Something Out of Africa has
Relevance for Our Complacent Politicians. Watch Lane 8; Eric the Eel's in
Training.*
(April 30, 2002)
We could be overtaken next decade. The SciDevNet+
headline reads, "Plans
set for new African science initiative" and is followed by:
The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), a multinational programme to promote economic and social development, is setting up a Commission on Science and Technology to explore ways of stimulating activity in both fields across the African continent.
In particular, the new commission will follow a two-prong strategy of identifying centres of research excellence in different African countries, and establishing an African Science Fund to fund them.Kenyan John Mugabe has been approached to act as executive secretary. He says that his brief would be "to translate NEPAD's goals with respect to science and technology into a programme of action". He adds: "If this is not done now, Africa will be losing an opportunity". The overall aim of the new initiative, says Mugabe, is "to create incentives for research to be undertaken in Africa by Africans." The exact form that the fund will take -- including its governance structures -- is still under discussion.
_______________________________
+SciDevNet is sponsored by Nature and Science in association with the Third World Academy of Sciences. It is published with the financial support of the UK Department for International Development, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, Canada.
The Dawkinisation of
Australian Universities. (April 27, 2002)
Perhaps Barry Jones' most egregious "crime" was his inability
to amass a strong enough political power base to wield sufficient clout to get
worthwhile things done and to prevent the perpetration of some outrageous acts.
The other day he gave an address at the University of Melbourne. A few excerpts:
A turning point in the history of Australia's higher education was the comprehensive reorganisation that was initiated, and indeed imposed, from 1987 by John Dawkins, Bob Hawke's minister for education and training. I have little doubt that Dawkinisation will prove to have been the greatest single mistake of the Hawke-Keating years.
[U]niversities were required to adopt the corporate model of governance, and to see themselves not only as communities of scholars, but as trading corporations as well. Is there no alternative? It seems, not.
Universities have less to spend proportionally for expanding knowledge, pushing back the frontiers of the unknown - the traditional areas of university concern: philosophy, history, geography, the classics, literature, music, physics, chemistry, mathematics, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy. Law, medicine and the life sciences are expanding, but marketing, management and IT courses are doing best of all - answering the "How?" questions, not the "Why?"
We are in the age of "wedge politics" when the deepest division is not between left and right (terms that now seem almost devoid of meaning), but between elite opinion and popular opinion. The term "academic" is routinely used in a denigratory way - to mean remote, pedantic, impractical or irrelevant.
Although he stated, "Our report [outlining the Knowledge Nation] did not
expressly reject the Dawkins' model... it was impli[ed]..." it was at best a
most subtle implication. Furthermore, so far there has been no indication that
either the shadow minister for education, Jenny Macklin, or the shadow minister
for science, Kim Carr rejects the atrocity of our universities' Dawkinisation.
But Dawkinisation along with its bastard coporatising has
produced a university blancmange. Dr. Nelson is now suggesting that he'll
correct this and in such a way that no additional injection of federal funding
will be required.
So much for the Group of Eight's assessment that $12.65
billion (including over a 50% investment from the federal government) was needed over the
five years (2001/06) to bring our research and development into a state where it
could approach first world standards. Much of that government investment was
deemed to go to the university sector. If nothing else, someone's go it very
wrong.
Department of Education,
Science and Training Releases First of a Series of Discussion Papers.
(April 27, 2002)
Yesterday's
media
release opens with, "This first paper, Higher Education at the Crossroads:
an overview, is intended to stimulate discussion and debate. Though the issues
canvassed in this (and indeed in subsequent papers) do not represent government
policy, they will hopefully generate a much-needed discussion about the issues
and policy choices facing Australia's university sector." The 99 page document together with ancillary material is
available online at Higher
Education at the Crossroads.
Certainly on first reading the paper doesn't give an
impression of evenhandedness and if initial reactions
canvassed by the Fairfax
broadsheets are indicative (1,
2,
3),
only the president of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and
vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia, Deryck Schreuder, wasn't
condemning, saying that Dr Nelson's paper outlined the issues facing
universities in a balanced way. "What the sector desperately needs is a policy
strategy that works from the presumption that the national goal is supporting
all universities to achieve distinctive missions in a pluralistic system."
One of Dr. Nelson's announcements dealt with what he has
termed the "Higher Education Review Reference Group" which is to be chaired by
him and convened by his departmental secretary Peter Shergold. It will consist
of what would seem to be an unwieldy group of twenty consisting of 7
vice-chancellors, 1 chancellor (Adelaide, Robert Champion de Crespigny -
Chairman, Normandy Mining), 4 or 5 other business people and an assortment
of others. Exactly what the group's role will be and how it will be executed was
not defined.
