Cathy Foley Asks: Has Australia Become a Mendicant Nation When It Comes to International Science Collaboration? (November 18, 2011)

In an article published yesterday in The Conversation Dr Cathy Foley, President of Science and Technology Australia addresses the question of whether Australia is at risk of being perceived as something of a free-loader at the table of scientific research. Here is the gist of her argument:  

Over the last ten years, the Australian government supported a program called the International Science Linkages (ISL) program. A review of its modest $10 million per year investment identified that it had been highly successful, with evidence of flow-on benefits. These included the creation of new research collaborations and the strengthening and growth of existing research relationships.

But the ISL program lapsed on June 30 this year because of the “current tight fiscal environment”, and no plan was put forward for a successor program.

Has Australia become a mendicant nation when it comes to international science collaboration?

At his National Press Club address in June, the Chief Scientist for Australia, Ian Chubb, described Australia in the past as being a “mendicant country”, contributing little to the world’s stock of knowledge but accessing whatever it needed.

We are now in danger of returning to this scenario.

Is it really a saving in tight fiscal times to cut a program from which a Nobel Prize was won? (Brian Schmidt’s work that contributed to the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was a result of work funded by ISL).

Barack Obama could have been referring to all nations in his 2009 [address to the US National Academy of Science](http: “At such a difficult moment [referring to the GFC in April 2009], there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is some how a luxury.

“I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment and our quality of life than it ever has been before.”

There are many examples of international collaborations that have had positive impact: real-time ocean forecasting undertaken with a joint US-France team, decoding genomes essential in keeping Australia in the race to adapt to a genomics paradigm, developing life-saving vaccines after learning new skills overseas in the UK and China, to name just a few.

The return on investment from these international linkages has been exceedingly successful financially and socially. Reviews of the programs have regularly measured this.

Most governments in the world agree that international scientific collaborations are an excellent investment. As a G20 nation, we cannot afford to be confused about our place in international scientific collaboration.

We simply cannot be the ones putting out their hands for support, saying current fiscal environment is too tight. An investment of $10M per year over ten years has delivered a significant return. Voices from our peak science body and learned academies are all saying we should be increasing our investment to a level of $30M a year – not cutting it.

That would be money well-spent without a doubt.