Australia's Newly Appointed Chief Scientist, as of November, Gives Direct Answers to Direct Questions. (October 6, 2008)

Click Here to listen to the interview or read the complete transcript on the ABC's Sunday Profile

PENNY SACKETT: ...originally I thought I would pick a biological field, perhaps medicine. But I had a wonderful teacher in physics in

 year 11 who made me realize that physics was much more than pulleys and levers as I'd been previously told and I think that was a turning point for me.

Penny Sackatt

Monica Attard

 MONICA ATTARD: So you were basically lucky enough to be inspired as a child to study science?

 PENNY SACKETT: Indeed. I had very supportive parents and excellent teachers and I suppose that is why I have such a high regard for teachers.

 MONICA ATTARD: ...what do you see as wrong at the moment with science education in this country?
 

 PENNY SACKETT: Oh I wouldn't say there's anything particularly wrong. Certainly we see a decline all across the world. It is not just specific to Australia. Fewer and fewer young people as a percentage are going into the scientific engineering technology disciplines at precisely the wrong time frankly.

 MONICA ATTARD: Why is that do you think?
 

 PENNY SACKETT: To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure why that is and one of the things that I would like to do is undertake some studies that allow us to speak to young people and to understand what is influencing the choices that they're making.
At the same time I would like to make sure that we're getting correct information out there for them so that they realize that there's a diversity of things they can do by studying science. It occurs to me that they may have a rather narrow view of what one does with a background in science and so I hope that we can broaden that and enable them to see the whole range of possibilities that are in front of them.
    ...I would like to see all of us value good teachers more and in particular mathematics and science teachers who are in incredibly short supply, the world over. And so one of the areas that I hope we can inspire young people is indeed to go back into education so supporting the science teachers that we do have and removing any possible misconceptions that students might have about their future and how it might link to science.

 MONICA ATTARD: It would seem to me as well that good scientific research requires persistence, do you think that could be a bit of a turnoff for young students, for young people?
 

 PENNY SACKETT: I would be surprised if that was the case. I think young people can be extraordinarily persistent at goals that they want to achieve and things that are important to them. So I would suspect that it has a bit more to do with motivation, but again it will be by talking to young people I think in part that we'll get better answers to these questions.

 MONICA ATTARD:  ...the Square Kilometer Array telescope an incredibly expensive collaborative project between 17 countries.
Will you be pushing to have that built in Australia?

 PENNY SACKETT: Well of course I think that's a role of chief scientist to place Australia in the global context internationally in science. Scientists are aware that Western Australia is an excellent place on the globe to build the Square Kilometre Array and so we will be continuing to build that case to try and insure that indeed that telescope does come to Western Australia.

MONICA ATTARD: ...how much at the end of the day would it end up costing Australia?

PENNY SACKETT: ...I believe the current ambition is to have Australia be a 10% partner in that project.

MONICA ATTARD: And what would the benefits be?

 PENNY SACKETT: The benefits again would be learning more about the universe, in particular what's called the Epic of Reionization, this is the time when the hydrogen which is the most common element in the universe was being ionized; that is the electrons separated from the protons by the first stars lighting up in the universe. The very very first stars and so this is a remarkable period in the history of our cosmos and the Square Kilometer Array would allow us a way to peer into that [early] period.

    Technically, the other thing that it would enable is understanding and developing techniques for massive data transfer which will be required for this project and of course will be required for many of the things that society does going forward.

 MONICA ATTARD: Australia doesn't have its own satellite and as a result we buy information and services from nations who do. What do you think about getting our own satellite both from a scientific and a security point of view?

 PENNY SACKETT: ...I don't have a fully formed opinion on but it will come across the chief scientist's desk and I do believe that it is something that we need to re-examine. Increasingly our information is relayed through space and it is important that we are not vulnerable in any way by not having our own assets in space. I have not yet examined the evidence to form a complete opinion.

MONICA ATTARD: We've talked a little bit about your new job, but how do you see your role?

PENNY SACKETT: ...first and foremost the role is to provide independent advice to the government of the day on the science that influences policy. So there is an interface between science and policy. The chief scientist is not a policy maker, but the chief scientist is meant to advise those who do make policy about the underlying science. [T]hat is first and foremost the role.
    And then in a broader context it is also under the remit of the chief scientist to bring to Australia's attention questions that might have gone unasked that are important for Australia's future. So both responding to questions that government puts to the office but also providing new avenues that might have otherwise gone unexplored.

 MONICA ATTARD: What will your role be in helping Australia really deal with climate change?

 PENNY SACKETT: The focus for my post and my office will be on collecting, understanding and collating the scientific information that must underlie policy decisions. That is not to say that there aren't many other factors that influence policy, but on an issue such as climate change, science must be at the core of policy decisions.
   Now no single scientist, certainly not myself could pretend to be an expert across all of the issues, but I do see the chief scientist's office as the primary place for Australia in collecting that information, increasing dialogue across the disciplines and across the sectors in order to make sure that we have the firm foundation of science on which to build good policy.

 MONICA ATTARD: [Are] those positions which you annunciate which will form the basis or policy divorced from the economic issues?

