Editorial - 2 February 2001
In Waiting for Godot Samuel Beckett has Vladimir ask
Estragon, 'How's the carrot?' which elicits the sardonic reply, 'It's a carrot.'
Taking a reasonably close look at Backing Australia's Ability: An Innovation Action Plan for the Future one is left with the question just how far the future extends for our Government. Jennifer Hewett in her short article in the January 30th Sydney Morning Herald opens with the heading, 'There's a long way to catch up,' and continues, 'Mr Howard's package sounds fine, but past neglect means it has to achieve an awful lot. ...While Australia's competitors have been accelerating investment in research and development, Australian business has actually cut back in the past several years.'
-----------
V: What do you mean, 'It's a carrot,' at $3 billion that's some carrot.
E: It's $2.9 billion, it's over five years, and for the first year the largess is $159 million. In 2005/06 it gets to $947 million so it's a pretty slow climb. By world standards, I shouldn't think Bugs Bunny would be doing hand stands.
V: But that just points up what the PM said in his Forward, 'We are a creative and determined people and when confronted with challenges and opportunities, we rise to the occasion.'
E: Terrific we're dealing with a nation who's practically a paraplegic with respect to R&D, and the science, technology and university communities, as well as the research institutes - get thrown a bent crutch.
V: Oh, that's going a bit far.
E: Oh is it? For starters have a look at what the Australian Research Council is getting.
V: Vicki Sara, the ARC Chair looked pretty pleased on the box Monday night, she says that the doubling of funds for the ARC means that instead of funding one in five applications they'll be able to fund one in three.
E: No she didn't. She said that of those outstanding applicants worthy of support they could move from 20% to 33% support. To me that's saying that at least two out of every three projects that should be funded, won't be funded.
V: But she said that put us on a par with other top countries.
E: Hmm – interesting point – we are running near the back of the pack, and losing ground, so at best we'll stay where we are, the question of catching up isn't an issue, is that it?
V: You're just being negative, it's a fantastic improvement.
E:
Good, I'm glad you think so. You must have been one of the spectators cheering
his tailor when the emperor showed up in the nuddy. I'm not being negative, you
just have a short memory – one of the small matters that's been conveniently
overlooked is a small paragraph in the Innovation Summit's report: 'Furthermore,
the average size of ARC grants for basic research is $55,000, an amount which is
inadequate to meet the full direct costs of research. In the United States, the
average size of successful grants is equivalent to A$169,000, while in the
United Kingdom grants range between A$192,500 and A$432,500 (including funding
for research infrastructure).'
V:
Damn it, it's better than nothing.
E: No it's not, it's just wasting money. What Vicki Sara is announcing if we take what she says at face value is that the ARC is going to support somewhat more that half again exceptionally worthy applicants, 33% compared to 20% and that they'll get an average of $66,000 compared to $55,000 assuming the number of worthy applicants doesn't increase. If you factor in inflation - rather higher this year than in the past few - I wouldn't say that's a giant leap in support for Australian Science.
V: You're just playing with figures.
E: I'm not – they are. And it's perfectly understandable that Professor Sara doesn't want to publicly gnaw the hand that feeds the ARC, but in the long run she does a disservice to not only Australian R&D but to the Nation. Sure, she can't be strident in what she says in public but the Chair of the ARC has a responsibility to put the promised funding into world perspective; seems to me that's a part of the job.
V: Well what about the, 'upgrade [to] the basic infrastructure of universities, such as scientific and research equipment, libraries and laboratory facilities, $246 million over the next five years will be provided to fund the best infrastructure proposals from universities.'
E: Right, that's $50 million a year. How many universities does this country currently boast?
V: I don't know – maybe 25?
E: Forty-four.
V: Fancy that, we must have an awful lot of professors around the place.
E: Quite so, but let's say, to keep the arithmetic simple, that each year 25 of the unis have worthy projects, that averages out to $2 million per year for those who get support. Considering their run down state the lucky universities may be able to mount a holding operation where 'til now they've been progressing backwards. Remember that Sydney University academic who was reported in Nature the other day that she couldn't assent to overseas requests to accommodate researchers who wished to work with her; she was so ashamed at the dilapidated state of her lab. She'll be right now, she'll be able to repaint the walls.
V: You're overstating things!
E: Yes, I am, but not all that much. What I'm trying to get across is that the money being allocated is too little to do the job for which it's ostensively intended, but too much to waste, and that's the situation right the way through the Government's innovation package.
V: Well what about the $225,000 per year, (for five years) fellowship program. They'll be giving 25 of those. I wouldn't mind getting paid that.
E: Good point, I emailed two guys in the US the next morning. One on each coast. One in her mid-thirties the other late forties and asked if the money and the chance of coming home to work interested them. They unhesitating answered no, and both said it wasn't a matter of the money though one was earning somewhat less the other rather more. They emphasised the lack of adequate facilities and were suspicious of the Government's real commitment.
V: That's just two people. They may not be representative.
E: True, I'm not denying that, but when one of them pointed out to me that for this fiscal year in the US the Government alone is putting up over $A160 billion for R&D, that's 250% what our government is spending on a per capita basis, and it gets to about 400% if private sector money is included, I didn't think I had a good case why they should return.
V: What about patriotism? After all Kennedy told the Americans in 1961, '...ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'
E: Well, yes, I did appeal to their patriotic instincts, what I got for my trouble was the one said that, he felt he had to leave when an overseas colleague told him at a conference, 'You know, for a cripple, your work's fantastic.' The other simply said that she felt that she could add more to the image of Australia and Australians through the work she was doing in the US than bashing her head against the resources barrier in Australia, Innovation Statement or no Innovation Statement.
V: You're exaggerating again.
E: No, and I haven't been. I'm sure that the Government has no real understanding or no real interest in how serious the problem is and I don't know which. Worse they're not mutually exclusive.
V: Have another carrot.
E: Thanks.
Alex
Reisner
areisner@bigpond.com