ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM

Australia's science future 3-4 May 2000
Full listing of papers

Symposium themes

Overview (based on a summary delivered at the end of the meeting by Sir Gustav Nossal)

Emeritus Professor Sir Gustav Nossal is Australian of the Year. He is a former Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne and a former President of the Australian Academy of Science.

After this concentrated two-day intellectual feast, it’s my privilege to offer a few reflections by way of summary and conclusions. This special Y2K AGM has been a long time in planning, very ambitious in scope and with a satisfyingly large and diverse audience. It has maintained interest to the very end of the sessions.

Global change

We started with a look at the global environment. I still find it mindblowing that a single species, perhaps prematurely named Homo sapiens sapiens, can materially alter the whole biosphere. The sad saga of loss of species and biodiversity, land degradation, atmospheric change and possible climate change has rightly engaged society enormously. It’s equally mindblowing that Homo sapiens as a collective can will to increase the damage or will to correct or limit it.

The scientist carries huge responsibilities in this situation. As was pointed out, natural scientists are uncomfortable when required to recommend actions in the face of incomplete knowledge and considerable uncertainty. Yet this is what scientists as citizens, as leaders in the new knowledge-based economy, must try to do, not just in this field but in many others. Our comportment here will be critical. We must engage the political dimension, yet not get too caught up in it. We must try to factor out emotion and reach our decisions on the balance of probabilities. In doing so, we must not be captured by political correctness and we must maintain a residue of healthy scepticism.

I was fascinated to hear the view expressed that social scientists may in fact be better at coping with uncertainty than natural scientists. And I found myself deeply aligned with the plea for a new kind of integrated, whole systems science, an interdisciplinary approach of huge and ambitious scope. Surely there is a role for the four Australian Academies to give leadership here.

This session and indeed most of the others revealed a surprising fact. Aussie scientists are punching above their weight in the international science system. They are listened to with respect, often leading the debate. I wish more Australians knew this. In eight years on the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council I saw three Prime Ministers undergo a revelation. They didn’t know how good Australian science was until PMSEIC began to work on them. We need to get the good news out.

Mind and brain

And so to mind and brain, our second discussion area. Though the research is still at the very beginning I found it extraordinary that the anatomy and physiology of processes close to the very root of our humanity have recently advanced. Emotions, memory, learning, even cognition neural networks and anatomical location are beginning to be defined. Of course it is early days, but the thought that we are getting to grips with the anatomy, physiology and biochemistry of emotion is awesome.

We are seeing a revolution in the treatment of psychoses by way of drugs which are getting ever more intelligent. The knowledge and discovery does raise the fear of the recreational use of modulators of nervous system behaviour. We already have alcohol, nicotine, marujuana and, at a tragically increasing rate, heroin. Is a brave new world going to dawn? What will our grandchildren think?

In any case, the changes in perception of mental illnesses as essentially biochemical disorders in a way, just another disease that happens to affect the brain should lead to progressive destigmatisation of these distressing and all too common conditions.

Our encounter with bees, singly or in swarms, was a timely reminder of the importance of models in science. Profound insights into complex phenomena can come from imaginative and persistent exploration of simple, reductionistic experiments. Who of us will not retain two powerful, bee-based impressions: the savvy robot with bee-like eye and brain; and swarms of simple, cheap robots doing all our exploration in distant, dangerous places. Fast forward to this morning. What will it be? Elaborate human-like robots or lots of simple bee-like robots?

Energy

Our session on energy brought us some sobering facts and projections about the world’s largest industry, serving as a useful reality check in the global climate change debate. It was stunning to hear the view that renewable energy sources really could not mitigate against greenhouse before 2030, even on the most optimistic scenarios. The brave new post-Kyoto world is driving rapid change, with amazingly high growth rates for alternative energy sources, but the base from which we are coming is terribly low. Will the change be fast enough?

