"And Just Who Do You Think Should be the Next Chief Scientist?"

The determined step along the corridor signalled the Silver Blonde had something on her mind.

SB: So, [glaring at me] now that Penny Sackett decided after serving less than half her 5-year term of being Chief Scientist for Australia (CSfA) to quit for unspecified "Personal and Professional" reasons, who do you think should become Chief Scientist for Australia?

Me: Don't care.

SB: What the hell's that supposed to mean... don't care.

Me: Just what I said, I don't care, she was of no consequence, she was never going to be of any, and in my opinion she was foolish to take on the position.  Oh, and just in passing, it's also a stupid title.

SB: That is a really foul thing to say, would you say that if she were male -- and what's wrong with "Chief Scientist"?

Me: In reverse order she is not Australia's chief scientist, she is not the leader of Australia's scientific community. If the government had ever any intention of having her be more than a public relations instrument as regards its science "policy" she would have been the government's scientific advisor as John Beddington is in the UK and comparable to John Holdren as the scientific advisor to the president of the United States.

     And secondly her gender has nothing to do with it. She would have or should have been fully aware that she would be sequestered in DIISR with Kim Carr as Minister. She would not be reporting directly to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary as does Professor Beddington. In the 2¼ years as CSfA she gave a direct personal briefing to the Prime Minister once (Rudd). Could she really have formed a considered and objective opinion that she would have any significant influence on either Senator Carr or Mr Rudd?

SB: I take it that's a rhetorical question.

Me: Yes it is.  Do you know that sentence: "As Chief Scientist for Australia, I provide high-level independent advice to the Prime Minister and other Ministers on matters relating to science, technology and innovation"? It's still on her website, but to give her her due by chucking in the job now, she's turning her back on $825,000 of  sure income.

SB: Well that's something I suppose but you'll have to admit by putting in her resignation as she did, and just before the beginning of Senate Estimates, she as CSfA has gained more media attention over the past week and a bit than through the previous 27 months.

Me: True enough but that doesn't negate the evidence/data that the Chief Scientist  and her office are a $3.5 million per annum irrelevance.

SB: Well, what about the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council?

Me: What about it?

SB: The Chief Scientist is the Executive Officer of PMSEIC.

Me: Yes and since Professor Sackett took over as Chief Scientist PMSEIC has met three times: 5 June 2009, 18 March 2010 and 4 February 2011, an almost 11 month gap between the last two meetings but which according to its website meets twice a year. PCAST, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology meets bimonthly.

And show me just what influence PMSEIC has had on Rudd/Gillard science policy.

SB: You saying that there's been no improvement in science policy since Labor assumed power at the end of 2007?

Me: Not at all, that'd be churlish and blatantly untrue. I'm saying that the Chief Scientist and PMSEIC -- reports or no -- have had no influence on that improvement, and that the office of Chief Scientist, the Chief Scientist's position and PMSEIC are irrelevant; they are irrelevant because that's the way Mr Rudd wanted it and Ms Gillard wants it, and I'd take odds that Professor Sackett after 2¼ years has concluded that the situation isn't going to change.

SB: So you'd go along with a former Chief Scientist and current president of  the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Robin Batterham, that Professor Sackett's resignation could provide an opportunity to review whether the role of Chief Scientist and PMSEIC should continue in their present form. He says: "It is always relevant to review institutions from time to time and the departure of a leader is as good a time as any to undertake a review."

Me: I suppose that's a diplomatic way of suggesting that they might just as well be added to Ko-Ko's little list, and divert a few million to something governmentally (politically) deemed more desirable.

SB:  Canada's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper took the direct approach in dealing with an office he was not interested in consulting. He abolished the office of the National Science Advisor at the beginning of 2008. Are you suggesting that?

Me: Not necessarily. First, eliminate PMSEIC, it's essentially moribund now, eliminate the Office of Chief Scientist per se, rename the CSfA to "Governmental Science Advisor" and add it to the duties of the Governor-General. For one reason or another our prime minister visits the Governor General rather more frequently than she has the CSfA. As regards any matters involving science, mathematics, engineering or technology the GG would tell the PM, "Leave it with me, I'll get back to you" and then passes the requests to her equerry who would seek out the appropriate boffins. Simple --- and cheap.

SB: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

Me: You've got a better idea?

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web