Editorial - 19 March 2001

The Consequence of Ryan

The past several weeks have seen the focus of our political leaders trained on the Brisbane electorate of Ryan to what appeared to be the exclusion of just about all other issues. The fact of the matter is that the Ryan by-election is a topic of minor importance so far as its immediate outcome will be. The Howard Government will not fall; Mr. Howard will not be replaced whether or not Ryan changes hands. Looking further ahead, will any significant lessons be taken from the results? Most probably not, the Coalition is still speaking of "fine tuning" and accusing Labor of being "policy lazy" while Labor if it has been developing significant policies, is being careful not to be too specific in order to avoid tipping its hand and/or being caught out. Perhaps the result of most immediate consequence will be the effect of the almost 40% drop in the vote for the Australian Democrats, from 8% to 5% and the consequences to the leadership challenge.

But certainly the fundamental issues which will affect our population's well being were not raised, presumably because they were not perceived to be of significance for attracting votes by the two major candidates or the cadre of minders that descended upon them during the campaign. It's as though the nation were suffering indigestion but coincidentally had a slowly progressing malignant tumour. The one is instantly uncomfortable and readily treatable,  while the other, although a potential death sentence, may cause much less immediate acute pain and will require much more rigorous treatment. Alan Bromley in his Op-Ed piece for the New York Times put it about as succinctly as possible when he said , "No science, no surplus. It's that simple." We would add, "no education, no science."

It's not a matter of science being everything, far from it, but in this age it is and will continue to be the basis on which our economy can flourish and the arts, our living standards, and our standing in the world are dependant on science – the support we give it and the use we make of it. In the first instance it is the responsibility of its practitioners to convince the Australian population of the fact as well as our elected leaders. But it is also the responsibility of our elected leaders, as well as the nation's opinion shapers, be they the Governor General, talk back radio hosts or those in between to seek out our scientists and educators. These pages have advocated a wide ranging education summit with universal endorsement from all the political parties. We would like to see science and education policy be placed above party politics. Perhaps the problem is that unless a situation is perceived as an acute crisis, consensus isn't possible; chronic crises don't push the right buttons.

John Glenn in his forward to Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century wrote –

"[A]t the daybreak of this new century and millennium, the Commission is convinced that the future well-being of our nation and people depends not just on how well we educate our children generally, but on how well we educate them in mathematics and science specifically.
        From mathematics and the sciences will come the products, services, standard of living, and economic and military security that will sustain us at home and around the world.  From them will come the technological creativity American companies need to compete effectively in the global marketplace. 'Globalization' has occurred.  Economic theories of a few years ago are now a reality.  Goods, services, ideas, communication, businesses, industries, finance, investment, and jobs – the good jobs – are increasingly the competitive currency of the inter-national marketplace."

  Is that assessment any less true for Australia than for the United States? 

Alex Reisner
areisner@bigpond.com