Again, and again uncomfortably, we ran into national and international politics. I reacted sympathetically to the idea that we should look beyond the simple cash value of each alternative energy source and begin to develop national and international full cost accounting, taking into account local and global externalities. But this will be horrendously unpopular politically, particularly in a nation which is a net energy exporter and with lots of marginal seats. Again, the social scientists and economists will have to stand shoulder to shoulder with us; again a chance for concerted action between the four Academies.

Molecular structure and recognition

The wonderful session on molecular structure and recognition presented us with some startling contrasts. Who would not be wildly excited about the imminent completion of the human genome project, giving us a dictionary of enormous power; but who would not be daunted by the realisation that it still takes 12 years plus to develop a drug; and that the field of functional genomics figuring out what each gene actually does in health and disease will clearly represent many decades of work? Still, it was made clear that both drug discovery and fundamental medical research have been irreversibly revolutionised.

The implications for Australia remain quite challenging. Australia is in an excellent position at the fundamental end, with a tradition of excellence being stoutly maintained. But we are still poor at commercialisation. We have a growing venture capital industry and the desire and capacity for spin-off companies is accelerating. We have a continuing need for partnerships with multinationals when investing $500 million for a new drug but the deals we are capable of striking are improving. Public expenditure on medical research is growing; so there is a reasonable balance between public and private research.

We are still a tiny player in world terms. But we need to keep up the pressure. I have a distinct impression we are on a roll; governments at least are onside. But we should have no illusion as to how hard it will be to reach a satisfactory position in this field. The potential of the new biotechnology is limitless; but the cost none of it comes cheaply.

IT, telecommunications and robotics

Having attempted to digest the hope, the hype and the pricked balloon of the IT&T revolution on the financial pages of the newspapers, it was really good to get an update on the science and technology. How extraordinary this factorial growth in the use of the Internet since its humble birth as a device to keep university academics talking to one another. How reassuring to learn that even experts find the web unreliable and user-unfriendly. I thought it was all my own fault for being just too plain old. How persuasive the case that B2B ecommerce would, in the medium term, be of more lasting value and interest than B2C with the capacity to create virtual companies. How compelling all the anti-Luddite arguments that we heard and with which I profoundly agree and if jobs were to be lost, they would be the dirty, dangerous and dreary ones! How absolutely decisive the case that, as in the biotechnology industry, the only market that matters is the global one, Australia having to be fast and nimble to find its niche or niches.

The angle I wish to explore in a touch more depth is distance education and virtual universities. I’ll give you an example of how fast perceptions can change. A few years ago a National Academies Forum symposium on the West report into higher education dissected electronic learning. Almost all the Fellows heavily criticised wired universities. Now we have Universitas 21, three Australian universities linking with 15 others to see what a virtual university would actually look like in the 21st century. The University of Melbourne is very active, in partnership with Rupert Murdoch, looking for a partnership with Microsoft, and interested in India and China. Of course this will not displace campus-based universities but co-exist with them. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Alan Gilbert, believes Universitas 21 has a 9-month lead on US and UK universities.

There is no question of whether electronic learning is going to happen, it will. It only costs 5 per cent of a campus-based university. The only question is whether Australia will be part of it.

The Internet is a tool of hope for the third world. It is tremendously liberating and also a force against closed systems of government.

Genetic engineering

Who would have thought that plant and animal science were so similar? Gene science is unifying biology, the boundaries have all but disappeared. Furthermore, a new discovery in one bioscience spreads like wildfire to all cousin sciences. Perhaps this is the most remarkable aspect of the DNA revolution. We used to be worried about too much specialisation; the opposite is occurring in biology. This needs to be celebrated more widely.

We need to avoid hysteria about GMOs but we also need to be market savvy. Today Australia enjoys a market advantage from being clean and green, with no genetically modified foodstuffs. But I will argue for research into genetically modified foods, recognising that if there is a breakthrough today it will be 10 years till the new crop is harvested. It will need isolation testing in the greenhouse, then a limited field study with sentinel plants, then a single farm trial. So there is no mad rush to thrust GMOs down society’s throat.

