There are several matters that should disquiet the Ministers for Education,
Science and Training, and Science as well as the Australian Research Council.
This year the fellowships attracted just under 45% of the number of individuals
who applied the year before, although the number of applicants per place
available remained virtually constant.
Of the total 25 fellowships 16 will be filled by residents of Australia, 8 by
expatriates and one by the German born Professor Gottfried Otting who was
working at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm at the time of his application
and is now at the ANU Research School of Chemistry.
Two of the stated principal aims of the fellowships are: attract and retain
leading Australian researchers in key positions, attract outstanding
overseas researchers whose research is demonstrated to be of national benefit
to Australia. There can be little question that the Federation Fellowships
are a positive contribution to Australian science but equally it must be said
it is a small one, and on the international stage clearly it has not attracted
a swarm of expatriates to return and has had a just visible impact on
attracting "outstanding overseas researchers". And it should be compared
to our fellow member of the Commonwealth who is funding an additional 2000
research chairs at its universities. From December 2000 to June 2002,
627
research chairs have been awarded. Their distribution is shown in the pie
chart below.
In short, so far Canada has filled 85 research chairs with candidates recruited
from outside the dominion and 542 from within.
Unless there is a remarkable change of direction by the Coalition Government at
what it has designated as the Higher Education Crossroads, while we may get 200
medals at the Commonwealth Games, we're not looking too flash in the academic
Olympics.
What may make this bulletin of more than passing interest is that the Director
of the Nation Science Foundation, Rita Colwell, is due in Canberra for talks
toward the end of August. Perhaps Mr. McGauran will take the opportunity to talk
to Dr. Colwell on substantive matters. Having a few scientists sitting in might
also be worthwhile.
I write to express my concern at the likely costs to the nation's
scientific productivity of the priority-setting exercise, and to suggest general
ways to monitor and reduce these costs.
We can only hope that the shallowness exhibited by Federal Cabinet in its
previous approach to setting priorities for the funding of research programs
won't be repeated. The wide-ranging canvassing set entrain by Mr. McGauran is of
itself no guarantee against it.
What we insist upon is that we partner with first rate
universities worldwide and what we find is that our resource base viz, our
ability to attract and retain world class teachers and researchers, and the
physical facilities necessary to support them, is precariously low in relative
terms, forcing us to punch above our weight simply to retain a place at the
international table.
Professor Brown would be well aware of
What would be the economic benefit for Australia from a greater private sector
investment in R&D?;
Mr. McGauran announced the formation of this standing committee on March 13th
this year. It will be interesting to follow the progress of its first
significant effort.
American mathematics just multiplied itself by two. On 1 July,
the Division of Mathematical Sciences at the National Science Foundation
announced the creation of three new mathematical sciences research institutes,
bringing the total number of such NSF-funded institutes to six...' The three new
institutes are MBI (Mathematical Biosciences Institute), SAMSI
(Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute), and ARCC
(American Institute of Mathematics Research Conference Center).
Meanwhile, Last Thursday, 11 July, Australia's Chief Statistician called a
meeting of statistical scientists from industry, government and universities,
motivated by his own organisation's inability to find the mathematical
statisticians it needs.
That makes it 6-0 in favour of the US. Australian mathematicians have been
trying for well over a decade to get federal funding for just one mathematics
research institute, let alone six. By 1996 the move had gained so much momentum
that it rated a chapter in a book-length report prepared for the Australian
Research Council, by a working party appointed by the National Committee for
Mathematics. But successive federal governments have turned their respective
deaf ears to the call for a mathematics research institute in Australia. By way
of contrast, five successive US administrations, both Republican and Democrat,
have funded mathematics institutes in the US since 1980.
SPACE STATION: SCIENCE PANEL WANTS TO SEE A LITTLE SCIENCE.
A number of years ago ANU's Professor Graham Laver directed the growth of
neuramididase crystals in micro-gravity on the Mir Space Station. He found the
approach to be of no benefit with regard to the quality of the crystals formed,
and has said so, loud and clear.
None Government non profit spending on R&D has improved, up 20% compared to
1998-99. However, it should be kept in mind that it is 12% that of Government
support and over 90% is directed toward health.2
It was fifty-seven years ago this month that The Atlantic Monthly
published Dr. Bush's seminal article As
The Mathematical Sciences are in steep decline in Australia...
Some stark figures - of the 16 professors of mathematics and statistics at La
Trobe, Monash and Melbourne Universities in 1995, 10 have now left - 5 have gone
to prestigious overseas jobs, and the remaining 5 have either moved to
administrative positions, retired or one has moved to an academic position at
the ANU. This year it is planned to refill 3 of these 10 positions, the
remaining have been lost. There are now as many vacant professorships of
statistics in the major universities as filled positions... - as we lose
critical mass and intellectual credibility in areas of mathematics and
statistics, more of the potential leaders of our profession are emigrating. I
would estimate there are about 30 of such people remaining in Australia and
perhaps 6 will leave this year and a similar number next year...
