SCIENCE AT THE SHINE DOME canberra 7 - 9 may 2008
President's address
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Distinguished guests, Fellows, ladies and gentlemen. As President, I welcome you to the fifty-fourth annual meeting of the Australian Academy of Science.
You must excuse me if I start with similar words as last year. For what I said then is equally true today. Namely, that yesterday we heard about some of the wonderful science that has been done by our new Fellows and today we will hear more about frontier science from our medalists. A primary objective of the Academy is to recognise outstanding contributions to science and this we clearly do well if the presentations of yesterday and the promise of today are any guide. Our newly elected Fellows and our new medallists present what is best in Australian science: creativeness, intellectual leadership, and an underlying awareness of what is important, not just for their area of science but for Australia and the community in general. But as I said then, and emphasise again today, the Academy’s activities do not stop at just recognising good science. We are also concerned with the translation of science into policy and actions that are beneficial to society as a whole. (I hasten to add that when I use the word science, it is shorthand to include mathematics, technology, engineering, health, agriculture etc.)
Why do we do this? We do it because what we would like and expect Australia to be is a healthy, highly educated, prosperous and vibrant society with a diversified economy that is based not just on natural resources but also on its intellectual resources. Climate change and offshore economic downturns attest to the uncertainties that arise if there is an over-dependence on natural resources and the examples of Finland and Switzerland show how naturally resource-poor countries can thrive when investments in science and technology are made. Thus what we like to see is a strong science and technology based economy that is internationally competitive leading to a society that does not live by science alone but that it is able to make effective use of science to enhance the overall quality of life.
Why we think that the Academy is well positioned to, and in fact obligated to, address such a ‘big-picture’ goal is because, through our membership and through our national committees, we represent a vast intellectual resource that can be harnessed to both the specific and the broad science issues. We are a community that represents researchers from the universities and the government-funded research agencies, with a sprinkling from industry, although to my mind not sufficiently thick, that largely leaves its own institutional interests at the door when it comes to the task. It is, therefore, one that is able to provide independent in-depth and authoritative assessments and one that is capable of identifying the potential wider implications of what are sometimes seen as easy solutions.
How we think that we can contribute to this ‘big picture’ goal is spelled out in our September 2007 policy statement Research and innovation in Australia1 which made ten recommendations (I refrain from using the term commandments) that, if fulfilled, would go a long way towards the science and technology underpinning our aspirations. Unlike the Ten Commandments, this is not a document set in stone but merely a stepping-stone in an evolving contribution to the debate on S&T in the world.
We are not alone of course in our vision. The National Innovation System Review announced by Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, identifies a government that recognises that innovation plays a ‘vital role in productivity and economic growth and in meeting the challenges Australia faces2.’
Nor are we out of line in our recommendations. Notably we have argued strongly for the need to invest in the nation’s research capability by developing career paths for mid-career researchers in Australia and I am pleased that this became an election promise and now policy, in the form of the Future Fellowships by the now Prime Minister Rudd government.
And in developing our policy we are not stepping beyond what have been traditional areas of AAS contributions and we have not suddenly embarked on new roads to Damascus. Our programs have for many years focussed successfully on the development and execution of:
- education and public awareness programs;
- international programs; and
- science policy.
It is this that enables us to deliver advice that is generally respected by government and its research agencies. With a new government we will have to work at developing this respect but so far we are on track. Recently the prime minister wrote thanking the Academy ‘for the contributions you have made to help us successfully put forward a new plan for Australia’s future.’ We will follow with interest as to how our vision meshes with government action.
While the policy development is an important part of our activity, I would be remiss if I didn’t say something about the other two components, if for no other reason than it will be the success of education and the globalisation of our science efforts that will determine in part our ability to successfully execute any science policy.
Education
Where a successful science and technology based economy starts is with education. Education that maintains the stream of creative researchers who will lead science and technology into the future, and education that permits the community as a whole to be scientifically literate, one that is able to contribute constructively to the debates on the issues that affect us all.
That school science education is a core component of Academy business has been recognised by a succession of presidents from the time of the Primary Investigations3 program under Professor Gus Nossal and this has been reinforced by the Primary Connections and Science by Doing programs introduced by my immediate predecessor, Dr Jim Peacock. The Primary Connections program of linking science through literacy4 has been quite spectacular in its inroads into the school community with nearly 80,000 instructional units purchased by about 2500 schools. That represents more than one third of all Australian primary schools across all states and jurisdictions. But it cannot stop there: we have to increase the penetration and the curriculum products and facilitator programs will need constant expansion and revision.
One unfortunate outcome of the election in 2007 is that government support for both our primary and secondary programs ends this year, such that there is danger of loss of momentum as a new government comes to grips with its priorities while at the same time trying to distance itself from its predecessor’s policies. But I am confident that our Primary Connections program is sufficiently robust to survive this transition as it continues to receive strong support from within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). In particular, two weeks ago Minister Gillard launched the latest resource unit Schoolyard safari in Mossfiel Primary School in her electorate where she provided enthusiastic support for the program.