Already critics of GMOs are discriminating between gene transfers within species and crossing between species. Wheat to wheat is okay but salmon to plant offends nature. Scientists must be honest and patient communicators, not scorning or scoffing. Look case by case. If we look at pharmaceutical history in the 1970s and 1980s; now we take interferon, hepatitis B vaccine and kidney dialysis for granted.

There is legitimate concern that two or three multinationals will dominate in seeds. We need to widen the research base.

Edible vaccines are very long term. Raw potatoes containing cholera virus may not be palatable for ages.

When we look at animal and human gene science, inchoate fears increase hugely at the thought of human cloning. This has a long time horizon; there is an enormous amount more learning to do. Even using embryonic stem cells to produce human organs is ages away. Positive eugenics remains in the realm of science fiction. I share the excitement from a long-term point of view but we should be careful to point out the length of the research and development and eventually the regulatory pathway.

The universe

There is, I believe, always a sense of awe and reverence when one contemplates the cosmos, and particularly the brave attempts to create a continuum of understanding from sub-atomic particles, relativity theory and quantum mechanics at one end and huge numbers of galaxies, supernovae and the edge of the universe at the other. There is something about this which resembles a religious experience.

I had already been prepared to put the Young Australian of the Year on a pedestal before I met him last night. He did a great job of unlocking the secrets of the heavens for us. But, more than this, what a salesman for a $100 million dollar ARC grant. He really makes Gus Nossal look like a raw amateur. Indeed, the whole session cemented my point about Australians bestriding the world and giving leadership. It’s a clear example of excellence begetting excellence and the founders of this tradition should be very proud of their successors.

Ageing

I remember Macfarlane Burnet saying that we are four-dimensional clones in space-time. Just like our study of the universe, the session on ageing made me reflect on the seamless continuum of science the 100 million-fold magnification needed to see the birth of stars, to see a protein molecule, the triumphs of cell biology, the advance in understanding of organs, individuals, whole species and whole societies.

Again, sorry for the cracked gramophone record, Australians were prominent in the ageing story particularly at the cellular level the discovery by John Kerr of apoptosis or physiological cell death, the discovery by David Vaux of the first element of the molecular control of apoptosis, for which he will be receiving the Gottschalk medal tomorrow, the grand initial work of Elizabeth Blackburn on telomeres and telomerase in cell division, the many elaborations and extensions of cellular ageing just presented.

As in the other sessions we sought to bring this fundamental research into social relevance, linking the molecular aspects to disease. While there are gaps, they are being intelligently tackled. For example, we heard a fascinating presentation about cumulative errors in DNA versus repair, but in ageing the balance finally tips over. It’s an extremely impressive theory. Then we heard about the modulation of this process by antioxidants. Adams and Cory winners of the Australia prize and the Burnet medal discovered how the DNA strand breaks with incorrect repair, setting the stage for cancer. Of course cancer is age-related. The whole idea of repair and the four-dimensional clone is full of interest.

How good that, in the spirit of the whole symposium, we looked at the sociological dimension in the last talk. I spent most of my 40 years at the lab bench in the purest of pure research. In the last 10 of these I became increasingly committed to sociological elements, particularly health promotion. The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health is a beautiful example of research applied to health promotion. A fitting crescendo to our endeavours.

This special millennial AGM symposium meant a lot of work by many people. The fusion of senior team leaders and younger superstars as presenters worked particularly well. The symposium illustrated what great shape Australian science is in, despite the limits of funding which we all know about. It is a precious heritage which the Academy must protect.

Those 250 or so who stuck with it learnt a lot. The website will enlarge the audience. It shows the Academy can do this so well, continuing to give emphasis to our educational mission. I was pleased at the mention given to the Academy’s primary school program, Primary Investigations.

How can we broaden the reach still further? Perhaps videotape. Perhaps selecting a session for mass television screening. Perhaps an extra special effort for the highest media presence. I congratulate the Academy on this initiative in buoying our spirits.

4 May 2000