Opinion - 29 June 2001


Could Broad Spectrum Research Into Dragons Be The Answer?

Nearly twenty-five years ago ecologist Robert May (Nature 264: 16-17 (1976)) observed that dragons, griffons and such ilk are hexapods (four legs, two wings). As such they are fundamentally different from all four limbed vertebrates, including wyverns and cockatrice (two legs two wings). Whether or not the additional pair of appendages developed relatively recently is unclear as there are no fossil records, but historical documents are clear on several aspects of dragon behaviour one of which is, "the tendency exhibited by most dragons of record to be obsessive custodians of  hordes of gold."

And perhaps herein lies the answer to the perplexing problem of the immediate cost of funding a Knowledge Nation or as the Canadians have dubbed it a Culture of Creativity. As the now President of the Royal Society (and immediate past UK Chief Scientist) pointed out in his 1976 paper, "I conclude with the time-worn call for further research, modified by the highly contemporary remark that (if the above speculation is correct) such research may yield the literally golden fruits that grant-giving agencies increasingly desire."

Immediately Kim Beazley made the Chifley paper available, the government went into active contradiction, pointing out that the report had not used the most recent OECD figures, and we were now in fact a bit above average regarding spending on education (as compared to last year). Research and development was ignored.

Nine months ago we hosted the games of the XXVII Olympiad. Just how pleased would we have been had we been been told by our sports-loving Prime Minister that we had finished - average or a bit above? In addition Mr. Howard accused the leader of the Opposition of  ignoring the $2.9 billion the government announced in the January innovation statement, "Backing Australia's Ability." Interestingly he did not refer to the Group of Eight (Australian universities) who published a chilling graph of how we will compare to the OECD over the next five years and who have pleaded for a $12 billion investment by government and industry into research and development. Currently our gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) is 1.4% of GDP; the OECD average? Just over 2%, i.e. 43% above Australia. The Group of Eight estimates that in 2005/06 Australia's GERD as a per-centage of GDP will have dropped to 1.35%. The OECD average for 2005/06? It will have risen to just over 2.2%. Oh, the estimate does indeed include the $2.9 billion announced in the innovation statement. Those figures were not calculated by the government's opposition.

Let's get specific for a moment. Just who constitute the OECD?

Thirty quite diverse countries. And our Prime Minister appears to be telling us  that we should be pleased, from a viewpoint of education, that we are -- about average, 15th or 16th in this group of thirty. Furthermore, our educational infrastructure is in a state of deterioration; average funding won't improve it, it just keeps the white ants at bay.

The question of our competence in research and development isn't even debated, but the data presented by the Group of Eight show clearly that we are not only below the OECD average for gross expenditure on research and development, we are far below average. Furthermore, this has been the case for well over ten years, i.e. we keep falling further and further behind. The additional funding through Backing Australia's Ability will only marginally slow the progressive downward slide, and all the governmental obfuscation in the world will not alter that fact.

Mr. Beazley reiterated in his address to the Sydney Institute that he believes it will take at least a decade to bring Australia back "It will certainly take longer than one term of government to complete these reforms. This is a ten year agenda." While it is true that Labor under Hawke/Keating were in government for exactly 12 years, it would seem unwise not to make every reasonable attempt to develop a consensus between Labor and the Coalition to bring Australia into the top five of OECD nations in the areas of education, research and development. So far there is no tangible evidence of any serious attempt to do so. As a first step, mightn't it be possible for the two political think tanks (the Chifley and Menzies Research Centres) to develop cooperative assessments with a view to formulating a bipartisan policy that would be and would be seen to be exceptionally effective. It is a very simple fact that the fate of the Nation will depend upon it. In short elevate that matter above political combat. Currently Australia seems to be a shuttlecock being struck repeatedly by political opponents, and in the process, rapidly losing its feathers.

We might give Professor May the last word, though admittedly somewhat out of context, "I conclude with the time-worn call for further research, modified by the highly contemporary remark that (if the above speculation is correct) such research may yield the literally golden fruits..."

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web