How come? Well the good Dr Nelson was in Hobart yesterday talking up the government's injection of funding for a fibre optic "backbone" to enhance communications for the Tasmanian research community to better interact with colleagues world-wide – surely a cross ministerial matter for the general practitioner and the Queen's Council. As is pointed out below, Dr Nelson decries that "we are bleeding in physics, chemistry, enabling sciences... ."

    What makes the work of Brunner and his colleagues relevant is their assertion that optical telecommunications engineers are unwittingly working at the cutting edge of quantum information theory because, they say, standard processes in fibre-optic networks embody fundamental features of quantum logic which could provide engineers with a simple quantum-based formalism for understanding what happens to their light signals.

    Philip Ball points out in the November 13^th Nature "The  polarization-dependent signal losses that occur in optical devices such as amplifiers amount to a 'postselection' of polarization states; in essence, forcing the wavefunction to collapse into a particular state. These processes are often seen as esoteric aspects of quantum theory. Brunner et al., however, point out that they happen all the time in optical networks."

With the continuing decay of research and teaching in our universities of the enabling sciences Dr Nelson's innuendo that it is caused by the introduction of shonky courses is an outrageous and destructive distortion. While it continues there is little likelihood of Australia regaining ground in the enabling sciences. As a consequence we shall lose increasing touch with leading edge technology to say nothing of the nation's research capabilities and standing.

Quantum information theory is but one example of the increasing dependence of the forefront of technology and innovation on a thorough understanding of the fundamental sciences.  In a phrase, it usually helps to understand what you're doing. Just an idle thought.

University of Newcastle's Pioneering Initiative to Foster Interest in Engineering and the Enabling Sciences Gets Top Recognition. (November 13, 2003)

    In May this year TFW reported, "University of Newcastle Sparks Creative Interest in the Enabling Sciences in Secondary School Students."

Click for enlarged image

     Last night Engineers Australia, recognised the contribution made by the University of Newcastle's "Science and Engineering Challenge" by conferring on it the Sir William Hudson Award, the highest of the Australian Engineering Excellence Awards.  Aimed at Year 9 and 10 students, the challenge presents engineering, science and technology in an inspirational manner in an effort to redress recent declines in students undertaking senior high school level mathematics and science subjects.

    The challenge has grown from 14 participating schools in 2000 to over 120 this year when some 4,000 students took part.

    The growing success of the challenge has been attributed by its initiators to the development of the partnership between the University, Rotary groups, representatives of local industry and business, and teachers.

Dr. Nelson Continues Championing the Australian Battler's Battle Against Shonky University Courses. (November 13, 2003)

    Yesterday the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, was in Hobart announcing the investment of $7 million "alongside the University of Tasmania, CSIRO and the Tasmanian Government to put a fibre optic backbone between Hobart and Launceston" and across Bass Strait. The last exchange between the media and the minister reported by DEST in its edited transcript of the interview runs as follows:

Question:

There were several strong comments in The Australian today from Alan Gilbert, Vice Chancellor of the Melbourne University, about the nature of the reforms to universities. He was comparing them to akin to an authoritarian regime.

 

Brendan Nelson:

The Australian universities are perfectly entitled to develop and offer whatever courses that they think are necessary and appropriate to university education. I have said, however, that the Australian taxpayer, through the Government of the day and the Minister of the day, reserves the right to decide what will or will not be funded in terms of the courses that are provided. Whilst I have absolutely no intention, at all, of removing public funding from any courses in Australian universities, the average Australian taxpayer would wonder why, at a time when we are bleeding in physics, chemistry, enabling sciences, humanities, literature, philosophy and sociology, why are we also funding courses in scepticism, the paranormal, golf course management, surf board riding, make up application for drag queens and a whole variety of courses which are now coming up in Australian higher education. The fact is that into the future it is always possible the university will seek to put public resources into a course that it is perfectly entitled to run, but the Australian taxpayer should always reserve the right to say that, in fact, its priorities may well be in nursing and teaching, or physics and philosophy, rather than make up application for drag queens or surf board riding. And if that’s a necessary intrusion into Australian higher education, I make no apology for it.

Rule 2 in Advice for Minister's: Australian Edition. "Always maintain a stable of straw horses for a quick getaway."

 

Rule 1? Unless asked a question you specifically want asked, never answer it; rather answer one you would want asked.