Science by Doing,5 is more precarious. The pilot program aims to improve secondary students’ engagement with science and to ensure that enthusiasm and talent developed during the exposure to Primary Connections is not lost in the transition to secondary school. With DEEWR funding, the pilot program has developed web-based resources for years 7 to 10: these are currently under trial and evaluation in schools across the nation. Some 65 teachers from 34 schools across Australia have been introduced to the Science by Doing approach of inquiry-based science education and the program is currently undergoing review. But this funding ends later this year and as yet there is no commitment to go beyond the pilot phase. This is of concern because any break in the program will not only leave committed teachers stranded but will also result in a break-up of a very effective team of Academy staff.
University education is obviously also a matter of concern for the Academy but so far we have not deigned to enter seriously into this debate. We do not normally enter into decisions made by individual institutions but sometimes the rationale for these decisions points to a bigger problem and do bear comment. Thus if universities are cutting back mathematics and physics departments because they do not meet the enrolment targets of funding models then this would be of concern because it undermines not only the very thing that is required, namely more well-qualified students in these disciplines, but also the mathematics and physics teaching underpinning other disciplines.
International programs
Amongst a nation’s strongest assets are its S&T capabilities. It is not only evidence that a country can take a rightful seat amongst developed nations but it is its insurance policy for the future. This is one of the main arguments, I believe, why we must maintain a broad-based core science capability in our universities and other research capabilities such that we can access the 97% of research that we do not create and are able to use it to shape those developments to Australian needs.
Australia, of course, is not alone in recognising the importance of internationalisation of science and the globalisation of the science workforce. Economies larger than those of Australia also recognise that they cannot go it alone. The UK, in The race to the top6, has accepted that it needs to make international collaboration a core part of its strategy in order to access the 90% of the S&T that it does not produce, and has taken proactive steps to capture this. Interestingly, this includes a recommendation that the Royal Society makes better use of its diaspora, something that we as an Academy should also be thinking about much more. In Rising above the gathering storm7 the USA, likewise, recognises that to maintain its S&T pre-eminence it needs to make the US the most attractive setting in which to ‘recruit the best and brightest students, scientists, and engineers from … throughout the world.’
Even amongst the developing nations there is recognition of the importance of improving their globalisation of science beyond being just a recipient of aid. As the President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Professor Lu YongXiang, has noted, and I quote from memory, ‘we encourage our graduates to go abroad to widen their experience and our challenge is to create an environment where it is attractive for these same students to return to China and contribute to our R&D efforts.’
This has parallels for Australia. How do we maintain timely access to the knowledge not created in Australia? How do we turn that knowledge into economic benefit for the country and, in the face of strong international competition, how do we create the incentives that will attract Australia’s diaspora back to Australia?
This is not the time for a careful analysis of the role of international relations in science because it extends beyond what an Academy alone can do. But since its inception the Academy has been a constant in recognising the importance of the globalisation of S&T and there are some specific components where the Academy has and can continue to play a significant role because of its high reputation as an independent body that represents the best in Australian science, and because it has access to the leading scientists of the world through its international network. It can, thereby, identify new directions at early stages of their development, identify needs and opportunities, and develop and manage seed programs to encourage returns to Australia.
An historical role of the Academy’s international program is as a gateway to the world’s scientific organisations, including ICSU and its adhering unions and associations. Because of greater mobility and better communications this role has moved on a long way from simply being a forum for quadrennial meetings. But it continues to be an important role in organising international science, particularly when it comes to global observation programs in areas of climate and weather science, in oceanography and Antarctic campaigns, and in ecosystem, biodiversity and environmental questions of global impact. The extent of, and benefits from, Australia’s participation in these global networks have been well documented in an Academy study8. These include a high number of scientists involved in leadership roles in global scientific organisations; a large number of international scientific conferences held in Australia as a consequence of this leadership role; these conferences showcase Australia’s scientific capabilities and introduce the next generation of researchers to the international scene who in turn create the environment for new bilateral and multilateral links and further enhance Australian involvement in international science.
One international body with which the Academy has increasing interaction is the InterAcademy Panel (IAP), an organisation created in 1993 to prepare common statements on major issues of international concern. It came about in part through the UN secretary general who found that existing science advisory bodies were slow in responding to requests for advice and that the advice, by the time it reached him, was frequently tainted by political considerations. In particular he had discovered that scientists, when left alone, were able to reach agreement on science issues even when they started from divergent positions and that the advice, therefore was reliable in terms of what are accepted facts and what are uncertainties. Since its first statement on population growth, prepared for the UN Population Conference in 1994, it has produced statements on, inter alia, a ban on human reproductive cloning, biosecurity, and the teaching of evolution. In 2002 the IAP created a second organisation, the InterAcademy Council (IAC), to undertake authoritative science studies, of high scientific and technological content, to underpin policy decision-making by governments and organisations in a timely fashion.
