"Minister set to reform Australia's universities" (January 31, 2002)
So reads the headline over Peter Pockley's article in today's
issue of Nature (415: 460 (2002)). It's interesting reading
particularly when coupled with Nature's editorial in the same issue,
"Summits that matter: The European Commission has made good progress in
gathering support for its new programme of basic and applied research. Now
Europe's industries and heads of state need to fulfil promises made two years
ago."
In his article Pockley opens with, "Australia's hard-pressed
universities can expect no financial relief from the new government until May of
next year at the earliest, says Brendan Nelson, the country's new minister for
education, science and training [DEST]," and is
immediately followed with, "[He]
pledged to enact reforms that will help Australian universities to carry out
internationally competitive research." At this point you may be wondering if Dr.
Nelson ought to be known as the "Wizard of DEST" because it sounds... to good to
be true? No fear. Dr. Nelson continued, "The universities have been reviewed to
death we know what the
problems and challenges are." And while eschewing yet another review per se
he intends to set up a consultative panel which will "propose concrete changes in
university governance, working conditions and the way in which specialist
strengths are split between universities" to help him prepare a university-reform
package to take to cabinet. It may engender additional funds following the May
2003 budget. Here we have yet another minister who gives every appearance of
believing that the foremost problem of our university system is one of
incompetent management. Funding gets mentioned as a secondary consideration. It
appears to be a view very similar to that espoused to the Senate committee
looking into the matter of the Australian university system's competence to do
its job by Michael Gallagher, then first assistant secretary, higher education division of Dr.
David Kemp's old Ministry.
Senator Carr (Labor)-- Professor Chubb [ANU Vice-Chancellor who previously told the committee that the university system was in crisis] says that... when your infrastructure is eroding and when you see all your equipment and your capacity to provide the resources you need for the staff to do the work that they want to be able to do slowly but surely degrading, then that does not make you very happy at all. How do you respond to that proposition? Is it an exaggeration?
Mr Gallagher-- ...I do not think it is surprising that a committee set up like this one to review the higher education system will draw disaffected submissions from various parts of the sector, including--
Senator Carr-- We are talking here about the vice-chancellors. At Sydney, there were five vice-chancellors putting this position, representing some of the most prestigious institutions in this country. They are hardly what you would call a disaffected group or disaffected individuals. These are not your normal run-of-the-mill agitators--heaven help us.
Mr Gallagher-- They are making up for lost time, by the looks of it.
Senator Carr-- But is it not, therefore, a concern to the department that we should have such a widespread collection of opinion coming to us saying that the system is in deep crisis?
Mr Gallagher-- I put it back to you again that the people who are advocating that position to you are possibly looking for an easy way out rather than fronting up to their management responsibilities.
[Monday, 13 August 2001, Canberra. Senate Committee—References EWRSBE 1350-51]
And a final point which may leave you wondering just what our part
time Chief Scientist and the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and
Innovation Council are supposed to be doing. Pockley writes, "Nelson pledges to appoint a
scientific adviser in his office 'who will have credibility in the science
community and will live and breathe science.'" That's all the universities
need right now, another internecine governmental turf war.
Oh yes, that editorial. It opens with,
Few occasions would seem to be more remote from the everyday concerns of researchers than meetings of heads of state. Give researchers the prospect of significant funds to pursue their interests, and the autonomy to do it in the way they think is best, and you'll get their attention. Issue summit communiqués about the need to increase competitiveness and they'll nod off. But both approaches are now on the agenda in Europe, and both have the potential to boost scientists' scope for action.
Science Minister Releases
Research Priorities List for ARC. (January 29, 2002)
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr. Brendan
Nelson today announced
research priority areas for the Australian Research
Council’s (ARC’s) 2003 funding round under the National Competitive Grants
Program, to wit:
- Nano-materials and Bio-materials
- The Genome-Phenome Link
- Complex systems
- Photon Science and Technology
A third of the ARC's funds for 2003 will be allocated for these areas earmarking about $170 million for "up to five years." Dr. Nelson went on to say without elaboration, "The priority research areas have been adopted on the advice of a working group of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council following deliberations of the ARC’s own Expert Advisory Committees and the ARC Board."
While studies in nanotechnology are very much in the preliminary stage it is
believed by many core researchers that significant advances in computing, the
design of molecular motors and ultra small sensors will be products of the
research while research into biomaterials are perceived to be fundamental to
Australia's health and agricultural sectors.