---

Founded in 1898 Beijing University is in the Process of Reinvention. (November 11, 2003)

    According to a recent article in Science (October 3, 2003) the most prestigious of China's universities is about to introduce "a package of reforms intended to curb academic nepotism and to bring personnel practices in line with those at top institutions around the world. Its chief features include banning the hiring of [Beijing University] graduates immediately out of school, filling more slots with outside talent, and making tenure and promotion more dependent on research productivity." A proposal to keep academic staff to the mark has sent shockwaves through the university. In part the reform "sets deadlines--6 years for lecturers and 9 to 12 years for associate professors--to be promoted to the next level or face dismissal. And it declared that any faculty member, regardless of seniority, could be cut loose if judged to be lagging far behind his or her peers."

    Jiang Feifei, an associate professor of history has reservations. She worries that "people who devote themselves to research but who do not spend time cultivating their superiors ...will be at a disadvantage before tenure committees." Another associate professor claims "In many cases, the candidate's academic performance only counts for 10%, with the rest being seniority and one's personal relationship with officials and appraisal committee members."

    Those advocating the reforms agree that any changes will take time but that there is no alternative if China and Chinese academe want to remain competitive globally. "It is essential that we employ the best possible faculty members, who must be creative and innovative," says economist Zang Weiying, the principal behind the reforms,  "We can wait no longer."

    Currently the university has a total student body of just over 46,000 consisting of: 15,001 undergraduates, 8,119 master candidates, 3,956 doctoral candidates, 18,998 candidates for a correspondence courses or study at the night school and 1,776 international students from 62 countries and regions.
 

Basic Research and a Government Agency. (November 11, 2003)

    While the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation forsook basic research some years back and research for the public good per se has become increasingly more alien to it, the US Department of Energy would seem to be moving in the other direction.

    A 14-member panel, led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Charles Vest was set up by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham last December to review the DOE. It received an earful of complaints. According to the panel, DOE's science budgets have suffered from "the department's historically poor reputation as badly managed, excessively fragmented, and politically unresponsive. The depth of criticism and concern was shocking." In addition the panel found widespread public ignorance about DOE's science programs, which account for 40% of all federal funding in the physical sciences and nearly 20% in mathematics, computing, engineering, and environmental science. The panel advised that a much stronger effort in advocacy should be undertaken by the department but most important it says, "three major, highly visible research initiatives" should be followed. One to  address energy issues, a second to focus on advanced computing, while the third should produce "a frontier research facility for the pursuit of basic science."

    Of course what will eventuate remains to be seen.

The Battle of the Media Releases: Kim Carr vs Brendan Nelson. (November 7, 2003)

    Today the the four member sub-committee of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee tabled its 187 (+20) page report, Hacking Australia’s Future: Threats to institutional autonomy, academic freedom and student choice in Australian higher education which evoked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson's predicably reflex ire. For the record members of the sub-committee were Senator Kim Carr ALP, Victoria Chair; Senator Trish Crossin ALP, Northern Territory, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja AD, South Australia, and Senator John Tierney LP, New South Wales.

Dr. Nelson's opening salvo, "SENATE REPORT INTO HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS A POLITICAL STUNT" sets the tone. "Senator Kim Carr’s report on the Government’s higher education reform package is nothing more than a politically motivated exercise intended to frustrate and delay the Government’s vital higher education reforms. The Government is poised to inject more than $10 billion dollars over ten years in new public investment into Australia’s universities - creating more places, supporting regional universities and lifting standards. ...The Labor Party’s real agenda is to play politics but the cost is to deny universities and students critical support no matter what the long-term cost..." There follows a selected list of the damage the Government sees would be invoked by Labor on the universities and a reiteration of some of the particulars of the Government's package. All quite predicable concluding with, "Australians want their children to be able to attend world-class institutions and obtain a quality education. ...Labor cannot make the hard decisions needed to strengthen Australia’s future. The Government is prepared to make the tough decisions if it means building a quality university system."

And then we have the Shadow Minister for Science and Research, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation, Shadow Minister for the Public Service, Kim Carr releasing his statement on tabling the sub-committee's report. "Today we are here to reveal the results of a 4-month investigation into the Government's dangerous and radical higher education package. We heard from 21 university heads, and not one, not a single one – said the package should pass in its current form. ...The Vice-Chancellors of Melbourne and Sydney University Professors Alan Gilbert and Gavin Brown said it was bureaucracy run riot, and that Dr Nelson had turned into the Frog Prince. Professor Gilbert said the Industrial relations provisions were so heavy handed that they probably weren't worth the money the Government had tied to them." There follows list of the ten plagues Labor sees the Government will visit upon the universities through Dr Nelson's reforms. "It will:"

The Senator conclude, "All of this is so unnecessary. Funds for the universities have been appropriated for 2004. The system can function fully without disruption. There is time to get these things right. ...Will the Government's prescription cure the system. We believe it will not. We believe it will poison our great institutions and with them our future and that of our children."