We attach importance to these statements because it is clear that science advice is more readily recognised and applied within international agreements if it comes from an international scientific advisory panel that is established for the purpose.9
If these IAP and IAC functions are constructive at international levels, so would be parallel developments at national levels and a secondary and important function of IAP is to provide a mutual support for building this capacity, not only in developing nations, to provide science-based advice to national and regional policy makers.
Another area where the Academy plays an important role is in the from-the-bottom-up bilateral scientist-to-scientist exchange programs. These are the building blocks to the long-term viability of collaboration and for the maintenance of the skills base, and we aim to direct these exchanges particularly at younger scientists and into areas of emerging new science. This is in recognition that this is how the linkages are created that create tomorrow’s returns. Our programs also include bilateral workshops targeted at specific countries and topics such as the recent Indonesian workshop on infectious diseases, and the workshop currently running in Brazil on biotechnology innovations in agriculture.
Another program is the US NSF Summer Program in which American graduate students in science and engineering conduct research in Australian laboratories. One unintentional but beneficial consequence of this program, and one that we probably should not emphasise, has been the significant percentage of the US students who have subsequently returned to Australia to take up PhD studies or postdoctoral fellowships or because of person-to person relations established during their initial visit. The importance of bringing young scientists to Australia cannot be overestimated!
It is worthwhile mentioning in this context that in a study of global attitudes by the Pew Research Center10 that Australia is cited highly as the leading land of opportunity. And that was before the last election!
But these programs are modest and more needs to be done if this is to be the seeding grounds for the future. There must be greater participation, including from the non-university research and development laboratories and, importantly, from industry partners. In particular there must be a greater spread of countries targeted for collaboration; there must be a full range of science, in its broadest sense, involved; and there must be flexibility in the program such that specific proposals can be quickly developed and executed.
Governments have also come to the realisation that exchange programs are more than just government supported overseas holidays for irresponsible academics. Those of you who were on the bilateral exchange committee with me a decade back will know what I am referring to. A PMSEIC [Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council] working group report in 200611 identified the many benefits and the reasons why Australia must expand its presence on the international science stage and these arguments are still valid today; because they were drawn up by scientists and industrialists independent of a particular government policy or ideology. Many of the messages therein can, in fact, be found also in the recent statements from Minister Carr: for example, ‘international collaboration is the key to stimulating Australian innovation and the Rudd Government is committed to facilitating international partnerships wherever we can find them.’
I am heartened by the words repeated on several occasions by the Prime Minister: that simply because a policy originated from the previous government that is no reason for not pursuing it if it makes good sense. Well this is a matter that makes good sense and the PMSEIC working group report, together with the Academy programs, form a good starting point in building up Australia’s engagement with global science.
Around the world there is a growing recognition of the importance of enhanced scientific input into government policy making, as well as the recognition that S&T developments do not occur in national isolation. The corollary is that S&T should also be an important component in broader international relations. This has been recognised, for example, in the US with the appointment of a science and technology advisor to the secretary of state to lead the Science and diplomacy: Strengthening state for the 21st century initiative that originated with the US National Research Council12. In the UK the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has expanded their science officer posts tenfold since 2001 with the coordinated activities closely linked to the chief scientific advisor.13 In other countries as well, S&T is a visible and active part of foreign policy development.
But government agencies alone cannot do this effectively because they do not link into the network where the real scientific knowledge resides and a strong case can be made for why the academies should be involved in this process. Again, this is not the time to develop this but an illustration based on the China experience is appropriate.
The Academy has had relations with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) since about 1964 and a low and variable level of contact was maintained in a time span that covered the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square episodes. In 2002 this took a major new direction through our invitation to the CAS president to visit Academy of Science. Out of this have flowed the annual China–Australia workshops, run jointly with the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and funded by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology. From these contacts have come the China–Australia Center for Water at the University of Melbourne, The Australia–China Phenomics Centre between the Australian National University and the CAS Institute for Biophysics, collaborative projects between BHP and the Graduate University of CAS in Beijing, the Australia Garden in southern China, energy projects focused on clean coal technologies, and a number of collaborative programs between Queensland and Chinese institutions. A key element in initiating these projects has been the relationship between the academies with its ability to identify compatible interests and to bring key people together. Obviously I should not overlook the other key element, funding from DIISR, but that only reinforces the point that real progress only occurs through collaboration between the academies and the government agencies.
Final word
Globalisation of science will, of course, only work if there is the capability at home to absorb and build on the knowledge created. As I mentioned early on, the Academy has presented a ten-point plan on what we think is required to achieve this. There are many parallels between these points and the government’s own statements. A potential concern would be if the many announcements for reviews of areas of innovation, research, and technology become an excuse for no action on the S&T front in the next financial year. So we will be watching with interest and I look forward to being able to tick off on many of our ten points by this time next year.