Undertaking studies of the paths followed in translating the
information stored in the genes into the living
organism's characters which
interact directly with its environment (its phenotype) has become known as the
genome-phenome link. It is no place for the fainthearted, under skilled or under
resourced.
Similarly the analyses of complex systems is inherently
exceedingly difficult. The attraction is that real-world
systems are almost always made up from a large number of interacting components.
On the other hand research in photonics is relatively well
advanced and is leading to an increasing array of of industrial and
consumer products.
As is so often the case with Governmental announcements, the devil will be in the
detail. For example, potentially useful research in the genome-phenome link and
in complex systems requires for a start, not only adequate long term funding but
also a sound academic and research
infrastructure. Whether that is the case has been the subject of much, sometimes
heated, contention. When a Senate committee entitles its report on the matter
Universities in Crisis, the Australian public has the right to question
whether or not our university and research infrastructure as well as our intellectual
resources are appropriately equipped to carry out useful research and
development in these areas. If the foundation isn't sound, assuredly the superstructure
will be unstable. So far the Federal Government has come up woefully short in
sustaining and developing that foundation.
The European Union May Be
Growing Meaningful in More Ways Than Introducing the €. (January 28, 2002)
The concept of a European Research Area (ERA) has been
bandied about in various popular and scientific publications for several years.
This past week the journal Science (January 18th issue)
devoted three pages to the matter giving space to the Secretary General of the
European Science Foundation,
Enric Banda, the president of Sweden's
Karolinska
Institutet, Hans Wigzell, the CEO of the
MRC, UK, George
Radda, and Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, president of the
Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG. Banda succinctly sums up the case for the ERA,
"No single country in Europe is able to compete with the American research
effort, but working together and in the right way, we should be at least on par
with our American competitors and colleagues." None of his colleagues argue
against that summation; intense discussion, however, centres on the precise
implementation of the ERA. Banda doesn't advocate eliminating current national
science funding policies per se but he does contend that, "Europe must
show its best face in setting up the structures that it needs for its research
and development. It has done so in the past with the far-sighted vision of
cooperative science exemplified in European Organization for Nuclear Research
(CERN), European Southern Observatory (ESO), and European Molecular Biology
Laboratory (EMBL). What it now needs is the same far-sighted vision in creating
a European support structure for science."
The Karolinska's Hans Wigzell continues noting that while the
so-called Framework programs have been useful, though considered by many
scientists to be high handed, politically driven and a bureaucratic Loch Ness
monster, they have served a purpose noting that, "Particularly relevant have
been the programs supporting scientists so that they can spend time in other
European laboratories, [as well as] various collaborative projects encompassing
several research groups across many countries. [Nonetheless] the time has come
to split the Framework Programmes and to create a more conventional European
Research Council (ERC), an organization more clearly under control by
scientists. It should be used to support elite centers, large technical
projects, and collaborative research projects using clear peer-review
protocols."
Greorge Radda on the other hand argues against setting up yet
another body, "Is an administrative structure like the ERC truly necessary? In
modern biomedical science, networking and working jointly across borders are
already intrinsic parts of leading-edge research. Few scientists need
encouragement to form alliances with colleagues in other countries, and
scientists will choose quality in preference to geography in seeking
partnerships."
Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, however, is a strong advocate for a
European Research Council pointing out, "The global quest for scientific
excellence has intensified enormously in recent years." and urging a strong
European approach in order to be able to compete with the US, Japan and China...
one [proposal] activity under discussion aims at the creation of high-level
European junior research groups, headed by top-quality junior scientists, who
would set up mixed European research groups in a country that is not their own."
The important message from this discussion is that there is a strong move toward
consolidation for the EU to be able to compete collectively on a par with
the big players so that its people can maintain/improve their living
standards. To this end research including basic research as well as development
are of fundamental importance. United they prosper, divided they will wane.
But where does this place Australia. Note George Radda's
comment, "scientists will choose quality in preference to geography in seeking
partnerships." Taken together with the increasing drive for European
consolidation in research and development it would seem prudent for us to up
the quantity of our research quality through upgrading our institutions in
all respects and quickly. In so doing we place ourselves in a position to
attract better collaborations and joint ventures, and on better terms for the
Nation, with any of "the major players".
Taiwan Takes a Broader and
Longer Term View Toward Academe. (January 28, 2002)
Frank Shu was born in southern China. His family moved to the
United States while he was still a child. Shu trained at MIT and Harvard then
joined the Berkeley faculty in 1973 and in 1998 was named one of a handful of
University Professors. His theoretical work on the structure of spiral galaxies
and, more recently, on star formation, "has played a leading role in making star
formation a major field," according to Anneila Sargent, current president of the
American Astronomical Society which Shu headed in 1995.