Notably absent from the group was a university student
representative for example Moksha Watts, president of the national union
representing Australia's 650,000 university students, Carolyn Allport, president
of the National Tertiary Education Union, the outspoken Vice-Chancellor of ANU,
Ian Chubb, and representatives from the Australian Academy of Science and
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It's difficult to
conclude these omissions were just oversights.
The minister has called for
submissions which are
due June 28th. However, nothing has been mentioned in regard to
calling for independent quantitative assessments such as that instigated by the
UK's Office of Science
and Technology in its recent review,
Under-Investment in
University Research Infrastructure
. Surely, such data, objectively arrived at, are essential to dispel the
perception that the outcome of this latest review by the Australian Government
is preordained.
French Science -- Nature
Makes a Cutting Observation. (April 25, 2002)
The British science journal Nature in commenting on
the French presidential election earlier this week reserves a paragraph for
French scientific administration. Perhaps those policy makers and advisors
influential in Australia might ponder how much of what's written is pertinent
here.
Needless to say, policies on science and innovation were largely absent from the electoral debate. Yet they are key to the economic and intellectual future of any modern country -- and France's staid, bureaucratic and inefficient research system is in urgent need of attention. Today's scientific enterprise needs a flexible, highly mobile workforce. The French system, in which most scientists are civil servants who can spend their entire careers attached to one research unit, is ill-equipped to provide this. French science needs a postdoc system to encourage mobility between research groups; universities need a shake-up to encourage more productive interactions with the public research laboratories that they host, plus an injection of funds to free scientists from long teaching hours; and research labs need to be lifted from the treacle-like bureaucracy of French public administration.
Stress of the Ewe is Visited
Upon the Fetus. (April 24, 2002)
Considering the hype displayed by some of the mass media when
scientific announcements are done by
media release
rather than through recognized science channels it's unfortunate that findings
presented at an international meeting of the Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology two days ago by scientists from the
Howard Florey Institute, University
of Melbourne, don't rate a mention in the Australian media. The findings made
the "breaking" news sections of both
Nature's and
Science's online services.
The team, led by Marelyn Wintour, has shown that pregnant
sheep given a natural stress hormone, cortisol, early in pregnancy (within the
first month of the five month gestation) are more likely to have offspring that
end up with high blood pressure. They also demonstrated that the hormone can
alter the development of the lambs' kidneys, which play an important role in
regulating blood pressure. Although it's too early to extrapolate the findings
to humans, the study suggests that stress early in pregnancy may affect the fetus, with long-lasting after-effects.
Now That's a Model!
(April 21, 2002)
The distance from from the Interstate Highway
exit to the University of
Maine's Presque Isle campus is 40 miles via route
. In astronomical units
(mean distance from Earth to the Sun) that's the distance from the Sun to Pluto.
University geologist Kevin McCartney had the idea of placing scale models of the
principal bodies of the solar system along the route. The project,
The Maine Solar System
Model is well on the way to completion. It's involved not only
McCartney's students, a number of university staff and students have set to as
well as the local citizenry. A 50 foot diameter section of the "Sun" will be
housed at the Northern Maine Museum of Science on the university campus.
40 miles away at the interstate turnoff is "Pluto", 1 inch in diameter. The 5
foot diameter model of the gas giant Jupiter is 5.3 miles from the "Sun".
UK Publishes Second Report
on the State of British Academic Science. (April 19, 2002)
On June 21st last year HM Treasury headed a media
release, "Views
Sought on the Supply of Scientists and Engineers." Followed by:
Today saw the publication of a consultation paper seeking to encourage innovation and strengthen further the UK's science base by enhancing the supply of highly skilled scientists and engineers. The consultation paper, which seeks views on the key issues affecting the supply of scientists and engineers, is the first stage of an independent review led by Sir Gareth Roberts.
The aim of this review is to ensure that businesses, universities and the public sector can recruit and retain the highly skilled scientists and engineers necessary to underpin their research activities, and thereby enhance the UK's already strong reputation for scientific and technical expertise.
