NATIONAL COMMITTEES

Meeting of chairs of national committees – Summary of proceedings

22 March 2007

Welcome by Professor Kurt Lambeck FAA

The members of the National Committees were called together to discuss two issues in science raised during an initial survey to members. These relate to the “erosion of the disciplines in regards to vocation”, and to the “state of careers of early-career researchers after the post-doctoral fellowship”. The meeting was held to draw on the wide expertise of the National Committee chairs and representatives, to develop a framework addressing common issues, and to look at opportunities to do more through the National Committee structures.

Professor Hyam Rubinstein FAA
Activities of the National Committee for Mathematical Sciences

Professor Rubinstein introduced the key findings of an ARC funded review, The National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia (December 2006), to the group. The review team, incorporating a number of influential and experienced people, toured throughout Australia for 2 weeks during 2006, interviewing a range of relevant people from universities as well as from industry and other backgrounds, such as CSIRO. Two main questions were discussed:

• Are universities meeting the needs of the community?

• What happens in university departments?

The study identified several serious problems:

• Mathematical research in Australia is becoming too narrowly focused.

• There are a critically low number of mathematics and statistics university students and lecturers. Many universities are undergoing redundancies driven by the RQF (Research Quality Framework), and a large number of these will be within mathematics departments.

• There is a lack of mathematics and statistics in courses that strongly need these courses, such as engineering.

• There is a lack of trained mathematics teachers entering the high school system. School students are moving away from maths, especially from advanced maths classes in late secondary school. This will have implications for science, engineering and technology (SET), particularly in regards to the skills shortage facing Australia. Lack of careers awareness and career options may be partially at fault for this educational trend.

The review found the issues to be so severe that they cannot be solved by the discipline itself. It was decided that a public campaign was necessary to inform government, industry, and other stakeholders of the results. This campaign has had some success. For example, the review findings have been used in policy statements of the Australian Labour Party.

The publicity campaign, although it has had some success, has not gone as far as Professor Rubinstein would like it to go. He believes that this is not because of lack of interest in the issues, but because the problem is so large that it is very difficult to approach.

Although the review focused specifically on mathematics and statistics, many of the problems identified are common issues within the sciences, and thus the other disciplines may be related to this example.

Associate Professor Bronwyn Kingwell
Activities of the National Committee for Medicine

Professor Kingwell introduced a number of national and international issues the National Committee for Medicine has been working on. Several examples were discussed:

1. Internationally, a control program for Rheumatic Fever and associated Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) has had input from the National Committee. This World Heart Federation program includes a number of activities in regions around the world, mostly in developing countries, but also including Indigenous Australian communities. Through the National Committee for Medicine’s involvement, AusAID has also become involved. Currently a 5 year, 6 country, RHD control program has been proposed.
2. Internationally and nationally, the Committee has been actively involved in ethics and research conduct. It has lobbied to improve journal guidelines to authors, and has made submissions to the NHMRC reviews of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans.
3. Through effective lobbying, medical research was well funded through the Federal Government’s budget in May 2006. The National Committee is considering a range of initiatives that may directly involve the Academy of Science, to take up with Treasury.
4. The Committee has also been addressing National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) issues. In particular, the Patterson Act on Human Cloning to come into effect in June 2007, and issues with careers in Health and Medical Research (gender issues, the rising average age of entry to fellowship, and career development awards).
5. The Committee is also interested in improving scientific (medical) literacy by providing Fact Sheets relating to current issues, such as new laws.

Comment from Professor Philip Kuchel: The large amount of government funding the medical area has received should perhaps serve as an example to other areas such as mathematics, indicating that good connections and intense lobbying can be very effective.

Saving the disciplines from erosion by vocation: the Melbourne solution

Dr Bob Frater FAA – Introduction

The world is about implementation, needing to actually do tasks. How can the educational needs of people be met, so that they receive a sound educational base? Current vocational courses are currently not meeting all areas of importance for creating competent and flexible employees.

The structure of university courses may have some influence over school education in science, engineering and technology, without being aware of it.

The ‘Melbourne Solution’ is an approach that is being implemented across a number of universities. It recommends consolidated generic courses (in contrast to ‘boutique courses’ such as Forensics), with specialisation not occurring until the post-graduate stage.