With the growth of research in telecommunications, biotechnology,
information sciences has come high levels of government support for the
mathematical sciences in essentially every advanced economy except for
Australia... On the issue of mathematics education in schools, we are faced with
a dwindling supply of well trained mathematics and statistics graduates who are
prepared to go into teaching at the secondary level...
Will Dr. Nelson take up Professor Rubinstein's challenge and seek the views of
Simon, Melrose, Coates, Segal or Ewens. For that matter will any of the
Minister's twenty member Reference Group do so, or are we really observing a
charade. Perhaps Lady Bracknell's admonishment to Gwendolen has a governmental
analogy with regard to the question of crises in the higher education system.
Pardon me, you are not engaged to any one. When you do become
engaged to some one, I, or your father, should his health permit him, will
inform you of the fact.
I think the article by Lake is fair. The big problem for
science research is funding. By and large the faculty at Harvard are reasonably
successful. I do not think there is really excessive administrative load or
forms. It is probably getting worse, my secretary complains about the accounting
system. My organic colleagues are busy consulting with pharmaceutical companies,
but are here giving lectures, etc. I do not know whether the college education
liberal arts is important. It probably is a good idea since there is not a huge
hurry, presently our time through PhD is long, typical 5-6 years after bachelor
degree.
That's just one second opinion but there's a ring of reasonableness about it. In
any case Marilyn Lake concludes with the hope that perhaps Dr. Nelson "too might
become a supporter of the creative class, if only for the sake of Australia's
economic future." Certainly some proactive support would be welcome.
Don't cry for me, Australia!
On 15 May John Howard launched
Fields of Discovery, which describes some of CSIRO's great
Max Whitten was Professor of Genetics at the University of
Melbourne, and Chief of CSIRO's Division of Entomology. from 198195 He is a
Fellow of the Australian Academies of Science and Technological Sciences &
Engineering and an expert on blowflies. Views expressed in conScience are those
of the author.
The Federation Fellowships: 2nd
Round. (July 30, 2002)
The Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Minister for
Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, yesterday announced the names
of the eleven individuals awarded Federation Fellowships this year. This brings
to 25 the number of Federation Fellows. Dr. Nelson also announced that funds
will be available for 25 additional fellowships to be available in 2003.
This past April TFW in an
editorial pointed out that although 25 fellowships had been made available for the first round attracting 181
applications, only fifteen had been considered of sufficient calibre to win one.
As it transpired one for the 15 fellows declined the award (Monash graduate Tadeusz Molinski, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Davis has
remained there) thereby leaving 11 fellowships vacant.
They have now been
filled with 8 resident Australians and 3 expatriates chosen from 81
applicants.
[Canada's population: 31,700,000. Australia's Population: 19,500,000]
Over to You Mr. McGauran. (July 27,
2002)
The Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, is in the process
of determining what priorities should be set for Australia's research community.
Note the preposition for not by. However, leaving that aside, Bob
Park, the American Physical Society's man in Washington reports an interesting
fillip for those tough sciences.
MONEY:
PHYSICS GETS A BREAK ON CAPITAL HILL. After a dismal decade,
math and physical sciences got better news this week from
Senate appropriators, who increased NSF's MPS [mathematics and physical
sciences] account by almost 15 percent. DOE also got some relief, as the House
began work on Rep. Judith Biggert's (R-IL) science authorization bill. The goal
of doubling the Office of Science budget was supported by Nobelists Jerome
Friedman and Richard Smalley, who testified before the Energy Subcommittee.
Terrorism, the possibility of war with Iraq, and a tanking stock market seem to
have persuaded Congress that it's time to support the physical sciences.
"Facing the Challenges in Financing
Australian Higher Education." (July 25, 2002)
"The financing of Australian higher education is one of the
most debated aspects of the current Review of higher education." So opens the
media
release from The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan
Nelson. It is arguably the most important of the three issues papers released so
far because it gets to the matters of the mold that will be used to configure
Australia's 38 public universities, who should pay, at what proportions and by
implication how much. In his forward, Dr. Nelson quotes the following anecdote,
"Outside the Queensland University of Technology, I asked a woman unconnected
with it what she thought of universities. She reflected for a moment and
replied, 'I don’t know. I applied to go to one once and didn't get in. But if
you're going in there you can tell them this for me. I work hard and my taxes
help pay for what goes on in there. But when they come out and apply for the
same job as me, they’ll get the job.'" Dr. Nelson doesn't disclose his reply but
admonishes the universities, "[U]nder no circumstances should the public resources
provided by hard working everyday Australians be demanded of them without
confidence that they are being invested in a sector that is academically,
managerially and financially efficient." The concern that comes immediately to
mind -- defining the phrase, academically, managerially and financially
efficient, because it is just as applicable to how well or how clumsily
those who are placed in the position of overseers, the Minister, his department,
and the Cabinet undertake their roles. How well the Government has learned the
lessons from the past fifteen years of destructive oversight remains to be
seen.
