That perennial Quiz Kid, former Federal Labor Minister for Science, former and again to be next year ALP President, Barry Jones once observed that it's difficult (we might say impossible) to get politicians to focus on matters of national importance down the track when they perceive a job threatening obstruction immediately before them. Of course the repost to that would be that it's no good making long term decisions when you're liable to be history in the short term.

Whether what's being referred to is a national disaster or the prospect of being voted out of office is a moot point. Cynics might claim that our parliamentarians don't see a distinction.

In any case sometime within the next 7 to 8 months Australians will vote and either retain the incumbent Coalition conservatives or replace it with a Labor government. And while seldom are elections decided on matters of rational argument it doesn't alter the case that when time and again irrational decisions are reached which are contrary to the nation's interest irregardless of their bases the nation and its people – or the majority of them – are the worse for it.

In 1994-95 the gross domestic product directed to Australia's research and development was 1.58% that rose to 1.66% though 1996-97 then nose-dived to 1.51% by 1998-99 and leaped to 1.53%, 2000-01.

Because per capita GDP over the short period doesn't vary all that much, the money spent on R&D per individual has decreased by nearly 10% during the term of the Coalition government. And over the course so far of Backing Australia's Ability R&D as a percentager of GDP has risen only marginally because it is only in the final years of its five year span that the major part of the funding kicks in and even there the erosion caused by inflation has a noticeable effect. Australia's gross expenditure on research and development  is unlikely to exceed the 1994-95 levels by much if at all.

And to put the matter into perspective, the latest figures published by the OECD place Australia in 17^th place of OECD nations which has a mean of 2.4% of GDP allocated for R&D.

Keep in mind the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee has had the audacity to suggest a target of 2% of GDP by 2010.

It really doesn't require a polymath to perceive that as matters both stand and are projected, Australia will fall further and further behind its OECD cohort in the R&D steeplechase. Of course it only matters if research and development are seen as matters of consequence for the country's future.  And all the while both the Coalition and Labor remain stum on the subject.

However, a "message" from the Prime Minister, John Howard, written as a forward to a new brochure about to be launched by the Group of Eight (seen as Australia's leading research universities) contains the heart-warming paragraph, "The Australian Government has helped to maintain Australia's tradition of research excellence by nurturing innovation and opportunities in our universities and research agencies through programmes such as Backing Australia's Ability. This initiative focus on strengthening  Australia's ability to generate ideas and developing and retaining skills."

Well I suppose it just depends on how you define Commonwealth Government "help" and "nurturing". The chart below may assist in gaining an understanding so far as our universities are concerned. Follow the dark green bar.

If it is analogous to giving a cripple a bent crutch, then it's help.

Nurturing is open to debate, but palliative care might be given consideration.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web