What makes Shu's "progrss" of interest is that he has been
offered and has accepted the presidency of Taiwan's National Tsinghua
University, Hsinchu, adding to the list of prominent ethnic Chinese scientists
from abroad who hope to build Taiwan into a scientific and technological
powerhouse. Dennis Normile, writing in Science says Shu "decided to take
the job 'because I realized I can make a bigger difference in Taiwan than by
remaining in the United States.' But he admits he faces some significant
challenges in raising the quality of Taiwan's universities. In addition to
tapping private sources to supplement government funding, Shu also hopes to
change a culture in which resources are shared equally to one in which academic
stars receive the support they need to shine. 'There is a growing understanding
[among government officials] that science at the forefront is an elitist
affair.' "
Considering that Taiwan is one of the most commercially
oriented nations in the world perhaps Dr. Nelson as Minister for Education,
Science and Training and the government he represents might at least give
consideration to Professor Shu's views and the fact that he is prepared to take
a very large step to move out of his "comfort zone." Whatever the Taiwanese
Government said to him, it must have been convincing.
The Secret Life of the
Brain. (January 28, 2002)
Last week the first episode of a five part television series
was aired on the US Public Broadcasting Service titled
The Secret Life of the [human]
Brain. The journal Science only rarely reviews TV series but in
this case the January 11th issue devotes a full page. The programs
deal progressively with the brain's "progress" during fetal development, then
its maturation through childhood, adolescence and adulthood and finally old age.
So for example, "Episode one unfolds with neuroscientists Susan McConnell and
Carla Schatz explaining, with the help of computer animation and videomicroscopy,
the staggering demands placed on the developing fetal brain. Every minute,
500,000 new neurons are produced that must migrate to the correct location and
form connections with their neighbors at the rate of two million per second."
Let's hope it won't be too long before the programs are
televised in Australia.
Dr. Nelson Stubs His Toe
Trying to Find His Way. (January 23, 2002)
After six weeks in the job as Minister for Education,
Science and Training, Dr. Brendan Nelson got the media's attention in a big way
even though he said little of substance and what he did say that got students,
parents, teachers and the Labor party to sit up appeared,
when read in full, reasonable -- in part. Certainly the mere fact
that individuals do or don't complete the final year of secondary school
oughtn't to be an overriding factor determining their self-esteem or how others
value them.
Nevertheless, that said, the novice minister leaves the
impression that what he's really engaged in is launching a trial balloon for a
cost minimisation exercise to see how much flak it draws.
Tom Allard
writing in today's Sydney Morning Herald refers to Dr. Ian Morgan,
head of the ACT's Parents and Citizens' Association, who views Dr. Nelson's
remarks as engendering a dumbing down of high school students' aspirations.
"Instead of addressing long-standing funding issues for schools and
universities, he has argued that fewer students should complete secondary
school," Dr Morgan went on to say. "This is an astounding proposition.
Australia's population is already relatively under-educated compared to the OECD
average." And cogently Dr. Morgan pointed out that early school-leavers were
extremely vulnerable to unemployment and transient employment in later life.
Allard also obtained the views of the "deputy director of the
Australian Council for Educational Research, Dr John Ainley, [who] said year 12
completion rates weren't the definitive measure of educational attainment." But
followed that up with, "there was much merit in encouraging vocational training,
especially giving students the option of doing some of these courses while
still at high school, a more comfortable environment for many compared with
'more adult institutions' like TAFE." [emphasis ours].
Stephen Hawking's 60th
Birthday Bash. (January 22, 2002)
"When [his colleagues] gathered in Cambridge this month to
mark Dr. Hawking's 60th birthday with a
weeklong
workshop titled 'The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology,' the ideas
spawned by his calculation and its aftermath often took center stage." So writes
Dennis Overbye in opening his New York Times science piece today. That
1973 calculation, Hawking considered so outlandish that at first he thought he'd
made a mistake and held off publishing it for a year. He determined the
microscopic properties of black holes, objects so massive and dense that not
even light can escape from them, and he discovered to his incredulity that they
leaked.
And black holes continue to perplex cosmologists and quantum
physicists. One conundrum, the equations describing the disorder (entropy) in
black holes. Of sufficient complexity Stephen Hawking told his guests that he
wanted the formula for black hole entropy engraved on his own tombstone.
