The following conScience column is reprinted from  Australasian Science, June 2003 with permission.

A Mindset of Denial

Alex Reisner responds to the Science Minister¹s criticisms of his conScience article.

Mr McGauran rightly points out that the National Science Board's table compares the ratio of a country's average citations per publication with the world average. Nonetheless, the Minister¹s criticism does not negate the conclusion of  "a worrisome decline in the relative importance of our scientific literature" in moving from equal ninth to 14^th place. Mr McGauran cites a "time-trend published by the Australian Academy of Science" (AAS).

The 2001 study is by Linda Butler of the Australian National University. In a submission of the Academy's views for the Department of Education, Science and Training's "Crossroads" review, Michael Barber, Secretary, Science Policy of the AAS, wrote:

Last October the Academy published a report which showed that Australia's share of scientific publications had increased markedly over the 1990s but the relative impact of Australia¹s publications, as measured by citations, had declined and continues to fall behind most other OECD countries. Even more disquieting are the findings reported by Linda Butler in her submission to this review that this increase in university output has occurred disproportionately in journals of lower impact. ...The Academy concurs with Butler.

Butler's study is in line with the National Science Board's assessment. In a personal communication, Ms Butler said Prof Barber's conclusions drawn from her analyses coincided with her own. "Mr McGauran¹s interpretation of the data in my report is not accurate," she added. Furthermore, in her submission to the "Crossroads" review she states in Key Findings: "Australia¹s R&D performance continues to fall well below the OECD average... Australia now falls behind Japan, North American, Scandinavian and most Western European countries."

Mr McGauran also takes issue with the conclusion that there has been an alarming staffing decline in the enabling sciences. In support he quotes Australian Bureau of Statistics figures (1994­2000) showing that mathematics staffing levels declined 21% while physics rose 4% and chemistry10%. Yet analyses done by A/Prof John O'Connor of the University of Newcastle and immediate Past President of the Australian Institute of Physics indicate marked declines in all three of the disciplines (Fig. 1). This work was considered to be of sufficient validity for the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies to incorporate it into its 2002 policy statement to illustrate "the decline in the teaching capacity in higher education for the enabling sciences." When shown Mr McGauran¹s assessment, A/Prof. O¹Connor said:

The key to the long-term viability of the enabling sciences in Australia is the number of full-time ongoing academics who also research. Such full-time appointments are the core and continuity of a discipline. Their numbers are declining as government funding to universities declines. An increase in physicists and chemists is due to increasing research-only positions. While welcome, they don't teach the next generation of scientists and are usually fixed-term contract positions.

Mr McGauran takes issue with the Group of Eight's (Go8) assessment of Australia's support for R&D (per cent of GERD/GDP) compared with the OECD (Fig. 2). The Go8 chart shows the OECD value falling to 2.1% in 1994­95 (Australia 1.7%) rising to 2.25% by 2000­01 (Australia 1.54). During the same period Australian business expenditure on R&D (BERD) dropped to 0.7% after previously rising from ~0.52% to ~0.87%.

The GERD projection for Australia through 2005­06 incorporates the effect of the $2.9 billion commitment in Backing Australia's Ability, and is based on Treasury¹s projected GDP growth as given in the 2002­03 budget. BERD is assumed unchanged. Latest figures show a recent significant increase in BERD but still lagging behind 1995­96 levels.

It seems unlikely that Australia's commitment to R&D as a percentage of GDP will significantly close the gap between us and the OECD average, keeping in mind that the European Union and Canada have set a goal of 3% by 2010. It may not be reached, but it¹s up front.

Alex Reisner is a former CSIRO molecular biologist who comments on science and education policy for for The Funneled Web.  Supplementary information to this article is available at the-funneled-web.com/response.htm