The Minister for Science Moves to
Stage Two of His Search for Research Priorities. (July 24, 2002)
The announcement on the Minister for Science, Peter McGauran's
Research Priorities
submissions page begins, "We would like to thank everybody for their first
round of submissions on the framework and nominations for the national research
priorities... The framework is currently being amended in light of the feedback
we have received... We look forward to your more detailed nominations...[and]
encourage you to provide them after you have examined the final framework which
will be posted on this website in late July 2002." The first round, which
dealt principally with the "process" for identifying national research
priorities, elicited 164 submissions. In addition views were garnered by two
teams sent round the traps from anyone who wanted to front up for what could be
best described as brainstorming sessions (brainstorm in the business rather than
medical sense) and a number of selected focus groups.
In his submission (No.
19) the Director of the Evolutionary Genetics Laboratory at James Cook
University, Professor Ross Crozier opened with what should be a predominant
consideration for anyone engaging in such prioritisation:
The costs can briefly summarized in the observation that any implication of
non-merit criteria [such as priorities] in funding grants will mean that some
proposals which would have been funded on merit will now not be funded and some
proposals insufficiently meritorious to be funded on merit will receive funding.
Hence, there will be a loss of productivity because some excellent researchers
will have funding withdrawn and some less productive ones will be funded
instead.
Australia gains a great deal from its broad scientific base, having a ready
availability of active researchers in a broad array of fields, any one of which
can unexpectedly turn out to be important. These researchers are our eyes and
ears to the world outside, and our seed corn for new projects, as it were.
Damage to this resource must be held to a minimum, preferably avoided
altogether.
As Sydney University Sees It. (July
23, 2002)
The
University
of Sydney put in its submission to Dr. Nelson's review of higher education
the other day
suggesting
that it may be but a first salvo, "The national [higher education] consultation
framework is paralleled by interactive discussions within the University so that
this submission must necessarily use a broad brush and be preliminary in nature,
as, indeed, is the Departmental discussion paper, Higher Education at the
Crossroads."
Preliminary or not there was the clear stamp of Sydney's
Scottish V-C, Gavin Brown on the short document:
___________________
Good governance is fundamental to institutional health and the University
conducted a major review in the latter half of 2001... The resolutions reinforce
the fundamental principle that governance is vested solely in the Senate through
the collective action of Fellows, presided over by the Chancellor and supported
and advised by the Vice-Chancellor. Moreover, Senate’s primary role is accepted
to be in the area of policy and not operational management.
___________________
Our capacity for further reform and development in research, including outreach
through industry partnerships, is being hampered by lack of essential
infrastructure and by an increasing tendency for support funds to be provided
for government-earmarked projects with a matching requirement. It is obvious
that this is inimical to strategic planning at university level.
___________________
It is a... concern... that research receives no effective mention in Higher
Education at the Crossroads because research activity, not merely research
training, is fundamental to our University and to its contribution to Australia.
This major aspect of our work must live in balance with other programs which
cannot therefore be discussed in isolation...
Perhaps the most important single outcome from the Review
would be a realisation of how much research infrastructure investment is
required and a confidence in government that it will be well deployed by the
leading universities. Such infrastructure is now critical for high quality
research-led teaching...
In a related area we believe that mechanisms to support
public-private partnerships should be developed. It is often asserted that
universities such as ours are asset rich but fail to deploy them aggressively.
We look to work with Government to find ways to make it feasible to deploy them
at all.
Government Support for R&D: a Second
Screening. (July 22, 2002)
The budget papers were released just three months ago.
Perhaps it's a good time to have a second glance at
the
government's commitment to research and development, particularly with Science
Minister Peter McGauran's, recent rebuke of Australian industry for insufficient
support for R&D (see N&V immediately below).
According to the Minister's media release industry
contributes $4.83 billion while the budget papers give a figure of $5.11 billion
for the Federal government's 2002-03 support.
On May 22nd The Australian published Dr.
Peter Pockley's analysis of the budget as it pertains to research and
development in which he pointed out that additional funding was up $235 million,
an increase of 4.8%. $104 million of that is the first installment on the
replacement Lucas Heights nuclear reactor leaving a $131 million increase for
all other government funded R&D. The CPI over the year was 2.75%.
Therefore, to keep pace with the CPI the government would have had to put in an
additional $133 million, a mere shortfall of $2 million. So much for Backing
Australia's Ability or perhaps it's the Government's way of giving the R&D
sector a swift serve. Of course there has also been a fair amount of moving
money out of one R&D pigeon hole and putting it into another - the approach is
to point out where you're putting the funds but neglect to mention where they're
coming from. All things considered it would be understandable if industry were
to view Mr. McGauran's chide regarding support for R&D as the pot making
disparaging remarks about the kettle's complexion.