The report (1Mb, pdf format) is available in full or sections (pdf or MS-Word) from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/highed2003/report/index.htm. It lists forty recommendations and in addition to the majority report contains a 15 page Government Senators' report (Senator Tierney) and an 11 page supplementary report from the Australian Democrats (Senator Stott Despoja).

    Senator Tierney summarises his viewpoint, "The majority report is a document with a short life span, whose findings are of transient relevance, and whose policy ‘directions’ point nowhere. Government senators urge the passage of the Higher Education Support Bill 2003, and accompanying legislation." While Senator Stott Despoja writes, "The Democrats are in agreement with most of the recommendations and observations of the Chair's report. Accordingly, our supplementary comments and recommendations will be confined to additional issues or areas where we have different views to those covered by the Chair."

    It is pertinent that Senator Tierney nowhere refers to the forty recommendations of the report nor gives any of his own while Senator Stott Despoja observes, "The focus of the [Government's] package is not on improving educational outcomes, but on a market ideology with proposed changes that would result in increased stratification in the sector and, more broadly, within society. The package fails to address the ‘crisis’ in which our universities have been since the early 1990s, largely as a direct result of poor grant indexation by both Labor and Coalition Governments." She follows with a list of ten recommendations in addition to those laid down in the majority report which include,

That the Government provide HECS-exempt places to be allocated to equity
groups and fields of study deemed to be areas of national priority, or areas where
there is unmet demand for graduates but little private benefit and high public
benefit (eg. Indigenous and low SES students, nursing, science and maths
teachers).

 

That the proposed FEE-HELP scheme be withdrawn because of the considerable
evidence pointing to the inequities and hardships it will cause for students.

 

...that at a minimum, university base grants be increased by 20% over 2 years to take account of unfunded changes in cost structures since 1996.

 

---

Michael Murray asks, "What Price The Germination of Research Networks?" (November 7, 2003)

    The ARC plan to fund up to 15 Research Networks for about $500,000 a year. Applications are due on 22 March 2004.

To help prepare an application researchers were invited to apply for a maximum of $50,000 in seed funding to be used to survey the field of the network, run a workshop and prepare a web based report due by 9 Feb 2004.

Successful seed funding applications were to be announced by October, but announcements are now delayed until December. However, the 9 Feb deadline has not been moved. This makes the time available to prepare the report rather short, even if one follows the academic tradition of not taking a summer holiday.

The reason for the delay can be guessed from the ARC's announcement:

The ARC received 291 Seed Funding proposals seeking approximately $13.5 million. A sum of $2.5 million is available for Seed Funding. The average requested funding is about $47,000. Over 30 different organisations have submitted applications. The median number of participants listed in the proposals is 27. The median number of different organisations participating in the proposals is 12.

Rumour has it that the ARC will fund half the applications for $17,000 each.

It is interesting to estimate the cost of preparing the applications. At $60 an hour for a Level D and, say, 60 person hours to prepare the application, over $1 million would have been spent just preparing the seed funding applications. The cost of preparing the actual network applications will, of course, be a lot higher than this.

Assoc/Prof Michael Murray, School of Pure Mathematics, University of Adelaide.

Texas Tech University Researcher, Thomas Butler, is on Trial – with the US Department of Justice the Prosecutor. (November 6, 2003)

   Butler, an expert on the plague bacterium Yersinia pestis, faces 69 criminal charges, including illegally importing bacteria samples into the United States, lying to the FBI about 30 vials of plague that went missing from his laboratory, and mishandling grant funds.

    Four Nobel Laureates, Peter Agre, Sidney Altman, Robert Curl, and Torsten Wiesel,  Monday, November 3^rd issued a statement noting that "a growing number of leading scientists, including ourselves, are acutely worried about the handling of the Thomas Butler case by the Department of Justice. Rather than demonstrating the importance of strict care in the handling of research materials--something that all right-minded scientists appreciate--the determination to convict Dr. Butler and put him in jail sends a strong message to the scientific community that runs counter to the best interests of our country and scientific research. It says: this 62-year-old man, who voluntarily reported missing material and cooperated with federal investigators, is now being repaid with a ruined career and a personal cost from which he and his family will never recover. [We] fear that the message sent by this case will intimidate exactly those most involved in bioterrorism-related research – precisely the scientists we need most in this effort of high national priority. As the counts against Dr. Butler and the penalties for his conviction have risen, so has the level of alarm among scientists witnessing this highly publicized case. The alarm of concerned scientists is independent of the issue of Dr. Butler's guilt or innocence. Their worry is based on the unfair and disproportionate treatment to which he has been subjected by federal authorities."