Reports from morning breakout groups

Group A
Rapporteur: Profesor Andrew Gleadow FAA

The group identified two key issues:

• The structure of higher education has become narrower. This is in part due to the Government’s response to the skills shortage which is directed towards vocational and specialised education. This serves short-term, but not long-term, ends.

• Other groups, such as employers and employer groups, have also exacerbated the problem by sponsoring and supporting very specialised courses. Faculties accept funding by these groups to survive, but this scheme does not sustain them in the longer term.

The solution is a motivation into fundamental first degrees, with vocational courses or degrees offered at post-graduate levels. However, the proposed solution would support mainstream disciplines such as mathematics and physics, but would remove others, such as earth sciences. Thus, a compromise between depth and breadth of knowledge would need to be reached.

The group raised the idea that teaching fundamental areas is not only relevant to university levels, but is also very important for primary and secondary level education. The overall perception of science among young Australians, especially teenagers, is that the discipline is ‘uncool. This in turn seems to have influenced the teaching curriculum. The group pointed out that the ‘uncool’ issue is something that needs to be addressed, as it is not a universal problem. For example, school students in Germany regard a career in science as quite normal, even ‘cool’.

Group B
Rapporteur: Professor Max Coltheart FAA

The group identified the features of the ‘Melbourne Model’ as 1. a broad undergraduate degree which consists of fundamental subjects; and 2. not explicitly vocationally-oriented.

A key issue raised was that of the Honours year. If this generic undergraduate course lasts for 4 years, where is the Honours year? The group members agreed that the Honours year is fundamental to Australian education, and that any fundamental courses should be for 3 years only, with entry to an Honours year for the most able students.

There was some disagreement between Committee representatives regarding the relevance of the Honours year. Some members argued that the course is internationally irrelevant, and that the Melbourne model is a conscious effort to abolish Honours. Other members strongly disagreed with this comment.

The second issue raised by the group was the factors that have driven Australia towards vocational degrees such as forensic science or nutrition. These are important to be aware of in any pursuit to change the current model. Some of the identified drivers are:

• High school students’ perceptions of science and maths. This leads to reduced numbers undertaking advanced science units, without students being aware that this may penalise them in the future.

• Decreases in quality of students enrolling in first year university courses, and increases in numbers of students enrolling in first year university courses. Students are often not properly trained for university in school, or are simply not capable of undertaking rigorous advanced study.

• High school students are now highly oriented towards choosing a university course solely on the basis of the subsequent employment opportunities that it will offer.

• Withdrawal of HECS from vocational Masters’ courses, which can lead universities to re-establish these as vocational undergraduate courses.

Lastly, the need to acknowledge the value of vocational training was mentioned. Courses need to make sure that the fundamentals are included, they do not need to consist solely of fundamentals. Fourth year specialisation was seen as a good answer to this issue.

Group C
Rapporteur: Professor John White FAA

There has been an irreversible change that now sees around 40% of school leavers enter universities. This needs to be accepted.

The group had a divided opinion on the value of boutique courses. An argument in favour of this course type is that many courses may introduce students to areas that are actually of high value. For example, a degree in forensic science includes an emphasis on analytical chemistry, which is a valuable skill in the long-term. In fact, courses such as analytical chemistry may even become non-existent were it not for courses such as forensic science. It would therefore be unthoughtful to destroy courses that are working, and much further research would be needed to determine the final value of individual vocational courses.

Several questions were raised. Are we addressing this question in terms of what the whole nation needs, or what the Academy of Science needs? What happens to really bright students in the present and in the future? The Academy needs to think about who it is addressing when issuing a statement.

In order to determine where we are, where we ought to go, and how we should see ourselves, three questions were formulated as a type of ‘test’ to inform us about our current system:

1. Is the academic enterprise in Australia replacing itself?
2. Are top graduates from Australia sought overseas?
3. Is the Australian teaching system at a high standard?

Question 1 received a mixed response from the group, while question 2 was answered affirmatively. Question 3 was answered negatively. This leads to the further question of whether universities are training teachers properly.

Finally, the vocational issue as a way to employment was discussed. Employers want flexibility and general skills as well as specialisation. This dual need and expectation may be utilised in looking for a solution. Employers have their own obligation to specialise employees. This includes some areas that do not need to be taught at universities, for example management skills. Perhaps the university should aim to achieve two things: learning to think, and preparing for lifelong learning. Employers then have a responsibility to provide professional development to their employees.