And quite apart from any environmental issues surrounding the
installation of the replacement nuclear reactor, there is yet to be put forward
a convincing case for Australia requiring a nuclear reactor. It bears a certain
similarity to the US commitment to the International Space Station. On the other
hand it may be Australian science's way of bolstering the Argentine economy.
Peter McGauran Announces an Initiative
that Could Have Far-reaching and Worthwhile Consequences if Considered Seriously. (July 21, 2002)
The Federal Minister for Science, Peter McGauran,
announced on Tuesday the terms of reference
for a parliamentary committee's inquiry into the Australian business community's
commitment to research and development. In making the announcement he made the
comment, "The latest ABS figures indicate business expenditure on R&D in 2000-01
was $4.825 billion, an increase of 18% over 1999-2000. However, the expenditure
as a percentage of GDP is significantly lower than countries like the United
States, UK, Sweden and Japan."*
The minister has asked House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Science and Innovation to consider matters such as what gets small
and medium sized enterprises to undertake research and development. One hopes
that means that the committee will determine what incentives are required and
make concrete recommendations as to getting on with it and which will include
the big end of town as well as small and medium sized enterprises. Whether or
not it is to be just another empty exercise of little consequence remains to be
seen.
According to chairman
Gary Nairn (Lib) the committee will explore
What are the impediments to business investment in R&D?; and
What steps need to be taken to better demonstrate to business
the benefits of higher private sector investment in R&D?
______________________
*According to the Australian Government's National Investment
Agency our GDP was US$394 billion, at US$0.55 = A$1; GDP is A$716 billion.
So business investment in R&D = 4.825 / 716 = 0.67% of GDP. Total investment in
R&D is 1.40% of GDP. Therefore, total
non-industry investment in R&D is 0.73% of GDP or A$5.237 billion (the
2002-03 budget papers give a figure of $5.111 billion for government funds). On
these figures all other support for R&D would be about $126 million.
Just
Possibly Tony Blair Meant What He Said. A$3.6 Billion Increase for Science by
2005-06. (July 19, 2002)
The British summer finally arrived and the government
announced a £1.25-billion (A$3.6-billion) increase in annual science funding
over the next three years. That will bring the annual science budget to £2.9
billion (A$8.25 billion). According to the July 18th Nature
"The science budget will grow by about 10% in real terms each year over the next
three years compared with 7% in the 1998 and 2000 reviews." Nature goes
on to quote activist Peter Cosgreave, Director of Save British Science, "There
is substantial new money and importantly much of it is aimed at solving some of
the long-term problems suffered by the science research base." At the moment
what the scientists have is a promissory note, but Cosgreave
believes
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will back up the rhetoric with cash, "even under
the most pessimistic predictions about the economy". Finally Nature also
reported that "the research councils will also receive £120 million extra by
2005–06 to pay overheads for research grants, as well as new funding to help
researchers set up spin-off companies. And the Department for Education and
Skills will provide an extra £200 million annually, by the end of the period,
for university equipment and buildings." If this sort of support gains momentum,
that figure of 3% of GDP for research and development by decade's end will be
met by Britain.
Taking into account the increasing momentum behind the
formation of a European research federation together with the whole of the EU
espousing the 3% goal, the lack of urgency by our government as we remain mired
at 1.4% of GDP in support of R&D becomes progressively more disquieting.
Finalists
for the Australian Museum's Eureka Prizes Announced. (July 19, 2002)
The finalists for the 2002 Eureka Prizes were announced
yesterday. This year the national science awards consist of 18 prizes worth
$180,000 in all. The museum announced that they had received 1,500 entries. In
making the announcement the museum trust's president, Brian Sherman, said that
the museum administered the awards because of the strong necessity "to raise the
profile of science in the community." The names of the 70 finalists and
descriptions of their projects can be accessed through
www.amonline.net.au/eureka. The
winners will be announced on August 13th.
Although it has a long way to go to achieve the public
awareness of the Archibald Prize, year by year that awareness is increasing.
Holding the award dinner at Fox Studios this year might just be inspired
perception.
SIDS
Research at Monash Makes Science News (July 17, 2002)
On June 28th Monash University put out a media
release under the headline, "Monash
researchers find brain steroid link to SIDS". The journal Science
picked it up and in an item on its ScienceNOW website gave it star
treatment on July 15th; "Steroid to Blame for Sudden Infant
Deaths? Although a link between infections and sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS) has been previously suspected, this is the first time a clear mechanism
has been found that might explain such a link."
In a study on lambs physiology PhD student Saraid Billiards of Monash
University found that even a mild bacterial infection can cause brain steroid
levels to rise dramatically, leading lambs to become extremely drowsy and
difficult to wake. In the brain, levels of the steroid allopregnanolone, known
to have sedative and anaesthetic properties, increased two- to threefold. Were
human babies to react similarly, even a mild infection could blunt the ability
of infants to awaken. Ms Billiards pointed out, "If they develop breathing
problems while they're asleep that cause their blood oxygen to fall, they don't
have the appropriate arousing response that allows them to wake."
