Chief Scientist Delivers Inaugural National Tertiary Education Union Lecture. (October 9, 2011)

This past Thursday Professor Ian Chubb, Australia's Chief Scientist and former Vice-Chancellor of The Australian National University, delivered the inaugural Lecture for the National Tertiary Education Union at The University of Melbourne.

Professor Chub entitled his address Science in Contemporary Australia  and much of it was an apologia for science, i.e. it is a very good thing and those who unthinkingly attack science and scientists should be admonished.

I don’t mean science like some people mean ‘free speech’ – which is apparently a license to do and say whatever you want without regard to facts, evidence or responsibility even if you have the privilege of an audience. I do mean science with proper ethics controls, proper regulation when regulation is proper and licensing when that is proper.

But instead of these, I chose to focus on something else tonight. I plan to speak about:

• The value of science.
• The need for academics to contribute to public debate in their area of expertise.
• The contribution of public institutions to the common good.
• And the importance of intellectual freedom.

He continued:

Matters which cut to the core of science and which form the very basis of science and of an informed, progressive and enlightened society are apparently under siege.

This is disappointing; not to say regressive.

Instead of moving on and discussing things that matter today, and will matter tomorrow, we are caught up fighting a rear guard action against those who seek to question and tear down the very ideals, the values, the principles and the practices of science.

Make no mistake. Our future as a nation, our prosperity, our quality of life and the well being of the entire planet all depend on science.

As to specifics regarding what he and the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) were actively engaged in, there were a couple of hints:

By early next year we (OCS) expect to release a substantial report on the state of Australian science - primarily viewed from the supply side – our universities.

Much of the academic profile of our supply side (not all of it) is driven by undergraduate study choices – since substantial money follows where the students go, and what they choose to study. This is a country where freedom of choice is allowed.

The Chief Scientist for Australia then asks rhetorically:

Don’t we need a more strategic approach that comprehends that some disciplines are important to Australia (and the world) but not presently popular with students in large numbers? I think we do – and I hope we can make suitable recommendations when we see how the story unfolds.

Which is followed by a new definition of ERA and a singling out of Australia's Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences for special mention rather than specific recommendations:

But some issues are beginning to emerge. If I use Agriculture to illustrate the point; and if we put some of the data from the Evaluation of Research Australia alongside enrolment data we get the following picture:

There are 25 institutions that submitted research work in Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences; 13 of these have students at any level enrolled in Agricultural Science coded degrees; 3 have students at the Bachelor, Bachelor honours and PhD level (Uni Melb, Uni Queensland, and Uni Tas); 6 have both Bachelor's and PhD students, but no honours students; 2 have Bachelor's students only; 2 have PhD students only9. And the enrolled numbers of domestic students are dropping.

To turn the illustration into a question, is this appropriate for a country that is heavily dependent on our agricultural exports and our agricultural capability not just for ourselves but for our role as a global citizen?

Finally there are a series of what might be called motherhood statements followed by a swipe at our political masters as well as a giddap for Australian academia:

We simply must do more to support our teachers and more for our students.

And we must also provide careers... how many [of our best and brightest] have to delay getting a house or starting a family because of their job insecurity?

I realise that I am preaching to the choir when I say we need to be strong advocates for our universities...

To quote... from AAAS "...we think it would be unfortunate if policymakers became the arbiters of scientific information and circumvented the peer-review process," I add parenthetically, substitute ‘entertainers’, ‘commentators’, or indeed ‘non-expert scientists’ for policy-makers and the hat still fits well.

To quote Paul Nurse [President of the Royal Society]: “It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. We scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what we know and admitting what we don't know.”

Our universities have unquestionably served us well. They will continue to do so – if we let them do what they are good at. In turn, they must earn the right rather than presume the right.

...with science, the world has prospects. Without it….well, I don’t think that is worth thinking about.

Whether or not Professor Chubb is any more influential than his immediate predecessor on governmental policy when it comes to support for science and scientific research remains to be seen.