geometric and electronic structural
characterisation of paramagnetic centres in crystalline and non-crystalline states. The choice of microwave
frequency and modality (continuous wave (CW), pulsed or imaging) for the EPR experiment (Figure below) is
extremely important and dependent upon the information required by the scientist. For example, low
frequencies (1 GHz or lower) are employed for EPR imaging, X-band (9GHz) continuous wave EPR is used for
routine characterisation and quantitation of paramagnetic species and pulsed EPR, ENDOR and ELDOR at 9,
35, 95, 190 GHz and higher frequencies are used for detailed structural characterisation of paramagnetic and
coupled cluster species.

EPR is a particularly impressive characterisation tool which underpins a vast amount of scientific research.
Important areas include:
characterisation of paramagnetic biomarkers for imaging contrast in MRI,
materials for electron spin based information storage and computing (including quantum
information processing),
energy production through the characterisation of the photosynthetic reaction pathways (splitting
water) and hydrogenase (production of hydrogen gas),
ageing and neurodegenerative diseases in which free radicals and metalloproteins have been
implicitly implicated,
medical diseases related to defects in metalloproteins/metalloenzymes,
catalysis and polymerisation involving free radicals and metal ions.
In the past decade, over 40,000 journal articles have utilised EPR/ESR/ENDOR/ELDOR in the research they
report 1 .
Of the 19 disciplines identified as performing well above world standard in the Excellence for Research in
Australia 2010 National Report, over half (Cardiovascular Medicine and Haematology; Medical Physiology;
Human Movement and Sports Science; Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences; Quantum Physics; Plant
Biology; Geology; Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Macromolecular and Materials Chemistry; Physical
and Structural Chemistry) utilize EPR as a fundamental experimental or characterisation tool.
A National EPR Network was established in 2008, initially involving Monash University, The University of
Queensland and The University of Melbourne, to enable the purchase of routine EPR facilities (An Elexsys
EPR imaging system, an Elexsys E500 EPR spectrometer and a Q-band upgrade to UQ’s pulsed E580
spectrometer) through a LIEF grant (Total budget: $1.57585M). Since then, the network has expanded to
include, the University of Sydney, the Heart Research Institute, the Australian National University, Macquarie
University, James Cook University, Deakin University, Queensland University of Technology and the
University of Western Australia.
Recent developments in EPR spectroscopy mean that funding infrastructure in this area through large scale
national infrastructure programs is now appropriate. For example, a single very high frequency spectrometer
can cost in excess of $2.5M. A more modest system capable of pulsed operation (necessary for accessing
time domain information) can exceed $1.5M. Reinvigorating and supporting the infrastructure required for
world leading science would require at a minimum 5 pulsed systems located around Australia, and three
very high field systems in centrally accessible locations. Along with associated infrastructure and support,
such an investment could easily total in excess of $19M, a cost inline with prior NCRIS funding levels.
1 Thomson Reuters Web of Science

Response to Discussion Paper
Our response will consist of answers to some of the specific questions posed in the discussion paper:
2. Promoting and Maintaining Good Health
2.C.1 What are your views on the existing funded facilities, including their ability to meet the current and
future research needs?
The existing facilities are of generally high quality, and should provide a substantial ability to meet the
emerging requirements in this area. One area which we feel is slightly lacking is characterisation – whilst
there is a substantial capability to characterise gross morphological characteristics of a range of materials,
the ability to undertake more targeted molecular and electronic structural characterisation is limited. In
particular, the lack of capability for investigating the paramagnetic properties of novel (bio)molecules and
materials is an oversight.
3. Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries
3.A.1 What are your views on the key future research directions identified and are there other
key areas that have not been included?
We feel that the four areas identified in the discussion paper, whilst identifying significant areas within
Frontier Technologies, should not be considered in any way as encompassing the entirety of this broad area
(as an example, robotics and automation seem to be poorly included). However, we do agree that the four
areas provide substantial scope in which to undertake a wide range of activities which will generate and
enhance emerging technologies. Advanced materials should definitely be included, as the scope of this area
(from photovoltaic materials to new composites for the aeronautic industry, development of renewable
energy materials and drug design and development) is substantial.
With regard to Sensor and Measurement Systems, we feel that this focus should be considered both an end
in itself (ie through development of new tools and sensors for stand alone use), as well as a way in which to
support developments in other areas, such as Advanced Materials or Structural Chemistry and Biology, by
developing new ways to study and understand the properties of these molecules and materials.
3.B.1 What are your views on the research infrastructure Capability areas identified, including
their relative priority and their ability to support the current and future research needs
The Characterisation and Fabrication areas are extremely important to a wide range of activities and should
be well supported. The development of high throughput techniques is also important, and this approach
should be encouraged in all of the Capability areas being considered (such as through the development of
high throughput characterisation technologies).
3.B.2. Should there be a shift in the balance between funding new infrastructure and funding
expertise to serve the needs of researchers?