And perhaps just as pleasing is that the announcement is not
science by media release; the research has been accepted for publication in the
journal Pediatric Research, i.e. it had been peer reviewed before
Monash made the announcement.
Peter Hall Reports, "NSF
To Double Number of Math Institutes." (July 15, 2002)
That headline, for a news item in volume 297 (12 July
2002) of Science, was followed by,
The main difficulty in Australia has been our governments' 'one size fits
all' approach to science funding. In the past their rules for supporting a
research institute have required each to be either linked closely to specific
industries, indeed to specific companies producing identifiable and marketable
products (the Cooperative Research Centres), or to address relatively narrow and
cohesive research problems (the Special Research Centres). These approaches were
perhaps fine if one wished to solve a particular problem using an expensive
piece of equipment, but they completely failed to recognise the contributions,
and needs, of the intellectual and enabling sciences.
Australian mathematics has been languishing for more than a decade, first edging
downhill and now declining at an accelerating pace. As the Science
article notes, 'the mathematical sciences proved valuable in completing the
human genome project...The promise of the future is even greater.' That promise
is held for the US, but not for Australia. Our once-vaunted strengths in the
mathematical sciences are falling away, in many cases leaving for abroad,
perhaps not to be seen again in this country for a generation. Last Thursday, 11
July, Australia's Chief Statistician called a meeting of statistical scientists
from industry, government and universities, motivated by his own organisation's
inability to find the mathematical statisticians it needs to analyse
Commonwealth Government data on Australia's industry, society and community. Eli
Lilly's representative at the meeting reported that his company is experiencing
the same problem, and that as a result its US office may shelve the company's
plans for growth in Australia. The same problems afflict industry and
government across the country.
How will Australia face the challenges of the 21st Century, with our skills in
the mathematical sciences in such decline and disarray? How will we develop
mathematical models for environmental change and for new, emerging weather
patterns (as the US SAMSI institute will do), or for the relationship between
genotypes and phenotypes (a task for the new MBI institute in the US)? These
research problems, and a great many more that have their foundations in the
mathematical sciences, will play critical roles in the growth of modern
scientific enterprise for any advanced nation, preparing that country to face
technological, environmental and social change. But here in Australia we are
lamentably unprepared for work of this type. For example, a senior Australian
mathematician, leading international research on global climate change, recently
announced his departure from this country to take a post abroad.
The Science article highlights the appreciation of US authorities for the
many benefits that mathematics brings, ranging from path breaking contributions
in basic biological science to pivotal advances in engineering technology,
helping to drive economic growth. Philippe Tondeur, the Swiss-born retiring
director of the NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences, which is responsible
for the raft of new mathematics institutes discussed in the Science
article, has reported elsewhere that these initiatives are needed '...because
advances in fundamental mathematical sciences, which embrace mathematics and
statistics, are closely intertwined with the discovery process in science,
engineering, and technology. The mathematical sciences are accelerating progress
across the spectrum of science and engineering, even in traditional descriptive
sciences.' These benefits will be available to many nations, but not really to
Australia. Least of all will we have access to the crucial training role of
mathematics institutes; training is a key criterion against which the success of
US institutes is judged.
One does not have to look right across the Pacific to see that our competitors
have stolen a march on us. Across the Tasman, the New Zealand government
recently announced funding for that country's Mathematical Sciences Institute,
to develop and expand New Zealand mathematics for the benefit of that nation.
And across the Java Sea, Singapore's new Institute for Mathematical Sciences is
already in full swing, its vigorous programs addressing research problems right
across science and technology.
We're the odd country out, not the clever country. Nations across Europe, North
America and Asia are investing in the mathematical sciences, and in particular
in mathematics research institutes. For example, Canada and the US have
established a joint facility, not included among those mentioned in the
Science article; and in addition, Canada has its own mathematics research
institutes. Australia, once again, is bringing up the rear.
------------------------
Professor Peter Hall, Centre for Mathematics and its
Applications, Australian National University is Chair, National Committee for
Mathematics.
If You're Going to Squander
Resources, Do It in a Grand Manner. (July 14, 2002)
The International Space Station has been the subject of
disapproval by the American Physical Society's Bob Park for some time. He's
hardly alone. He sums up the current state of play in his What's New
column of July 12th.
The International Space Station was sold to Congress as science, but a US$5B
budget shortfall halted work on two of the modules and the crew was cut from 7
to a Mir-sized 3 (WN 9 Nov 01). It was that or hire Arthur Anderson to do the
accounting. The need for budgetary discipline also led to a bean counter from
OMB, Sean O'Keefe replacing Dan Goldin (WN 16 Nov 01). In March, O'Keefe named a
20 member panel of scientists-turned-administrators, mostly from the life
sciences, to assess the ISS research priorities. The panel reported to the NASA
Advisory Council on Wednesday that there is no research on the ISS to assess.