The 218 page
Roberts' Report,
SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and
mathematics skills was released on Monday. Roberts, a physicist and
president of Wolfson College, Oxford, found a scientific community out of
balance. While there was a rise of 49% of scientists during the past 5 years in
biology, there was a 7% decline in physics and engineering graduates and a 16%
drop in chemistry over the same period. This has led to "a number of serious
problems," says Roberts; for example about two-thirds of physics teachers in
British schools have no training in physics. Universities and companies complain
of a lack of physical science talent at all experience levels.
It was concern about the supply of research talent that led
the Treasury to commission the report as a matter of urgency. The review sets
out
36 recommendations which it
says, "are designed to help secure a strong supply of people with science and
engineering skills. The Review believes that implementing these recommendations
will be a crucial element in achieving the Government's agenda for raising the
R&D and innovation performance of the UK to match the world's best."
The review gave no costings for the implementation of its
recommendations in contrast to the Office of Science and Technology's Study of Science Research Infrastructure
which went into considerable cost detail.
The physical infrastructure in higher education institutions (HEIs)
supporting teaching and research is made up of buildings with an insured value
of approximately £26bn [A$70.4bn], plus equipment and contents of a further £8bn
[A$21.6bn]. About 15% of this physical infrastructure can be identified as core
or dedicated research space, but much of the infrastructure used by research is
shared with other university activities (offices; libraries; plant and
services). We calculate that overall, approximately 30% of total university
space can be attributed to research, and approximately 34% of the costs of the
higher education (HE) physical infrastructure can be attributed to science
research.
Allowing for the almost exact 3 to 1 population difference between the UK and
Australia if, for argument's sake, conditions in Australia are neither
significantly better nor worse than the study reports for Britain we'd predict
an insured value of approximately $23.5billion, plus equipment and contents of a
further $7.2billion, i.e. over $30 billion. It's an interesting
assessment. It by no means covers the total assets of British universities, yet
the amount is in considerable excess (on a relative population basis) to the $20
billion in fixed assets singled out by the Minister for Education Science and
Training to demonstrate that our universities are not in crisis. Nevertheless the report
published by the OST states clearly that the UK's institution's are in urgent
need of upgrading to the tune of £3.2 billion. Translated to Australian
Conditions that would be $2.9 billion to upgrade university science research
infrastructure alone, precisely the total allotted for the whole of Backing
Australia's Ability.
It will fund major initiatives to stimulate innovation,
including: boosting research infrastructure funding by $583 million [which is
divided]
J M Consulting, Ltd.'s report forwarded to the OST would appear not to share our
Minister's view that the large fixed assets of the universities (at least in the
UK) demonstrate that they are not in urgent need of very significant upgrading.
Make no mistake, "urgent need" equates to looming crisis.
examines the regulatory environment within which our universities
operate. It provides a useful platform for beginning the current discussion
about the challenges facing higher education.
The report notes that the establishing legislation of universities in all states
and territories of Australia save South Australia and Western Australia provide
for an express power to establish new companies (and in some instances enter
into other arrangements such as joint ventures and partnerships).
Information of a commercial value that has been kept secret may
be protected from disclosure by persons who are proposing so to act without the
authority of the owner. Universities would be the owner of trade secrets in
things produced by employees in the course of their employment. This form of
action is often important for the protection of inventions during their
development stage prior to seeking a patent. Universities that are looking to
commercialise products may need to take action to impress upon employees the
need not to make information public.
Finally, in view of the increasing concern in academe regarding conflicts of
interest, it is surprising that the subject is mentioned only once in the study
and that in regard to the Victorian Public Sector and Employment Act 1998. "In
relation to commercial dealings by universities [while] the Act appears somewhat
irrelevant it does cover general employment principles for public servants
(including the Head of a public authority, and employees of public authorities).
The Act also covers conduct principles including requiring employees to act
impartially, with integrity, to look for real or apparent conflicts of interest,
and to provide accountability for results. This would govern them with respect
to commercial dealings."
Media Release
Few recent scientific issues have stimulated so much media
attention, public debate and government involvement as that of stem cell
research. Stem cells offer people hope by promising to greatly extend the number
and range of patients who could benefit from transplants, and to provide novel
therapies to treat debilitating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's,
Huntington's, heart disease and stroke, as well as accidental damage such as
spinal cord injury. So why would anyone object to research in this area? The
problem is simply that a particular type of stem cell, which potentially could
provide many cell types for a wide range of therapeutic uses, is obtained from
the very early embryo. To make matters even more contentious, the same cloning
technology that gave Dolly the sheep could in theory be used to tailor stem
cells to the patient. Some people worry that we are taking research too far down
paths that make them feel uncomfortable, others think it is downright immoral
and against their deep-held, often religious, beliefs. But what are the
scientific issues and why do many of us feel equally passionate that the
research should be allowed?
