|
Editorial
- 20 July 2010 |
|
|
|
On September 30, 2007, Just two months before Labor assumed government with Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, the text below formed TFW's editorial for the month.
Now almost 3 years later, and 2.7 years of Labor rule, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that Australia's research sector has gained significantly from the additional resources that have been provided to it.
Nevertheless, it is also reasonable to judge the
present state of the sector against the propositions laid down by Kurt
Lambeck, the then President of the Australian Academy of Science, in his
address to the National Press Club on September 26, 2007 together with
the ten recommendations of the
policy statement
published by the AAS that month -- which concludes:
The Australian Academy of Science contends that the nation’s future socioeconomic and environmental prosperity will be underpinned by science, technology and innovation. The Academy has brought together ten recommendations aimed at increasing the chances of the nation realising its potential as a major contributor to a global, knowledge-based economy. Without urgent attention to education, research and innovation policies, Australia may find its current competitive advantages in the international market-place rapidly eroded. Alternatively, strategic investment in science, technology and innovation will open up new and exciting opportunities to strengthen the quality of life for all Australians.
We would argue it is very much a work in progress.
|
A Glimmer of Light at the end of the Tunnel?
|
The young economist Andrew Charlton has recently pointed an accusing finger at Prime Minister John Howard and his Coalition Government writing: "From his first days in government, Howard wanted to reshape Australian universities. His first budget contained dramatic cuts to higher education, and he has since gradually starved universities of public funds. The effect has been to force universities to rely on the foreign and full-fee paying students, who have filled up economics and business faculties. In doing so, Howard has tilted the balance away from the progressive intellectual side of the university sector towards the prosaic conservative side."
The Labor opposition has been vocal in condemning the Howard government's starving of the university and fundamental research sectors of resources, but has yet to give substance to the path it intends to follow to repair the destruction of infrastructure and intellectual resources.
While the area of medical research has fared better than the enabling sciences and mathematics, efforts over the past twenty months or so have pointed, although ever so tentatively to a possible change in climate.
In May 2006, Kurt Lambeck took over the presidency of the Australian Academy of Science, and while he's not had the public profile of the current and immediate past president of the Royal Society, Martin Rees and Robert May, he is attempting to make the AAS an increasing force in promoting the cause of the sciences. Unfortunately so far his media coverage hovers close to zero.
His address to the National Press Club this past Wednesday is a recent example. It got no coverage while a statement of his the previous day about clean coal being some twenty years away did at least make the broadsheets.
Back to the NPC -- He tells his audience, "I start from the premise:
First. That the understanding of how the world works has unquestionably made life better. When integrated over the existence of Homo sapiens we have to agree that the human condition has improved as a result of the pursuit of knowledge.
Secondly. That the pursuit of this knowledge is by a process that is secure, experimentally verifiable, and unfettered by past beliefs, prejudices and authorities.
Third. That the ongoing pursuit of this knowledge, supported by a robust science policy, is critical for the socioeconomic and environmental well-being of society.
Fourth. That the nation's science policy has to be based on a vision of where the country wants to be in the decades ahead, and how it is going to get there in a competitive, global and rapidly evolving world.
Professor Lambeck gives the nation a tick for "hav[ing] one of the highest number of Nobel Laureates per head of population." The distribution is interesting: Physics, 2-1915; Chemistry, 1-1975; Medicine or Physiology, 6-1945, 1960, 1963, 1996, 2005, 2005. [Elizabeth Blackburn was co-recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine]
In the enabling sciences Australia doesn't look quite so flash, particularly when realising that neither the physics nor chemistry prizes were given for work done within Australia and the physics gong is now age 92.
An Australian, Terry Tao, was also awarded a Fields Medal this year... he works at UCLA.
So Professor Lambeck also told his listeners that the nation's scientific achievement "cannot be maintained without strong support for our research base and scientific infrastructure, and without related policies that lead to more graduates pursuing careers in the natural sciences, engineering and mathematics."
And the Academy's vision for a prosperous Australia in a competitive global world in, say, 2020?
It "is based on a creative knowledge-based society. One that includes:
Primary and secondary education programs that stimulate interest, appreciation and understanding across all areas of science.
A diversified university education system with institutions that rank amongst the world's best in a range of disciplines.
A strong research base in our universities and other public research organisations that provide career paths for our best graduates.
Modern research infrastructure and major projects that attract foreign collaborators.
And Professor Lambeck sums matters up:
In many ways, Australia's future comes down
to three words: education, education, education: Education – not restricted just
to science – at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Education to provide
scientifically literate leaders who can make intelligent decisions about the use
and development of science and technology at all levels of government,
administration and business. Education that enable individuals to make their own
decisions about how to use and benefit from new technologies. It is of course
also central for providing the future scientists, engineers and technologists.
Australia is failing dismally in meeting future needs for trained scientists.
The latest OECD data show that Australia is very near the bottom in the
percentage of university students studying engineering, physics and mathematics.
That the Academy of Science argues for stronger public support of basic science is unlikely to surprise you. But we do so here, not in recognition that it keeps scientists out of mischief, but because maintenance of Australia's basic science foundation is essential to provide the core science knowledge that allows new ideas to be quickly recognised, evaluated and developed for the good of society as a whole.
[Australia should] focus on getting the core
business of education and science right. This will ensure that the big
discoveries will continue to occur, that we will continue to win Nobel Prizes,
and that the spin-offs follow. It will ensure that the knowledge is in place
when solutions to specific questions are urgently required.
If I were pushed a bit further with the comment that Australia cannot afford to
back all horses, I would respond that we back those where we still have a
natural advantage. This would include the obvious ones:
Existing research strengths, particularly in medical areas.
A well-developed global network of research alliances so as to access the 97% of global knowledge that we do not create.
Research and development that is based on our mineral and energy wealth.
Research of international significance that uses our geographic advantages. These include the southern skies for astronomy, and Antarctica and the southern ocean for climate science and oceanography.
Innovative agricultural science and
technology for food and crop production and processing.
To this I would add
The attraction of Australia to the world's younger generation. As an example, in a survey of the US and 15 other countries17,000 people were asked: 'Suppose a young person who wanted to leave this country asked you to recommend where to go to lead a good life – what country would you recommend?' Those conducting the survey expected the United States to rank highly as the land of opportunity. Instead Australia and Canada clearly won the popularity stakes.
I do not hide the fact that all recommendations in our 2007 policy statement imply a significant increased expenditure for research and development. While the Academy acknowledges that current Government expenditure for innovation programs is at a record level of $6.5 billion, it is not keeping up with overall growth in government expenditure. Support for science and innovation as a proportion of total government expenditure will actually drop from 2.9% in 2006-07 to 2.8% in 2007-08.
Unfortunately the argument that "Australia cannot afford to back all horses" seems to lead its proponents to the conclusion that it is desirable to neglect the scientific infrastructure on which work in the "priority areas" is dependent. Diminishing support for mathematics and the enabling sciences is a glaring case in point. Will either the current government or its possible Labor replacement take a critical look at just what is required to up the nation's position in the world's intellectual sweepstakes?
Australian Academy of Science's - 10 Recommendations
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web
