Editorial - 01 January 2011
To view previous Editorials click here

 
 

 

 

 


Bruce Alberts

Some Pieces of Unsolicited Advice

 
Ms Gillard & Mr Abbott

 

pdf file-available from Australasian Science

 

 

The 72-year old biochemist Bruce Alberts served as president of the US National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005 and is currently the editor in chief of the scientific weekly published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science. In January of this year he, together with Ahmed Zewail, and Elias Zerhouni, immediate past director of the National Institutes of Health, became the first US science envoys to Islam, visiting Muslim-majority countries from North Africa to Southeast Asia.

 

In his December 3 Science editorial Professor Alberts stated bluntly "Policy-Making Needs Science", and proceeded to detail the reasons for his conclusion, but more of that in a moment.

 

In Australia the nation's political leaders, while giving lip service to the vigorous fostering of scientific research, have given little indication that science has had little more than an inconsequential role in the formation of governmental policy.

 

For Example, the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) since its formulation in March 1998 has met 22 times, and in recent times it met once in 2009 (June), once in 2010 (March), and now, after an hiatus of 11 months, it is scheduled to meet in February 2011. In contrast the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has met and is scheduled to meet 6-times a year since its reformation by US President Barack Obama. Its meetings are public and its webcasts archived. Its 20 members represent outstanding scientists and engineers as well as several business leaders, and its chief chair is the President's Science Advisor, heads the White House' Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and who regularly meets with the president.

 

PMSEIC on the other hand is currently listed to have 13 ministerial members who more often than not are represented by departmental staff, 14 ex officio members and two members appointed in a personal capacity. According to the PMSEIC webpage: "The Standing Committee, the non-ministerial members of PMSEIC, meet four times a year. Much of its work is undertaken through working groups comprising members and those co-opted from industry, universities, science agencies and government departments. The Standing Committee responds to issues referred by Government or by meetings of PMSEIC and identifies and develops a range of issues to be considered by PMSEIC."

 

Those meetings are not listed publically, their agendas or membership are not published, and they are certainly not open to the public. Nevertheless,  to date, edited versions of papers presented to PMSEIC's formal meetings are listed alphabetically (rather than chronologically) on the website. Those papers, prepared by the independent working groups express their opinions and are "not necessarily those of the Australian Government".

 

There is no indication that any of its reports have had a significant effect on Australian governmental policy.

 

One of the ex officio members of PMSEIC chairs their meeting, Australia's Chief Scientist, since November 2008 ANU professor of astronomy Penny Sackett. However, while the US' Scientific Advisor to the President, John Holdren, is part of Mr Obama's administration, is the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSPT) with a staff of ~100 in offices housed in the White House, and who reports directly to the president of the United States, professor Sackett is sequestered in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and reports to its minister, Senator Kim Carr. The number of one-on-one interactions with the Prime Minister is... well, rather limited. Australia's Chief Scientist is not part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and she does not report directly to the Prime Minister. Her staff appears to be only marginally greater than that allotted by the BBC to Mr Hacker in Yes Minister.

 

______________________________________________________

 

In the circumstances mightn't we expect the Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, to challenge the government's lackadaisical approach toward making crucial decisions while effectively eschewing scientific input of critical importance?

 

Surely you must be joking.

______________________________________________________

 

And yet in Professor Alberts' view:

 

Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed...  It is therefore disturbing that so many lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The question now facing the United States is... how to ensure that good science underlies all legislative decisions... In major reports released this spring, the National Academies strongly reiterated its position that climate change, caused largely by human activities, poses significant risks to the world's future. This conclusion is nevertheless challenged by numerous politicians, as well as by a substantial fraction of the public. There is only one effective solution for this type of problem: Scientists must make both science education and community outreach a much more central part of the scientific culture.

    Scientists are taught to challenge authority, and their responsible [our emphasis] challenges to a consensus help science advance. Thus, adults should expect to find some scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on an issue. And they should appreciate why a strong scientific consensus, such as that about climate change, must nevertheless form the basis for making wise personal and community decisions, representing by far the best bet for predicting the future consequences of present actions...  [P]rograms that encourage and facilitate outreach into non-scientific communities need to become a standard part of every university and science-based industrial establishment.

 

Then addressing his fellow scientists,

 

[A]n energetic community outreach to schools, the public, and decision-makers is key. Both established scientists and those in training can be highly effective in putting a human face on science and conveying optimistic, honest attitudes toward grappling with society's problems.

    The environment in which decisions are made in a democracy will always be highly politicized, but it is crucial that both sides of any argument pay close attention both to what science knows and how that knowledge has been gained...  scientists [must] vigorously reach out to their communities, informing them not only about their new discoveries, but also about the path they took to get there. 

 

 

TFW doesn't believe it is unreasonable to ask:

________________________________________________________

 

When Professor Holdren spoke with Science's Eli Kintisch shortly before Christmas, he made the following observations regarding the challenges facing him and the OSTP. With suitable alterations they would be appropriate regarding the responsibilities to the nation of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet.

I think the biggest challenge that we face—and it's one my deputy director, Tom Kalil, told me would be my greatest challenge when we came into office—is how do you keep the urgent from driving out the important. ...


[There's] this tension between doing what you have to do on a given day because the budget documents are due or the president wants a particular thing or you've got to have a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology or the NASA administrator has to talk to you about the next flight, versus sitting back and saying how do we think the country is going in terms of science and technology.


I think in some respects we ended up with too much responding to the urgent and too little long-term thinking. I think we're doing somewhat better on that now. I think we're more systematically setting aside time, which we hold sacred, in which we brainstorm about where we're going and try to convert those sessions into position papers for the chief of staff and for the president in terms of how OSTP can more effectively advance the goals of the president and the goals of the country.

 

As regards Australia's Chief Scientist, as long as she and her office continue to be treated as irrelevancies by the government, what difference does it make... a wasted few million, and a 54 year-old professor of astronomy pretty well absent with leave from ANU.

 

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web