Dennis Overbye's article makes a lively read and for a bit more detailed
news about the "birthday party" check out the
web site.
President Bush Releases
Names of Bioethics Council Members. (January 18, 2002)
Rick Weiss of The Washington Post
Weiss' extensive report is worth reading in full to gain an understanding of
the
"
There are a few more liberal members
All in all the councils' deliberations may in the ensuing
months provide interesting and informative reading. Some additional information
and a full list of the committee members is given in the New York Times'
article by
Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
Maths From the Bottom Up.
(January 17, 2002)
"Mathematical ability is not confined to a tiny segment of
the population. Virtually all of us have the ability to do high-level
mathematical thinking. For proof of this statement, one need look no further
than Project SEED,
an exemplary mathematics program that has, for almost 40 years, successfully
taught college-level algebra and calculus to primary schoolchildren in the
United States." That's what Wayne Patterson, a professor of computer science and
senior fellow at the Graduate School of Howard University, Washington, DC writes
in his SMH
opinion
piece/ movie review today. The Film, A Beautiful Mind stars
Russell Crowe as the mathematician John Nash who shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in
Economics.
But this N & V is about Project SEED Not the film (yet
to be released in Australia, it got mixed reviews from mathematician-critics).
Conceived in 1962 by William Johntz Project SEED utilizes the Socratic method of
questioning to develop the latent ideas of pupils. The claim on the project's
web site is straight forward; referring to the initial experimental courses
"Even though these elementary students had previously tested at or below the
national average, they quickly grasped the concepts Johntz taught. By the end of
the semester, both high school and elementary level students had mastered
advanced algebra concepts, and the elementary students, in particular, had
improved in other courses. The foundations for a love of learning and of
mathematics were set in place." Today the project has a presence in a number of
US cities, works with universities to get qualified mathematicians to teach
kids.
Perhaps some of our educators might take a look to see if the
approach merits use in Australian schools.
Improve US Math and Science
Education, NSF Gives a Lead. (January 15, 2002)
"It's going to take years and years, and there are no magic
bullets," says Judith Ramaley, who took over the National Science Foundation's
US$975 million education directorate in August. That's how Science
reported in its January 11th issue the US$160 million research
initiative whose guidelines are to be published this month at
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf02061. The operative concept is
one of partnership between university scientists and local school districts and
it's the latest turn being taken by the NSF in a decade-long "systemic reform"
effort to upgrade the teaching of maths and science in US primary and secondary
schools. Teaching colleges currently train most US pre-university teachers, and
relatively few students who major in science or maths go into teaching. That's
contributed to a generation of teachers with inadequate training in science and
maths. The situation is not dissimilar to the situation in Australia and
problems foreseen by Judith Ramaley in achieving significant and lasting
improvement are relevant to us. As she told Science, "We've
learned over the past decade that you need sturdy leadership, clear goals, and
hard evidence that guides your intervention. But we haven't learned how to
disseminate good practices, [scale up] prototypes, and sustain the effort in the
face of leadership transitions, departing teachers, high student mobility, and
competing political agendas." While Margaret Cozzens, vice chancellor for
academic affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver points out, "Creating a
sustainable partnership between [university scientists and the schools] is not a
trivial exercise."
Science concludes that the NSF hopes after 5
years they will have a "database of exemplary practices that local districts
will mine. But some researchers worry that intense political pressure to show
immediate gains in student performance will push NSF to favor tried-and-true
remedies rather than innovative approaches."
Whether any significant pronouncements concerning these
issues will come forth from the responsible Australian ministers and shadow
ministers (Dr. Nelson, Mr. McGauran, Ms Macklin, Senator Carr, Senator
Stott-Despoja) remains to be seen.
The Federation of Scientific
and Technological Societies (FASTS) Releases Its Top Ten List of Matters of
Urgency. (January 14, 2002)
It's still three weeks before the 40th Federal
Parliament convenes but FASTS decided it should get in early and issue a media
release on what it sees as the most important issues facing the nation with
regard to science and technology this year. Below is the release in full:
RELEASE OF 'TEN TOP ISSUES' FOR 2002
Australia's peak body for working scientists and technologists today (Monday) said it was time for the Government to announce the second stage of its plans for science and technology.
Professor Chris Fell, President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), said the Government itself recognises there is more to be done.
"We welcomed the Prime Minister's statement on innovation last January as promising start," he said. "Subsequently Mr Howard said the job wasn't complete, and we agree with him."
