Editorial 04 December 2001
The Lack of Trenchant
Appraisal |
There appears to be a softly, softly
approach, at
least in public, by the principal organisations representing scientific research
and education in order to stroke the elected powers that be, albeit with a wary hand. So
we see the National Tertiary Education Union welcoming the appointment to
Cabinet of Dr. Brendan Nelson as Minister for Science, Education and Training
while both the
Australian Academy of Science (AAS) and the
Federation of
Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) welcome the appointments of
Dr. Nelson, and Peter McGauran as Minister for Science. Objectively there is
little basis for this warm reception. Dr. Nelson's presiding creditably over an
inquiry into technical training being his major attribute while Mr. McGauran was
Minister for Science and Technology from March 1996 through October 1997, hardly
halcyon days for the furtherance of the nation's scientific excellence. The Group of Eight so
far has declined to issue a public statement.
The AAS' media release has its President, Professor Brian Anderson, choosing
his comment very shrewdly stating that he "paid tribute to the outgoing Minister
for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, for promoting a high
profile for science and for articulating the benefits that science and
innovation can bring to a modern economy. This was possible because Senator
Minchin brought Science into the Cabinet room."
A listing of accomplishments is
carefully avoided. Then perhaps more in hope than anticipation it said, "Anderson added that the appointment of a dedicated and
experienced Minister for Science, Peter
McGauran MP, was welcome, in terms of keeping the government on track to deliver
the promises
articulated by the last Howard ministry.
" 'But support at Cabinet level, particularly by the Prime
Minister, must be sustained. It is important that the
position of Chief Scientist and the prominence of the Prime Minister’s Science,
Engineering and Innovation
Council be maintained.' "
Well, despite protestations to the contrary the Chief Scientist, Dr. Robin Batterham has a "day job" he is Chief Technologist for Rio Tinto Limited
and according to his Governmental job description, "The Chief Scientist's duties are
undertaken part time, involving about two days per week of his time." It is
worth noting that the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor is David King, Professor of
Chemistry, Cambridge while the current US Presidential Science Advisor is
Professor
John Marburger. He is presently on a leave of absence from the State University
of New York at Stony Brook where he served as President and Professor from 1980
to 1994 and as a University Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering from
1994 to 1997. Before being tapped by President Bush, he was serving as Director
of the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory to get it
sorted out. He expects to return to his academic post in due course.
In short both King and Marburger have outstanding records in
academe and expect to continue as researchers once their advisory roles are
concluded as have their predecessors. Those advisory positions are fulltime while the
current Australian Government has opted for a part time appointee with an
industrial background. It would seem that our Government wishes to keep academe
well below the salt.
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council it ought to be considered little more than a sop. Why? Take a look at its web site. Since May 1998 it's held a total of seven meetings the last in June of this year and the date for its next meeting has yet to be decided. There is little indication that the PMSEIC has had a significant impact on the Coalition's outlook with regard to fostering scientific research or teaching from the time of its inception. For the President of the Australian Academy of Science to state that, "the prominence of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council [must] be maintained" is nothing short of ludicrous.
In something of a contrasting tone, the V-C of the Australian National University and President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Professor Ian Chubb, was at least a gentle zephyr of fresh air, "It is no secret that the university sector has had its disagreements with the Government on a number of fundamental issues. No one expects these to evaporate overnight but we do see the appointment of Dr. Nelson as an excellent opportunity to move forward in a constructive dialogue - that at least is our strong hope. Dr. Nelson and the Government have the challenge in front of them. However, they can be assured of the readiness of the AVCC to join with them in examining ways of bringing about continuous improvement for the public university sector in support of the undeniable national need. The AVCC is certainly keen to be part of a new and necessary dialogue on these issues."
Unfortunately whereas Professor Chubb sees the degradation of Australian tertiary education as a grave challenge and a Senate committee refers to "Universities in Crisis" the Howard Government appears quite unperturbed and behaves toward our universities' vice-chancellors much as Don Giovanni treats Leporello at the dining table. Regrettably, it will be Australia that meets Giovanni's fate if a marked improvement in resourcing doesn't occur in the near future. Twelve months ago the Group of Eight placed a reasonably costed proposal on the table of $13.65 billion over the next five years.
The additional investment required over five years (2001-02 to 2005-06) is $4.2 billion from business, $6.75 billion from the Commonwealth and $2.7 billion from other non-Commonwealth sources. This increase in R&D investment could be phased in so that, for example, the Commonwealth contribution would start at $450 million in 2001-02 and rise to $2.25 billion in 2005-06.
It has been utterly ignored.
Perhaps Professor Chubb will have a more sympathetic listener in Dr. Nelson in comparison to his predecessor, but even were that to be the case, whether or not the new minister will be a persuasive advocate in Cabinet is a moot point.
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web