---------------------------
With regard to those $20 billion of fixed assets, it could be edifying were he
to itemise the basis for his sweeping statement, as it would, were he to do so
for that $4.4 billion of liquid assets.
He has stated that the universities are NOT in crisis. A lot of very
knowledgeable and intelligent people say that our university system IS
in crisis. The latest culprit perpetrating this "myth" seems to be that
wild-eyed radical Reserve Bank Governor, Ian Macfarlane, who pointed to the
"disturbing" assessment by Alan Gilbert, vice chancellor of Melbourne
University, that Australia no longer had a university that could be ranked in
the world's top 75 - 100. "I have no reason to dispute his opinion as I have
heard similar views from other academics."
Dr. Nelson has strongly implied that all top research universities are private.
It takes the most cursory analysis to demonstrate the fallaciousness of that
imputation.
And according to the Minister, it will take about 25 years, requiring
significant private sector funding, to produce one or two world-class Australian
universities. Nothing like abrogating your responsibilities.
Meanwhile the University of Western Australia's Vice-Chancellor and current
president of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Professor Deryck
Schreuder, has commented, "The Reserve Bank Governor's comments follow hard on
the heels of similar concerns expressed by Dr. John Schubert of the Business
Council of Australia. These concerns are ones that go to the very heart of how
the Australian nation is going to generate wealth from new ideas and how we will
educate and train future generations of our workforce to allow us to compete in
the knowledge-based global economy."
Not to worry -- she'll be right, mate. Ask Dr. Nelson, and besides, the Aussie
battler couldn't be expected to understand what Professor Schreuder means, could
he?
Out of Date and Out of
Shape. (April 16, 2002)
That's a short descriptive summation of the findings of a
study commissioned by the UK's
Office of
Science and Technology (OST, a section of the Department of Trade and
Industry) entitled Study of Science Research Infrastructure.
First, it must be noted that the OST has the following
disclaimer, "This study is not Government policy, however, it will be used to
provide input to the Science and Research Cross Cutting Review being undertaken
by Her Majesty's Treasury." Second, the Blair Government has made the report
publicly available for all to scrutinise. It's also noteworthy that near the top
of the introduction the report states,
And what about money designated for infrastructure in
Backing Australia's Ability?
[t]o upgrade the basic infrastructure of universities, such as scientific and
research equipment, libraries and laboratory facilities, $246 million over the
next five years will be provided to fund the best infrastructure proposals from
universities.
[t]o provide the infrastructure needed to support project-funded research, the
Government will provide more than $337 million towards increased
project-specific infrastructure over the next five years. This will support ARC
and National Health and Medical Research Council grants.
BAA allots $246 million to "upgrade the basic
infrastructure of universities;" less than 10% of what we might expect would be
needed if we translate the OST report to Australia's situation. The JIF and SRIF
funding alluded to above deals with the matter of infrastructure support for
project-funded research.
Perhaps Dr. Nelson might consult the OST to see if they would
recommend J M Consulting for a study on "Science Research Infrastructure" in
Australian universities, and if the study were undertaken, if the minister would
promulgate the report. Considering the recent publicity given to the forthcoming
Departmental review of higher education this would seem an appropriate course of
action and would be seen to be so.
The Regulatory
Environment Applying to Universities. (April 14, 2002)
That's the title of a study commissioned by the Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affair's Evaluations and Investigations Programme,
Higher Education Division and entrusted to the Canberra law firm, Phillips Fox.
The report, delivered to its successor, DEST, was promulgated April 5th
and is
available online. The minister
considers the study timely in the light of his forthcoming review of higher
education because it
Our institutions are increasingly involved in new forms of
operation, ventures and partnerships. The report, Study of the Regulatory
Environment Applying to Universities, clarifies the precise nature of the
regulatory framework in which these institutions operate.
The report examines issues relevant to the development of a
common, more effective approach nationally to the accountability, reporting
requirements, and regulation of universities. In particular it provides some
useful information about the scope of universities' powers as they engage in
commercialisation and of any constraints that may exist to hinder their ability
to maximise commercial opportunities.
This power is generally limited to the establishment of companies to promote the
universities' objects and interests or otherwise in connection with the
performance of the universities' functions. Nevertheless, Phillips Fox believe
the power is implied in the case of universities in SA and WA. The complex
matter of defining what universities should be doing was not subject to the
study.