"Now it's time to announce the second step."
Professor Fell was launching FASTS' annual 'Ten Top Issues' list. The list has suggestions to Government on ways it can increase the impact and profile of science in Australia.
He said that some would cost very little to implement, such as removing the unfair HECS burden on science and mathematics teachers. But he warned more overall funding would be needed.
"We cannot escape the hard cold fact that Australia's investment in science and research is well below that of comparable countries," he said.
"Unless we take positive action, our expertise, our capacity for top science and our best people are going to fade away. The process is slow at first, but leads inevitably to a low-income, low-skill economy with a high proportion of the population on social security.
"Australia will not join the league of countries like the USA, UK, Finland, Ireland, and Singapore that have successfully adapted their industries to the new economy, thereby preserving jobs."
Professor Fell said Australia should be aiming to get more young PhD graduates working in industry, to encourage greater invention and to reduce dependence on imported technology.
"Singapore attracts new companies to locate there by offering to pay the salaries and expenses of any young PhD graduates they employ for the first two years. We suggest Australia should be doing the same, but for Australian companies as well as international ones," he said.
Other suggestions include: … Bring forward new investment in science and research announced by the Government's last year, so scientists can get to work creating new industries and new jobs.… Have a regular call for "big science" projects. Many excellent ideas missed out on funding last year, and the Major National Research Facilities program should be an annual event.
… Science and maths teachers are in short supply in Australia, but they still are forced to pay higher HECS fees than teachers in other subjects. This should be reduced.
TEN TOP ISSUES FOR 20021. BRING ON "BACKING AUSTRALIA'S ABILITY"
Speed up the new funding promised to science, so scientists can get to work creating new industries and new jobs.2. INVEST MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR
Australia's national investment in education is slipping behind other countries. We are in danger of losing brainpower and ending up a nation of low-skill, low-pay industries.3. ENCOURAGE NEW INDUSTRIES TO RELOCATE TO AUSTRALIA
Meet half the cost of employing new PhD graduates, to encourage companies operating in Australia to compete internationally by employing our best and brightest talent.4. HECS-FREE EMPLOYMENT FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Science and maths teachers are in short supply in Australia, but they still are forced to pay higher HECS fees than teachers in other subjects.5. BIG SCIENCE
Call for new proposals for Major National Research Facilities each year, to allow "Big Science" proposals to be funded.6. DON'T DISCOURAGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS!
Students studying for careers in science, mathematics and technology fields should not have to pay higher course fees than students studying economics, arts, humanities and social sciences.7. ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO INVEST IN NEW PRODUCTS
New and better products come from research and development. Companies should be offered financial incentives to invest in more R&D, through a sliding scale of Government support.8. RESTORE FUNDING FOR CSIRO
CSIRO has lost staff and funding over the last 10 years. Renewed investment will help it carry out important new research for the national good.9. SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST
Help focus the national Parliament on innovation by establishing a Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, and by providing better high level scientific advice to Parliament.10. ENCOURAGE SCIENTISTS TO THINK COMMERCIAL
Allow scientists working in publicly funded research organisations like CSIRO to have a stake in their own research, through rewards for successful commercial ventures.
It was just eighteen months ago, at what was probably the most publicised scientific press conference ever, that the obtaining of the draft sequence of the human genome was jointly announced by rival public and private organisations. And just under a year ago scientific publication followed. In the meantime much has been made of undertaking the next phase, i.e. elucidating the catalogue of proteins to which we are heir. However, spare a thought for the virtually unsung trolls working to convert the draft sequence of each of the 24 different chromosomes that make up the human genome to a finished sequence which is to be accurate to at least 99.99%. So far that has been accomplished for three of the twenty-four but the work is now expected to accelerate and be completed in a little over a year. Many groups involving hundreds of individuals are taking part.
The exercise to accurately sequence chromosome 20 was by no means trivial; some one-hundred individuals were involved. Many refinements were made which included quite major corrections of position as well as corrections in the sequence of individual nucleotide units. Once a high degree of accuracy is realised, research workers such as medical geneticists are in a position to analyze reliably for genetic diseases.
Human Chromosome 20 and positional changes that were determined between the draft sequence (top) and the final sequence (bottom). Taken from Nature (414, 854; 2001). The figure was prepared by Takehiko Ito, Mitsubishi Research Institute. Light blue, green and red lines indicate increasing magnitude of positional changes.