    The journal Science is publishing a daily log of trial events. [Click here]

Is Secondary School Physics in Danger of Dumbing Down? (November 6, 2003)

    University physics department heads have formally criticised secondary school physics syllabuses across the country which they believe have become so crammed with history and sociology that the "essential character of physics as an experimental, quantitative discipline is at risk of being lost altogether." A case in point is a question from this years exam: how did Einstein "change the direction of scientific thinking in the 20th century."

    A good question perhaps to ask at one of the occasional meetings of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, or in history courses or the philosophy of science, but is it really an appropriate subject in a course to teach basic physics? Brian James, head of physics at the University of Sydney, made the point that devoting time in physics classes to, "the significance of physics in our modern society" decreases time spent on working problems, thereby trivialising the curriculum. In a phrase, physics like mathematics is a hierarchical subject. If you don't learn and understand the fundamentals you're not going to be able to grasp the next level of complexity. The point being, how then do we produce the students who are to become Australia's next generation of physicists, physical chemists, and biophysicists. Universities are not supposed to be in the business of teaching year 12 physics, or is that going to be part of the Federal Government's higher education reforms we've not yet been informed of?

In fact the problem goes deeper. As one example, part of the new NSW HSC physics syllabus calls for work requiring the use of liquid nitrogen as well as high-temperature superconductors. Few high schools have access to the resources required, and many of the teachers currently employed to teach physics haven't the knowledge to sensibly discuss high-temperature superconductivity. But then it is of course much cheaper and easier to run courses about physics than to give good physics courses.

Leaked Report to the Sydney Morning Herald Concludes Universities Could be Driven "to axe courses and close campuses by forcing them to rely on increased student fees for funding." (November 6, 2003)

    The SMH's Aban Contractor has become something of a confidant and conduit for the higher education sector and those of its allies with access to confidential governmental information. She reports in today's Herald that months before the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, released his higher education reform package claiming that no institution would be worse off as a result of its changes, Cabinet was advised of the potential dangers. The particular document obtained by Contractor "analysed the impact of the Government package on so-called 'cluster two' courses - including business studies such as accounting, economics and commerce - across Australia's 38 publicly funded universities." The document specifically states that, "Student contributions would need to increase by 19 per cent in order for institutions to maintain funding for those disciplines at current levels." No mention is made by Contractor of any analyses of "course clusters" other than category two.

    Dr. Nelson's department was not prepared to comment on the leaked material.

AVCC Suggests Amendments to the Commonwealth's National Governance Protocols. (November 4, 2003)

    Part of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson's package of reforms for higher education was a group of remarkably prescriptive protocols for university governance. The Chancellors of Australia's universities together with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee yesterday released a statement on university governance, and proposed amendments to the National Governance Protocols for Public Higher Education Institutions. The Chancellors and AVCC add the specific caveat that the protocols being put forward, "should not, however, be construed in any way as conceding that the Commonwealth Government can or should tie access to needed funding with compliance to protocols whether on governance or workplace relations..."

    Following a three page preamble the group lays down its own eleven protocols for the "National Governance for Public Higher Education Institutions".  First on the list? "The university must have its objectives specified in the enabling legislation" which throws up a challenge not only to Dr Nelson, and the Coalition cabinet but to all political parties. In addition the point is made that, "Other than the Vice-Chancellor and the Presiding Member of Academic Board each member [of the governing council] should be appointed or elected ad personam," and "the functions of a member [should be] with the interests of the university as a whole paramount rather than simply as a delegate or representative of a particular constituency." Furthermore, the governing body should have the right by ²/₃ majority to to remove any member of the governing body for breaches of duty.

    The Chancellors and the AVCC do agree that the size of governing bodies should be limited, suggesting 22, that at least two should have financial expertise, and at least one commercial expertise. A majority of the body should be external to the university. They make the final point that a university's ventures should be subject to specific external audit where they "are not subject to audit by a State, Territory or Commonwealth Auditor-General".

Taken as a whole, the document is a strong bid by the Chancellors and the AVCC to maintain university autonomy in determining its reason for existence while showing public responsibility for how it goes about discharging its duty to the community. Whether or not it will help to persuade to  Federal Government to stay out of micromanagement