Opinion - 19 November 2002

Roundtable for Young Scientists at Science Meets Parliament

John Sanderson was a member of the roundtable discussion group, "My life as a young scientist in Australia...", at the recent fourth annual Science Meets Parliament conference. TFW asked him if he would be prepared to comment on the set of six questions below. His answers follow.

1. What do you see are the most pressing needs to improve Australia's contribution to scientific knowledge, and what should the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Minister for Science, the Shadow Minister for Science, the private sector and indeed anyone else be doing to foster the improvement.

2. What would you like to see be done to improve the education from say secondary school onward to better prepare those wanting a scientific career?

3. Is the Australian "science bureaucracy" top-heavy with "old fogies" and if so what should be done about it?

4. In your opinion how much of a positive impact has Science Meets Parliament had on the Government's support for research and development at the basic, strategic and applied levels as well as education with respect to the sciences?

5. Were you to set down a list of Australia's research priorities what would you put, in what order and why?

6. What needs to change to improve the young scientist's satisfaction with her/his vocation and life, and contributions to the "common wealth"?
 

First off, some general points:

Science Meets Parliament (SmP) was, for me, an extremely satisfying experience. In the broader context, SmP is about more than the current issues facing the R&D community, it is about meeting people face to face. Experiencing, rather than assuming, talking from the heart rather than writing submissions and breaking down any "us and them" prejudices that either the scientists or politicians may have. Despite all the communication technology we have at our disposal in this day and age, you still cannot beat that old "come in, sit down, and let's talk about what's on your mind" approach.

I haven't been to SmP before. And these are the words of one scientist; they may not be representative of the whole community. I do not sit on any boards or committees, I sit on an ergonomic chair.

Now, onto the questions:

1. What do you see are the most pressing needs to improve Australia's contribution to scientific knowledge, and what should the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Minister for Science, the Shadow Minister for Science, the private sector and indeed anyone else be doing to foster the improvement.

A big question. First of all, the record shows that historically, Australia has made a tremendous contribution to scientific knowledge. But we need to sustain it. There are several parallel contributions to be made:

1. the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Minister for Science, the Shadow Minister for Science, let me just call this "government".

a) It's their portfolio, they need to talk it up. Tell the success stories of Australian science. R&D is an investment not a cost. (And, long term, R&D investments stack up pretty well!)

b) Setting goals in the national interest, viz the National Research Priorities that provide a focus for delivering R&D outcomes is very important. It is "big picture stuff".

c) And set up the mechanisms that provide support to R&D. A lot of support. Not to say this is not being done; the Backing Australia's Ability strategy is a fine start, but in particular we need government incentives to encourage the private sector to increase R&D investment to levels closer to that of our OECD competitors. Postdoctoral fellowships to industry will also help forge the "people links" between industry and R&D providers.
 

2. Private Sector.
With the government's help, we need to get the private sector to really think R&D. And not just the big companies. The SME's need to get in on the act. Do not assume that scientists have their heads in the clouds and can't solve your real-world immediate problems. Ask us. Maybe we can. And get involved in the CRC's that address problems in your area and profit from the solutions.

3. Anyone else?
Media. It'd be nice to see the mainstream media carry more Australian science stories. I'd certainly like to see more television programs that look at science, engineering and innovation issues.
 

2. What would you like to see be done to improve the education from say secondary school onward to better prepare those wanting a scientific career?

-Science teacher fellowships: Get secondary school science teachers into the lab for a while, give them exposure to some area of cutting-edge research and get them to take that enthusiasm back to the classroom with them.

-Get rid of differential HECS for science and maths teachers. Say I wanted to study to become a teacher. Why would I study to become a maths or science teacher instead of a humanities teacher  if I end up in a job with the same pay but more HECS to pay off?

-Look very carefully at the issue of additional HECS that universities may be permitted to charge and how it may affect science and engineering faculties.

-Incentives for work experience programs (or at least better advertised ones) at both secondary and tertiary levels. You get far more out of experiential learning than term after term of "word lessons". If I'm a student keen on science and I want to find out more about a career, there's no better way than to actually live it for a week or two.
 

3. Is the Australian "science bureaucracy" top-heavy with "old fogies" and if so what should be done about it?

Nope, not that I've seen. Science bureaucracy is really a bunch of people with tremendous R&D experience who are using that experience to set research directions. Of course, we need to be careful to adopt a balanced approach - not directing research into our own "soft-spot" areas - and keeping up with new developments is always a challenge. But I see the "science bureaucracy" contributing beneficially.
 

4. In your opinion how much of a positive impact has Science Meets Parliament had on the Government's support for research and development at the basic, strategic and applied levels as well as education with respect to the sciences?

Can't really answer that one, I have not been involved in previous SmPs and don't feel I'm in an informed position to rate their long-term effect. Having said that, how can there be anything other than a positive effect? Through SmP we are increasing awareness and broadening perspectives for both scientists and parliamentarians. Parliamentarians get to see the human side of science and scientists perhaps have had a few myths shattered about parliamentarians.
 

5. Were you to set down a list of Australia's research priorities what would you put, in what order and why?

This is my personal list. It's a mighty difficult task to whittle it down to 5.

6. What needs to change to improve the young scientist's satisfaction with her/his vocation and life, and contributions to the "common wealth"?

I think young scientists, indeed all scientists, are passionate about what they do and feel that they are contributing to the wealth of the nation. We're certainly not in it for the money! That's not a complaint, that's a statement reflecting a perspective. We're doing it because we love what we do and we think we can make a positive difference.  Young scientists, do, however face a few career dilemmas. The "brain drain", so called; -the attraction of overseas work for better pay or career/research prospects. Do we stick with the team or do we go off-shore?
    It should also be noted, however, that a spell of overseas work is considered a very important part of a scientific career in this country, so ask the question, how many of the brains are actually planning to come back?

The bottleneck in scientific careers that occurs at post-doctoral level is also a problem. Sure you can get a scholarship to do a PhD, but what then? If you CAN get a post-doctoral position, how long is it for? Is it a short-term position? Is it "soft" money?  Better industry links and opportunities for post-docs are really important for the career prospects of many young scientists.


John Sanderson works at CSIRO's Division of Minerals, a postgraduate student with the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Clean Power from Lignite, in an area known as "fluidization" - an applied engineering field dealing with fluid and particulate systems. His current work utilises advanced technology to develop methods for the cleaner combustion of Victorian and South Australian lignites (brown coals) principally for electricity generation. A hobby involves various applications of science and engineering (including fluidization) to the visual arts. He may be contacted at: John.Sanderson@csiro.au.