In a recent letter to Nature (414, 843; 2001) Michele Pagano of New York University's School of Medicine took considered exception to a recent article in the journal (413, 113; 2001) which suggested, "that scientists who want their work featured in the media should learn how to package their discoveries by finding the right 'hooks' for the public." Pagano, though based in New York keeps up with Italian events by reading the Italian press and is often upset by, "My personal experience with the 'tabloidization' of scientific information [which] began when I moved to Manhattan... Frequently, in the past few years, I have been approached by an Antonio, Giovanni or Marcello with 'Have you seen it in the news?'. 'No, what?' I answer. 'An Italian doctor has discovered a cure for cancer (or this or that),' is the reply... [And] many times, after yet another explosive report of a remarkable discovery, I have had to disillusion my... friends."
Dr. Pagano asks the simple rhetorical question, "Is it really worth attracting a larger audience on one occasion, if the next time your credibility will be compromised? This is clearly a question for the media as well as for those scientists who like to promote their discoveries."
While our media my not be as prone to hyperbole when it comes to publicising scientific "breakthroughs" as the Italian, it certainly isn't innocent of it. Far too often words such as "can", "may", "could" and "might" precede the breathtaking conclusion, and of course are lost on the lay public. While some scientists are undoubtedly driven by visions fame and fortune, as often as not it is an urgent call for adequate resources that is at the root. Ultimately it's counterproductive but has, certainly as one central cause, the chronic under funding of research in Australia.
The Canadian Government has allocated A$8.9 billion for science and technology for the financial year beginning April 1, up 8% from last year despite earmarking A$1.3 billion for the new category of counterterrorism initiatives. On a population basis that would be the equivalent of an allocation of $5.6 billion by the Howard Government in its forthcoming budget. The most recent figure form the Government for R&D expenditure as of May 2001 was for the 1998-99 financial year, $4.67 billion,although unofficial figures for the 1999-2000 financial year placed the total at $4.4 billion. Had we spent on a par with Canada this past year, the Federal Government would have had to put in $5.2 billion. And of course as has been pointed out often before, we start considerably behind scratch, contrary to government protestations.
The journal Science posts an annual scorecard for matters scientific -- one entry: "With the exception of the National Institutes of Health, presidential candidate George W. Bush's support for research during the campaign was AWOL this spring in his first proposed budget. But legislators repaired much of the damage, giving several science agencies more than they had requested. At the same time, research budgets in most of Europe and Asia were protected from the worst effects of a global downturn, because governments continue to see science and technology as a good way to bolster their long-term economic prospects."
Our Federal Budget is due to be brought down on May 14th; how science and education will fare and if strictions of stringency because of the war on terrorism and the fending off of boat people will be invoked remains to be seen. If so, perhaps the Senate might look to the US Congress where, "legislators repaired much of the damage [done by the initial Bush budget]," and note that in many of our cohort nations', "research budgets... were protected from the worst effects of a global downturn, because governments continue to see science and technology as a good way to bolster their long-term economic prospects."
According to a piece in Nature's "Science updates" thermal imaging techniques can show that those who lie "blush" sufficiently to be distinguishable with 80% confidence from those who tell the truth. While Nature emphasises its possible use for circumstances such as airport check-in security where polygraph tests (considered to have the same degree of reliability) would be too cumbersome to use, imagine a television interviewer such as the ABC's Kerry O'Brien questioning a Federal minister or shadow minister with the screen showing an inset of the thermal image of the interviewee's face.
There's no Nobel Prize for outstanding contributions. Without it no modern science or technology could be carried out and yet it's seldom taken to the ball. But it looks now that at least so far as the US National Science Foundation (NSF) is concerned things are about to change even if with deliberate speed. the median NSF grant is A$160,000 per year, while for mathematicians it's about A$70,000 Philippe Tondeur, head of the NSF's mathematics division says pointedly, "it's a disgrace." Over a year ago the NSF's Director, Rita Colwell, a microbiologist by training, called for the 2001 mathematics budget of A$242 million to increase to just under A$1 billion by 2007. The 2002 budget increased funding by only A$40 million but it is rumored that 2003 could see the maths allocation rise to A$400 million. Currently the NSF accounts for about 70% of academic mathematics funding and only a small fraction of the field get NSF grants. The rethink in support of maths is expected to have a catalytic effect on mathematical research including interdisciplinary efforts. Philippe Tondeur says, "It's going to be a really adventurous period for the mathematical sciences; there's a growing perception that mathematics is an enabling discipline for science, technology and engineering."
Perhaps the Australian Research Council will take note.