The crew of 3 can barely find time to clean the toilet. So the panel called for
a larger crew, completion of the unfinished modules, and more resupply missions.
In other words, undo everything done in March to deal with budget overruns.
What were they thinking? It makes no sense to have a research
laboratory that does no research, but US$5B is a lot of money. Do we want to
spend triple the NSF research budget to have a bigger crew? The only thing the
ISS has going for it is micro-gravity, but decades of micro-gravity research on
the Shuttle and Mir had no discernable impact on any field of science. Congress
may be in a mood to scrap the giant money-shredder; scientists should plead with
them to do it.
And the Good News is
Governmental Sector1 R&D Spending Has Stopped Sliding Backwards.
(June 12, 2002)
The
Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures showing that "Expenditure
on R&D carried out by Government organisations (GOVERD) in Australia in 2000-01
was estimated to be $2,368m at current prices. This represented a 14% increase
over the two years since 1998-99. In volume terms, with the effect of changes in
prices and wages and salaries removed, R&D expenditure increased by 7% compared
with 1998-99. GOVERD represented 0.35% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the same
as in 1998-99," after slipping from 0.43 per cent every two years since 1992-93.
The ABS also point out that Human resources devoted to R&D in
Australia by Government organisations in 2000-01 was estimated to be 18,407
person years. This was 2% lower than in 1998-99.
----------------------------
1. The government sector includes all
Commonwealth, and State government departments and authorities. It does not
include institutions of higher education which are deemed public sector
organisations.
2. The private non-profit sector includes private or
semi-public incorporated organisations which are established with the intention
of not making a profit.
Dead Poets, Myopic Vision.
(July 10, 2002)
Two years ago Dr. Geoffrey Garrett was recruited by the
Howard Government from South Africa's CSIR to head CSIRO with the 'vision' of
further reducing the organisation's dependency on Commonwealth funding -- a
vision apparently focused on the annual bottom line.
Garrett's gung-ho business-speak style has caused some to define his leadership
as "evangelistic management" according to Stephen Cauchi's write-up in last
Saturday's Melbourne Age, "a reference to his fondness for such phrases
as 'if it ain't broke, break it' and acronyms such as BRAGS - 'Brilliant
Research and Great Stuff!' They also recall a meeting in Canberra last year when
Dr. Garrett jumped up on a table in imitation of the school teacher played by
Robin Williams in one of his favourite films, Dead Poets Society."
The fact is Dr. Garratt is doing just what he was hired to
do, but the question is, is what he's been hired to do sensible and is his
approach just another example of mediocrity begetting mediocrity?
Rather than leaping in a single bound onto available table
tops, perhaps
Vannevar Bush might be a better role model than Robin Williams' John
Keating.
We
May Think. The same month he delivered to President Truman his blueprint for
organizing government support of university-based research - Science: The
Endless Frontier. During World War II Vannevar Bush headed the Office of
Scientific Research and Development where he coordinated some 6,000 scientists,
and as the war was drawing to a conclusion, he advocated that scientists should
utilize "our store of knowledge." In As We May Think he points out that
so far (1945) inventions have extended man's physical powers rather than the
powers of his mind. Now, however, "instruments are at hand which, if properly
developed, will give man access to and command over the inherited knowledge of
the ages. The perfection of these pacific instruments should be the first
objective of our scientists..." Bush envisaged a National Research Foundation
(transmuted to become the National Science Foundation) run by an independently
appointed chairman that would fund research for the physical and biological
sciences. The chairman would be insulated from political pressure, whether from
the White House or Congress, to fund research that while politically expeditious
would be technically unsound.
Vannevar Bush was president of The Carnegie Institution of
Washington from 1938-1955, which brings us back to the matter of feet on table
tops.
During the later years of Dr. Bush's presidency of the Carnegie Institution, one
of his charges was Barbara McClintock working at the institution's Department of
Genetics at Cold Spring Harbor (McClintock eventually received the Nobel Prize
for her discovery of mobile genetic elements). On his assessment tours of the
various laboratories when he came to CSH and had finished his official duties he
would lob in on "Barbara" and putting their feet up on her work table the two of them
would seriously discuss, among weightier issues, baseball; however, there are no reports that they ever
got their heads around it even though both in their own way had done "brilliant
research and great stuff" -- but, it must be admitted, not on baseball.
To Lose One Chair, Dr.
Nelson, May Be Regarded as a Misfortune; to Lose Seven Looks Like Gross
Negligence. (July 8, 2002)
Joachim Hyam Rubinstein is Professor and Head of the Department of
Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne. On June 27th he
submitted a four page contribution to the Department of Education, Science and
Training for their "Higher Education at the Crossroads" review entitled "Do
the mathematical sciences have a future in Australia?" While many
of the submissions to the "Crossroads" review engage in hand waving, Professor
Rubinstein's does not.