 PENNY SACKETT: I wouldn't say divorced, but I would say that they will always begin,  with science. That is the role of the chief scientist's office and I think to take that from knowledge to action is where the interface is, there clearly will need to be dialogues between all of the sectors and that includes economics. And policy is likely to fail if it does not include all of those factors.
    But my role as chief scientist will be to provide the scientific component of those policies.

 MONICA ATTARD: Now Professor Garnaut has handed down his climate change report and he's recommended a 10 per cent cut in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels by 2020. Is that enough of a cut in your view at this point in time?

 PENNY SACKETT: [Regarding] a 10 per cent cut what that will mean with our best evidence and our best understanding, how that will affect climate change [t]hat will be the first question that the chief scientist's office will review. There will be other questions, about economics, but the starting point must be is that cut appropriate in terms of how it will affect climate change?

 MONICA ATTARD: Does [apolicy on climate change] also need bi-partisanship?

 PENNY SACKETT: Yes... it will take bi-partisanship in Australia, it will take bi-partisanship across the world.

MONICA ATTARD: And is that something as chief scientist that you see as your role in trying perhaps to facilitate that bi-partisanship because that has so far eluded our politicians in this country in this debate.

 PENNY SACKETT: I would hope that the office of the chief scientist can engage everyone in the political sphere that will have an influence on forming policy and I would like to think that everyone in that political sphere will indeed be interested and engaged in understanding what the scientific issues are.

 MONICA ATTARD: Do you see it as your role as chief scientist to get out there and explain to you know average people in the street what would be entailed here?

 PENNY SACKETT: Absolutely. I think that is very clearly a role of the chief scientist, certainly now that it's been made a full time post and I've made it clear to the extent that the number of hours in the day allow that I want to make it a priority that in formulating the evidence, the scientific evidence of matters of importance to Australia that that information is not only communicated to the government but to the Australian people.

    I must be careful as chief scientist to act in the role of chief scientist which is to discuss the scientific evidence that is first and foremost the role. And I believe that what follows from that will come through discussion of all sectors of society as it must and it is my feeling that indeed there will be changes in society, in fact there must be changes. I will not pretend to know precisely what they will be, but we know the climate is changing and we may have opportunities to slow that change and the starting point is to understand more fully what those changes are, what they're likely to entail in the future. Where we have a fair amount of certainty, where there is some uncertainty still remaining and then as human beings do, we will adapt.

 MONICA ATTARD: And when you say that there may be an opportunity to slow those changes down, are you convinced at this point in time that deeper cuts to our green house gases are the only way to go?

 PENNY SACKETT: I believe that cuts to greenhouse gases must form part of the picture, absolutely. And I'm not prepared to put any quantitative statement on that until I've had an opportunity to review all the evidence and to speak to people who have studied these issues and formed their own opinion, sometimes differing for many years.

 MONICA ATTARD: And should nuclear energy be part of that?

 PENNY SACKETT: Again that will take looking at the evidence to fully understand what role nuclear energy could play, but also what role things that Australia has in abundance such as wind and solar power.
    [O]ne thing that I would like to take up in my new role is to increase the internationality of the science that Australia is involved in.I think that will allow us to take on larger projects by working with our colleagues overseas. I think it will also give us an opportunity to showcase and build the special talents that Australia has in science, technology and engineering.
So very large projects such as the one that you're discussing and many, many others that we won't have time to discuss could benefit from increased dialogue internationally.

 MONICA ATTARD: Professor I wonder though how you feel about the attitude that some Australians might have about pouring money into internationalising this area and getting Australia a seat at the table when the globe is facing a massive and very, very deep financial crisis that looks on the surface of it, one that will go on for a very, very long time.

 PENNY SACKETT: The rewards that come from basic research are very long term the question is to consider it a matter of investment. We know that much of the prosperity that we as Australians enjoy has at its foundation knowledge that was built through basic research and so we have our forefathers and foremothers to thank for that investment. I think continued investment is required to make sure that our children can enjoy similar levels of prosperity that we have been able to.

 MONICA ATTARD:  ...about the conflict between pure research and applied science.

 PENNY SACKETT: I think this division that one sometimes hears about is in part artificial. In fact I think it's in large part artificial. Nature doesn't make such a distinction; quite frankly it's a human distinction and it's one that I feel primarily comes from limited resources. There is no doubt that some questions require us to invest very focused sums of money on particular critical issues and climate change is amongst those. But to imagine that an issue of such critical importance as climate change to all of humanity one not simply this year and next year, but for hundreds of years to come does not involve basic research into understanding how the atmosphere works, how the atmosphere talks to the oceans of the earth is naive. And so indeed rather than thinking about this as an argument between two possible ways forward, we have to build a web of integrated solutions that ensures that 10 years from now, 20 years from now we have the basic understanding to refine our choices, our policy choices going forward. So both are needed.

__________________________________________

Professor Sackett then let it be known that ANU: "has offered me the opportunity to remain as an adjunct professor at the university. This will allow me to continue to work with the students that I have currently been supervising and also I like to think perhaps on an occasion indeed go back to the telescope and commune again with the wonderful universe in which we live."

In short just as the United Kingdom's chief scientific advisors have remained active researchers it looks as if Penny Sackett will follow in that tradition.

That said the office ought to be part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Penny Sackett is designated as the government's Chief Scientist not the scientific advisor to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.