We feel that both are important. Previous NCRIS funding has clearly resulted in the availability of
infrastructure that would otherwise be unavailable or require substantial international travel, and we
support the continued investment in world class research infrastructure. However, we also note that
previous NCRIS funding does not provide the ability to support ongoing expert staffing without resort to
either substantial institutional support from host institutions or the use of near commercial rates for
external users, including academic users. Given the goals of increasing access to these facilities for the
benefit of the Australian Research Community, we believe that the decision making process for future
infrastructure funding should be required to include detailed plans for supporting users, including the
ongoing provision of expert support personnel. This requirement may require that the funding mechanism
be able to provide a source of funding on a timescale in excess of that required to establish the
infrastructure to guarantee access for research in the public good at a reasonable cost. We are not adverse
to facilities charging competitive rates to commercial users, but feel that users of these facilities undertaking
primary research and development should not be financially penalised when accessing these services based
on their location at a particular administering institution.
3.C.1 What are your views on the existing funded facilities, including their ability to meet the
current and future research needs?
We believe that the existing facilities provide substantial support for current and future research needs in
the areas that they target. However, we believe that there is scope to increase primary characterisation
capabilities across a wide range of physical, chemical and biological areas. These may include experimental
infrastructure designed to provide high quality EPR, NMR and other techniques used to understand the
electronic, chemical and morphological properties of a wide range of materials from the areas of materials
science through chemistry, biochemistry to medicine. We note that infrastructure should be understood in
this context to refer to a wide range of equipment and facilities, and also to personnel and associated
expertise.
3.D.1 What are your views on the eResearch infrastructure identified, including their relative
priority and ability to support the current and future eResearch infrastructure needs for
Frontier Technologies?
Whilst the goal of increasing access to major facilities using remote access is in many cases useful, care
should be taken to ensure that this does not result in undue concentration of resources in a single
geographical location. The lack of locally available characterisation infrastructure will impact a wide range of
research which requires fast measurement (such as for some biological samples and rapid chemical
reactions), or involve materials which are difficult to transport (for cost, safety or other reasons). We suggest
that serious thought be given to developing networks of complimentary equipment situated in areas with
large research concentration. This may even require duplication of some infrastructure; we point out that
such duplication can be an advantage, allowing tandem development of capabilities on a number of
individual systems which can then be deployed across the network of infrastructure. It also ensures rapid
development of technology through collaboration.

3.E.1 What are your views on the cross-disciplinary requirements identified, including their
relative priority and ability to support the current and future research needs?
We agree with the goal of identifying areas which will benefit from increased cross disciplinary
interactions. We also point out that such interactions can be driven by investing in infrastructure
which can be utilised in a wide range of disciplines. This will serve to increase cross disciplinary
interactions by providing “nucleation sites” at which researchers can develop the initial contacts
required to instigate new research links. Creation of networks, for example the Queensland NMR
network and the Australian EPR network has already produced new collaborations with participates
using the advanced NMR and multifrequency CW and pulsed EPR facilities within the Centre for
Advanced Imaging at the University of Queensland.
3.E.2 Are there particular areas of research strength within Australia that could be harnessed
to create powerful new research capacity and impact through the provision of new crossdisciplinary
infrastructure and expertise?
Yes. Electron paramagnetic resonance, an area in which Australia has world leading researchers, is used
across a wide range of scientific fields as a way to manipulate and structurally (geometric and electronic)
characterise materials which contain paramagnetic centres. It can be used for such diverse applications as
characterising the geometry and electronic structure of new molecules, measuring the temporal
morphological changes as proteins rearrange, understanding how electrons move through photovoltaic
materials, controlling information in classical and quantum information processing systems, understanding
biological functions, the molecular basis of disease and even determining the age of fossils and geological
structures. Importantly, the infrastructure required for all of these applications is substantially similar. The
wide range of expertise of practitioners also leads to a substantial exchange of ideas between disparate
research fields – for example, insights gained whilst controlling the loss of quantum coherence in mesoscopic
electronic devices can lead to better imaging of biological systems.
3.F.1 Are there other programs/issues/developments not listed that you consider could be a
driver for future infrastructure investments or may impact on such investments?
A range of issues could and should be considered in this context. The infrastructure developed at present
will exist for some substantial period of time – care should be taken that the appropriate expertise in the
areas being funded will exist to successfully exploit the investment being made here. This may be done in a
number of ways, such as identifying areas in which Australia has a particularly strong cohort of early career
researchers or by charging the facilities being funded to develop this expertise and ensure appropriate
future expertise. Additionally, ongoing funding and long term support for the areas identified and supported
should be considered.
The Australian EPR Network
The Australian EPR Network exists “to support the Australian EPR community, with the aim of ensuring the
continued availability of EPR expertise and state of the art facilities to ensure that Australian scientific
research is at the cutting edge and thereby internationally competitive.”.

This response was prepared by members of the Australian EPR Network Governance Committee: Dr. Dane
McCamey (School of Physics, The University of Sydney), Prof. Graeme Hanson (Centre for Advanced Imaging,
The University of Queensland), Prof. Michael Davies (Heart Research Institute, ARC Centre of Excellence for
Free Radical Chemistry), Dr. Ron Pace (Research School of Chemistry, The Australian National University), Dr.
Stephen Best (School of Chemistry, The University of Melbourne) and Dr. Allan McKinley (School of
Biomedical, Biomolecular and Chemical Sciences, The University of Western Australia). For more details visit
www.Australian-EPR.org .