[S]ince the universities are now offering financial incentives to areas which
can attract [international fee paying] students, there is very little motivation
to keep traditional arrangements for service teaching of mathematics and
statistics into different faculties. So there is a continual erosion of such key
support... The effect of such moves is that the possibility of research and
graduate training at internationally competitive levels is lost...
To summarise, I do not see much of a future for the mathematical sciences in
Australia in the medium term. The current trend towards merging mathematical
science departments into larger entities will further erode the possibility of
rebuilding... An extreme example of the pressures I have described above are at
Monash University, which is Australia's largest tertiary institution. Recently,
six new Professors have been appointed to Business Studies but the Department of
Mathematics and Statistics does not have enough resources to have ONE professor
of Statistics and ONE professor of pure mathematics at the same time...
If there is a serious concern with regards to the standing of the mathematical
sciences in Australia, there are a number of superb former Australians who could
be asked about the size of the problem and possible solutions - Leon Simon (
Stanford) and Richard Melrose (MIT), both members of the National Academy of
Sciences, John Coates (Cambridge), Graeme Segal (Cambridge) and Warren Ewens (
Pennsylvania) all Fellows of the Royal Society.
Star Billing Has Its
Rewards. (July 4, 2002)
Herchel Smith died this past December. Born in Plymouth,
England, he received his bachelor's and doctoral degrees from Cambridge and was
a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford. As a university lecturer in organic chemistry
at Manchester University, he devised new approaches for the synthesis of novel
steroids, which he patented. After moving to the United States in 1961, he
worked with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in Philadelphia. That collaboration led to the
creation of the first synthetic birth control pill, as well as other important
pharmaceuticals for hormone therapy treatments. As a result he became a very
rich man. So? According to the April 25, 2002 Harvard Gazette,
"Herchel Smith gives Harvard $100 [A$180] million: Gift
provides unprecedented science funding"
And Cambridge has announced a £45 million [A$125 million] donation, the
largest it has received from one person, from... Herchel Smith. The donation
will fund new chairs in physics, pure mathematics, biochemistry and molecular
biology, as well supporting exchange visits between Cambridge and Harvard while
Harvard will use its bequest to augment existing scholarship funds previously
provided by Smith as well as naming three professorships in the Faculty of Arts
and Sciences, one each in pure mathematics, physics, and computer sciences - as
well a creating a new professorship in molecular genetics. The balance of the
bequest will support an endowment for research fellowships enabling Ph.D.
graduates from Harvard to pursue research in organic chemistry, biochemistry,
molecular biology, and related fields at Cambridge.
Apparently Dr. Smith believed that pure science ought to be
fostered at top universities. Now it just might be possible that were our
government to properly support higher education, Australia would attain
universities that would not only soundly underpin its intellectual currency but
also attract sizable philanthropic bequests. After all, to have your name
associated with chairs and scholarships at Harvard and Cambridge...
Industry Funded
Biotechnology Research Within Universities - a Simple Caveat. (July 4, 2002)
US industrial funding for biotechnology research within
academe has rapidly plunged from its zenith of two years ago. This is due
almost entirely to the the severe belt tightening within the sector. For openers
the collective worth of biotech shares is about one-third that of 2000.
According to the July 4th issue of Nature the,
"University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), has strong links with the
state's powerful biotech sector. The number of [biotech industry funded] deals
with UCSF peaked at 125 in 2000 for non-clinical research, but then slid to 70
in 2001. In the first 10 months of the 2002 fiscal year, only 39 deals were
struck... [I]nvestors' expectations for start-ups have changed. Companies making
tools for drug discovery were popular a few years ago, he says, but investors
now want ventures that will rapidly bring a drug or other product to market."
It's a clear indication that an over reliance of private
sector money for university research carries significant risk for
strategic and and even applied work let alone fundamental research. A home truth
that appears to have eluded our government's ministers and bureaucrats alike was
pointed out sharply by the Inter-Senate Committee of Israeli universities in its
March position paper
directed to the Knesset. "[I]t should be kept in mind that the development of a
high quality scientific department takes many years, in general, because only
scientists of high quality are able to put together a department of high
quality. Therefore, when a prominent scientist leaves a university department
(usually abroad), double damage is caused, because mediocrity is
self-perpetuating."
Might the Minister for
Education, Science and Training Become a Supporter of the Creative Class?