There is considerable emphasis on what Australian
universities own and what restrictions are placed on what they can do with it.
In addition the management of investments by universities and limitations placed
on their borrowings are dealt with while less than four pages consider the matter
of intellectual property. The section closes with the admonition:
It's unfortunate that the study didn't delve into the subject
of interest conflicts more thoroughly because it is a matter which is likely to
be the cause of considerable unease to more than one individual or group making
submissions to the minister's forthcoming review which, Dr. Nelson says, he
intends to use, "[o]ver the coming months... to identify the scope for
improvements to the higher education sector and seek suggestions about how the
Government might facilitate those improvements. Wide-ranging consultations and
discussion on issues facing higher education will underpin the process."
A Science Advisor to the
Minister. (April 10, 2002)
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr. Brendan
Nelson, as he had promised, has appointed a science advisor who "will work
closely with advisers in Science Minister Peter McGauran's office,
provide
a contact point for peak science bodies and interested agencies and ensure that
the voice of Science is heard loudly and clearly in my office." He is Dr. Thomas
Barlow and if the ideas he expressed recently on the ABC's
Ideas With Wings
series is an indication it could be an interesting appointment. Dr Barlow, was a
Janssen Research Fellow in Biomedical Sciences at Balliol College in Oxford, and
prior to his appointment to Dr. Nelson's Department wrote a weekly column from
Australia about science and society for the (UK based) Weekend Financial Times.
In his contribution to the ABC series Which he titled "Global
Innovation Paranoia" he points out that Australia is hardly alone in complaining
that it's got lots of great ideas but lacks competence in commercialising them.
He lists whinges from, China, Great Britain, the USA and France to make his
point and goes on to say, "Now, I don't mean to cast doubt on such a universal
assertion. Some countries may indeed be better at implementing ideas than
others... Yet when so many countries dwell on their own stories of lost
opportunities in precisely this way (and the list of examples above is by no
means complete), one cannot help entertaining a slight scepticism about the
notion.
"Could it be, for example, that this is all really just an
excuse, a way of salvaging pride in an awkward situation of national inadequacy?
It may be, for instance, that some societies only start worrying about their
inability to commercialise their own great ideas when they are running out of
ideas. After all, the fewer good ideas you have, the more of an injustice it
seems to lose them."
And a bit later on, "Unfortunately, whether there is an
emotional aspect to it or not, the decrying of a peculiar Australian inability
to commercialise great local ideas tends to promote a degree of complacency
about our capacity for invention...
"If Australians, being lousy at implementation, really were
as great at invention as they sometimes like to think, they wouldn't care about
those occasions when they were forced to sell an idea offshore. They would be
happy to consider such ideas as exports rather than squandered opportunities.
And then they would turn around, wouldn't they, in short shrift - and invent
something else."
Perhaps Dr. Barlow may be prepared to voice some views on
just what and how the higher education sector might contribute. On the other
hand perhaps he'd best serve as a ministerial conduit.
Genome Canada Comes Up with
a Shekel or Two. (April 10, 2002)
The fact of having the United States as its contiguous
neighbor is undoubtedly one of the forces now driving the Canadian Government's
support for research and development both within and outside academe, whether on
basic, strategic or applied
levels.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Liberal Government has been in power now for over
eight years and for reason's best know to itself has decided that espousing the
elevation of Canada to be in the top five nations supporting innovation,
research and development before the end of the decade is a vote winner. And
there seems to be some substance to the rhetoric. Just under two months ago
Allan Rock, Canadian Federal Minister for Science, Research and Development,
announced
a new 10-year research innovation plan. The plan reaffirms the Canadian
government's commitment to double
annual R&D spending, to US$9.2 billion (A$17.9 billion annually or A$11.9
billion on an Australian population basis) by 2010.
Today the journal Science reported that
Genome Canada has
released US$367 million (A$691 million) for Genome related research. Francis
Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, and one
not noted for making effusive statement, commented, "Until Genome Canada, Canada
did not have available the kind of funding capabilities that make it possible to
be a player on the big stage," and went on to say that these investments should
greatly increase Canada's scientific capacity.
When It Comes to Higher
Education, Bernard, One Must Set One's Priorities Properly. (April 9, 2002)
The following, quoted in full, is a media release from Dr.
Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education, Science and Training.
CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY – A WORLD LEADER IN WINE EDUCATION
9 April, 2002 MIN 47/02
I am honoured today to open Charles Sturt University's new state-of-the art $2.5
million wine production facility.
