As Good As It Gets - Part II

Professor Suzanne Cory contributed the editorial for the September 21^st issue of Science while Neil Rudenstine made news by featuring in Nature's September 13^th issue. Three months previously Rudenstine upset the Brits by voicing to a group of Harvard students what, according to Nature's David Adam, "was the sort of comment that any British university researcher could have made over a cup of coffee," namely Rudenstine summed up the state of British higher education as moving from "a disaster into a nightmare". Emphasising the point he went on to say, "The sad reality is that in Britain even Oxbridge is suffering because of the lack of resources and private-sector involvement." Pointing out that the Cavendish Laboratory had a budget of US$16 million he concluded, "[That] wouldn't keep our history department going".

And Professor Cory? She says, "Something unusual is happening in Australia: Science and technology have become buzzwords for politicians and journalists... the 'lucky country' is at last taking seriously the call to become a 'clever country.' With its sights now fixed on innovation and new knowledge-based industries, the federal government is introducing policy changes to boost public and private investment in science and technology."
    She goes on to praise changes since 1990 when the Government introduced Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) as amalgams of resources from universities, CSIRO, medical research institutes and industry in order to foster commercialisation of scientific discovery but considers that the most important result has been the training of "a new breed of young scientists with experience in intellectual property protection and a realistic approach to commercialization."
    On the other hand Amanda Gome writing in the Business Review Weekly of July 20^th heads her 2700 word article "Great Idea, Shameful Return," and continues, "Co-operative Research Centres have had some spectacular successes, but they have come at a high price... many of the 123 CRCs that have passed through the program have sunk without trace, amid tales of bickering, arrogance and ignorance of the commercialisation process." In short Gome challenges the contention that the CRCs are good value for money commenting, "business leaders say it is time to take a hard look at the commercial results of the CRC program."
    Since their inception there have been inquiries into the efficacy of the CRCs in 1997 and in 1998. "Both reports emphasised the need to improve commercial outcomes and make CRCs more accountable." And Gome makes a pretty damning accusation, "CRCs are not a true collaboration because researchers hijack the agenda. Too often the researchers accept the funding then pursue their own agendas."
    This suggests that a situation has developed where university based scientists in order to overcome the lack of support for research they believe to be of consequence utilise a back door and as a result fall between two stools occupying neither usefully.

Professor Cory concludes her editorial in Science, "Would-be prime minister Kim Beazley has staked his leadership on Labor's Knowledge Nation" ...[and while] budget details... remain under wraps... Beazley has been quick to reassure conservatives of a cautious implementation timetable. As ambitious young Democrat leader Natasha Stott-Despoja remarked, this sounds suspiciously like a cop-out. If Australia is serious about securing its future as a knowledge-led nation, it must move boldly and quickly. Not to do so [as Barry Jones] warns will be 'to opt for stagnation and declining quality of life.'"

Cory has been director of WEHI since 1996. As such she is one of the most influential members of the biomedical research fraternity signified for example by Science's request for her to be an editorial contributor. That editorial deals almost exclusively with commercial development of programmed and applied research. The consequences of the erosion of fundamental research facilities and staff at Australian universities, particularly in the core disciplines is not refered to, and yet the quality of all research in Australia is ultimately dependent upon it, directly or indirectly. It will for example determine the quality of the research staffs of our premier medical research institutes and this will become of increasing consequence as the understanding and utilisation of discoveries in the "enabling sciences" impact ever-increasingly on biomedical research.

So where does Neil Rudenstine come into this matter?

    Prior to becoming president of Harvard in 1991, Neil Rudenstine was Professor of  English and American Literature and Language and a noted scholar of Renaissance literature so his comments regarding Cambridge's physics department are noteworthy. To put matters into perspective, from Australia's viewpoint it is of concern that ANU's Research School of Physics and Engineering has a budget less than half that of the Cavendish.
    Nature was sufficiently galvanised by Rudenstine's comments to have one of its writers flesh them out (413:105-06 (2001)). "The difference between funding in Britain and the United States is significant." David Adam writes, "Private US universities such as Harvard get the bulk of their income from tuition fees and the return on their endowment funds. Harvard's US$19-billion endowment, the largest in the United States, yields $500 million each year. Yale, Princeton and Stanford each have endowments of over US$6 billion. Top public institutions, such as the University of California, Berkeley, benefit from generous state and federal funding, which allows them to compete with their private rivals (our emphasis). ...Oxford and Cambridge -- the wealthiest British universities by a considerable margin -- have respective endowments of around £500 million (US$723 million) and £650 million. ...[while] Oxford's external research income was about £130 million during the past year, which compares favourably with that of US giants such as Harvard, says David Holmes, the university's registrar."

To clarify the issue Adam points out, "A recent study by Universities UK, the London-based representative body for British universities, estimated that, in terms of teaching requirements, the higher education system is underfunded by around £900 million per year." Britain currently maintains 111 public universities for a population of 60 million; Australia maintains 38 public universities for a population of 19½ million so that a comparable infusion would be just on $1 billion. Adam continues, " A similar sum is needed on the research side. 'We have managed to stay competitive so far, but the present situation is unsustainable and needs urgent review,' says Diana Warwick, the organization's chief executive." So translating to Australia some $2 billion per annum would be required to bring our universities to a competitive level. Keeping in mind that the U.K. study is dealing solely with university requirements, that's markedly above the estimate given by the Group of Eight for Australia's requirements.
    In this context perhaps it is understandable that when viewed critically, the Government's $2.9 billion Innovation Action Plan is best described as tokenism.

Now, what about the Blair government, what's it doing? Over the next two years, the government is providing £1 billion to improve research infrastructure and around £280 million to improve pay and retain key researchers. (Again that's the equivalent of the Howard government injecting over $1 billion to upgrade our universities' infrastructure and providing an additional $300 million to selectively upgrade pay and conditions.) But with even the most optimistic observers accepting that the UK government will not commit to a long-term increase in university funding at the required level, the search is on for alternatives.

However, the question of a long term solution to Britain's higher educational problems looms large. A mixture of deregulation, allowing universities to determine fees, and endowment schemes appears most viable to the top British institutions. "And regardless of whatever changes the government may choose to make, reports suggest that some universities -- including Oxford and Cambridge -- are already making plans to abandon state funding and move towards a US model based on building up an endowment and setting their own tuition fees."

Adam concludes his article, "Avoiding charges of élitism while allowing Britain's universities to compete with their US rivals looks likely to prove a difficult juggling act for the British government. Unless other alternatives are pursued, the top institutions may take the matter into their own hands. The British system may not yet have turned from a disaster to a nightmare, but it does seem stuck between a rock and a hard place."

Regarding Australia's situation paraphrasing Winston Churchill may be appropriate, "Some rock, some hard place."

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web