(July 2, 2002)
Professor Marilyn Lake has just returned from a year at
Harvard University where she held the chair in Australian studies. Last Thursday
the Sydney Morning Herald published an
opinion
piece in which she refers to a recently published book by Richard Florida,
The Rise of the Creative Class and sums up his thesis (and hers) as, "we
are moving into a phase of economic development fuelled by the work of
intellectual elites - writers, scientists, educators, designers, people whose
work generates original ideas and conceptual innovation." Professor Lake
continues, "The companies and cities likely to succeed are those that prove
attractive and hospitable to this emergent class." Island nations with
populations of around 19 million boasting a Prime Minister potty about sports
are also included by implication. "Creative people work long hours - longer than
average - but they require autonomy and freedom to flourish and their output
can't be measured in the usual ways. New ideas are not produced to order and do
not follow directives or prescriptions from on high. Working in an American
university during the past year, I encountered a profoundly different attitude
towards academics and their scholarship than prevails in my own country. Harvard
University is a wealthy institution and one might have expected that those who
administer its large endowments would emphasise accountability above all else.
But American universities trust and reward their faculty and researchers; it is
their freedom to teach and pursue research without the constant pressure to seek
authorisation, fill in forms and justify their work that makes them such
productive workplaces."
Of course Professor Lake only spent a year at Harvard and
might be overly enthusiastic about an exotic environment. So we sent the article
to a professor of physical chemistry who has been a Harvard fixture for some
decades and asked his opinion of Professor Lake's assessment of Harvard.
The reply?
CSIRO's
Leadership in Crisis, Says Former Divisional Chief.
(July 1, 2002)
The following contribution is reprinted in its entirety from
the July, 2002 issue of
Australasian Science with the permissions of the author and the
publisher.
Max Whitten says that CSIRO's leadership is in crisis.
achievements over the past 50 years, especially in agriculture and astronomy.
Its author, Brad Collis, describes CSIRO during this period as a goose laying
many golden eggs.
Indeed, commentators have sometimes speculated that CSIRO's contribution to the
nation's economic, social and environmental well-being was a key factor in the
diverging fortunes of Argentina and Australia during the 20th century.
John Howard boasted that our cricket team had just been voted the best in the
world. He proceeded to tell his largely CSIRO audience how he looked forward to
the day when CSIRO could join our cricketers as world leaders.
Well, Prime Minister, you don't have to look forward: just look around you.
CSIRO is a world leader. That was Collis' point.
Later that same day, John Kerin, the new Chairman of CSIRO's Stored Grain
Research Laboratory, released an economic analysis of SGRL's work, showing that
each dollar invested in the laboratory had returned more than $20 in benefits. A
vital export industry has remained competitive and our food is safer. Clearly,
CSIRO still delivers.
Two years ago, Jonathan Shier and Geoff Garrett were imported to ginger up the
ABC and CSIRO, respectively. Shier's failed attempts to "remake" the ABC are
familiar to many.
It appears that Garrett is heading down the same path. On 22 May, CSIRO's
Garrett told a large audience of senior R&D boffins in Sydney: "If it ain't
broke, break it". That seems a risky strategy for a business producing golden
eggs!
Garrett hails from South Africa, with good credentials as the boss of CSIR
CSIRO's equivalent, but minus agriculture. To survive in the changed political
and economic environment there, CSIR ramped up its external earnings under
Garrett, partly by reinventing itself as a consulting firm.
At home, the Australian Tax Office has received a boost of $1.6 billion, but
CSIRO's budget is contracting despite its proud record. The indisputable facts
indicate a serious loss of research capacity within CSIRO. Garrett's
predecessor, the late Malcolm McIntosh, slowed the erosion of resources
slightly, but at a price. He stifled CSIRO's chiefs and scientists from public
comment.
The situation today is much more serious. Things are happening inside our global
leader of public good research that demand debate. For instance, CSIRO's
successful National Awareness Program has been abandoned and its principal
architects gone.
Half the divisional chiefs are looking elsewhere for jobs. Internal surveys
revealed many top managers are severely stressed. New chiefs are offered 3-year
appointments, hardly a recipe for attracting top quality research leaders and
building the future.
CSIRO has largely lost its corporate memory after a steady stream of high-level
departures from its headquarters. Informed insiders say that CSIRO's request for
a deferral of its triennium funding stems more from an incapacity to argue its
case than the prospect of lean pickings in the current climate.
In a bid to increase external earnings, CSIRO researchers now seek solutions
that have more to do with corporate survival than the national interest. For
instance, CSIRO actively lobbies for genetic engineering technology, with its
promise of intellectual property and revenue streams. By contrast, CSIRO is not
joining a current bid for an organic farming Cooperative Research Centre. The
pickings were deemed too lean compared with GM crops.
The promise of massive increases in external earnings might have landed Garrett
the job, but the strategy could shift CSIRO from being a powerhouse for public
good research towards just another consulting firm.
Unfortunately, the Howard government is increasingly hostile to alternative
opinions. We see this through measures taken within the bureaucracy to "program"
witnesses in the Senate inquiry into "children overboard". Our Public Service has
the hallmarks of a Political Service.
In this general climate of intimidation, it is not surprising that we see no
public debate from within CSIRO about its changing nature and declining
fortunes.
We might lament the passing of the old CSIRO, but as for the new CSIRO we could
well say: "Don¹t cry for me, Australia".