Today's event emphasises the University's strengths in wine
education, and demonstrates that regional Australia is continuing to compete
with the world's best in this area.
Retail sales are already in the order of $1.5 million a year
and the new facility is designed for 10 times the capacity of the original
winery. It will crush up to 500 tonnes of grapes annually, and will allow
production of up to 30 to 35,000 cases, with a retail value of $3 to $3.5
million.
All on-campus second year students are required to spend part
of their time in the new commercial winery working under the guidance of staff.
The initiative illustrates CSU's commitment to providing
hands-on experience for students in a commercially successful and increasingly
popular enterprise such as wine education.
CSU's wine science and viticulture courses have developed
into some of the most significant wine education courses in the world, with
graduates in demand across Europe, North America and emerging wine export
countries such as South America and New Zealand.
The production winery will provide the perfect accompaniment
to CSU’s award winning cheese factory, opened in 1998, and will also complement
its existing food science programme.
CSU is a fine example of an Australian university that is
leading the way forward in research and specialisation -- at the forefront in a
distinctive area and exploiting commercial opportunities without compromising
the quality of the teaching and learning experience.
This initiative proves that commercialisation, specialisation
and high quality learning can be combined in a highly successful way to the
benefit of students, the institution, the broader community and the Australian
economy.
News editors please note: Dr Nelson will be opening the wine production
facility at 2.00pm at Ron Potter Centre, McKeown Drive, Wagga Wagga.
Britain's National Institute
for Medical Research Annual Essays. (April 8, 2002)
Since 1995 Britain's NIMR has published essays aimed to
explain to a general audience timely biomedical topics. the most recent set,
2001 contains a carefully balanced assessment of "Stem cell therapy and
research"
By Robin Lovell-Badge. His opening paragraph:
Click here
to read the complete essay.
Robin Lovell-Badge is head of the Division of Developmental
Genetics at the UK's National Institute of Medical Research.
This past January Dr. Lovell-Badge made news when he resigned
from the the editorial board of e-biomed. As the BBC reported it, "Two more
scientists have resigned from the editorial board of the online science journal
e-biomed, criticising its highly publicised and controversial publication of a
paper on human cloning last November.
"The electronic paper, heralded by the worldwide media as a
scientific landmark, claimed to describe the first ever human embryo clone.
"The scientists stepping down are Robin Lovell-Badge, of Britain's
National Institute for Medical Research, and Davor Solter, director of the Max
Planck Institute for Immunobiology, Germany. They follow the departure of
American John Gearhart, a pioneer in the field of stem cell research.
"Dr Lovell-Badge told BBC News Online: 'The [e-biomed
cloning] paper was of little or no scientific value.'"
Russian Science and the Cold
Breath of Reality. (April 6, 2002)
For a short time it looked like there might be a slow but
significant and rational rebirth of Russian science when we reported (TWF:
N&V March 21, 2002) a "Gentle CPR for Russian Science, but It Just Might Get
Legs." A recent report in Nature now suggests that those legs look to be
severely vertically challenged. According to the April 4th issue,
Russian President Vladimir Putin told senior government officials and scientific
advisors on March 20th,"Today, governmental support of science is
completely ineffective;...everyone is claiming to be on the path of innovation
-- but almost nothing has been done in real terms." Nature goes on to
report, that much of Putin's promised governmental support "will be directed at
technology development, rather than basic research. 'This is the first step
towards a sensible, self-regulated departure from the senseless scattering of
resources' of the past".
Australia, it seems, is not the only country attempting to
graft a top heavy superstructure onto an inadequate and leaky hull.
Brendan Nelson's Public
Statements Lead to Questions Regarding His Suitability to be Minister for
Education, Science and Training. (April 6, 2002)
"[Australian Universities are] likely to have revenues this
year in the order of $10.4 billion, $6.1 billion of which will be taxes often
removed from low-income families who are still struggling to understand the
importance of higher education for the future of the country". Dr. Nelson
speaking to a Melbourne Institute conference on Australia's Social and Economic
Outlook. Furthermore he has emphasised and reemphasised that Australia's 38
public universities hold $20 billion of fixed assets and $4.4 billion of liquid
assets and that therefore the university system is not in crisis.
Get it? Those rich bastard universities want to screw the
Aussie battler for their own selfish ends. This sort of ill-founded calumny
throws into serious question Brendan Nelson's fitness for a ministerial position
let alone a Cabinet post. It's worth having a look at some of Dr. Nelson's
public utterances.