Is there life after the post-doctoral fellowship?

Professor John Shine FAA – Introduction
Career structure is a large issue, especially for young post-docs. The academic world can be seen as a pyramid, where there are numerous places available on the lower rungs, but where higher positions become scarcer. Where do post-docs go? They cannot all end up at the tip of academia, many go to industry and elsewhere.

Reports from afternoon breakout groups

Group C
Rapporteur: Professor Michelle Simmons FAA

Improved structures for post-doctoral careers, especially for mid-career researchers, are needed.

There are currently many post-docs in both industry and academia, but very few fellowships for mid-career (level B & C) researchers. This leads many researchers to stay overseas, which is an issue that needs to be addressed through the introduction of appropriate schemes. An example of such a scheme is the CJ Martin Overseas Biomedical Fellowship, in which the Fellowship is awarded for four years, with two years spent overseas and the following two years spent in Australia.

The group discussed the large number of ARC Postdoctoral Fellowships (APD) in comparison to the small number of more advanced fellowships such as ARC Research Fellowships (ARF) and Queen Elizabeth II Fellowships (QEII). Opinions differed between the disciplines in respect to whether too many or too few APDs were granted, but there was general consensus on the lack of grants available for the more advanced levels.

The issue of pushing post-docs out of Australia also raised discussion within the group. The value of training overseas was recognised, but it was also noted that the years spent overseas are often the individual’s most productive years, during which Australia misses out on the valuable contribution of the researcher.

Group B
Rapporteur: Professor Jennie Brand-Miller

The group identified two levels on which this discussion could be held. First, the discussion could focus on the ‘cream of the crop’, those brilliant post-docs who are currently looked after quite well. Second, the discussion could focus on the ‘milk non-fat solids’, intelligent and important career scientists who are perhaps not looked after quite as well. This second group often includes post-docs employed for a long time on Australian Research Council (ARC) grants, but struggling for the opportunity to become recognised as individual scientists. The following recommendations, with the exception of recommendation 6, are aimed primarily at the second group of scientists.

1. A person employed by a grant receiver cannot be a Chief Investigator (CI) for their own grant proposal if the proposal has been received by the ARC, but an equivalent person can be a CI if the grant proposal has been received by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). There is a need for consistency between the two granting agencies.
2. A one year safety net should be put in place for researchers whose funding grant is not renewed after having been renewed several times in the past. This would allow the individual to submit a further grant application or seek alternative appropriate employment.
3. There is a need for equal recognition of individuals’ track records with both the ARC and NHMRC.
4. There is a need for mid-career fellowships, especially in the ARC. Too many post-docs are employed as tutors. The NHMRC has led by example.
5. Visa rules must be clarified in regards to bringing international post-docs to Australia. Many groups are uncertain as to rules regarding advertisement within Australia before seeking post-docs from overseas.
6. The group identified the issue of Australia permanently losing many valuable post-docs internationally, and suggested a scheme (the “Boomerang Scheme”) to tempt Australians back to the country before they became too settled overseas. The scheme would involve substantial start-up funds, a salary equivalent to Australian peers, and job security. In addition, the scheme may also be used to attract international top scientists from around the world to Australia.

Many of these recommendations would require substantial funding, and the question of how this may be obtained from Government was raised. It was noted that the Government and Opposition are currently looking for novel names and programs. Additionally, a recent PMSEIC working group has come up with many similar recommendations, giving weight to arguments from other groups.

Group A
Rapporteur: Professor Gary da Costa

There is life after the post-doctoral fellowship if you are prepared to go overseas and if you are not a woman. Family commitments and gender were identified as key factors leading to drop-offs beyond the post-doc.

Awareness-raising initiatives and mentoring were seen as a good way to prepare post-docs for the realities of careers in science and within university faculties, but also to keep women and other researchers at risk of leaving involved.

The academic career structure available to post-docs led to the question of how many post-doctoral fellowships an individual should obtain before they are expected to move on? The second post-doc is often where a researcher’s own slant and expertise are developed, but more than two post-docs are viewed negatively. ARC grants, although effective for getting research done, are often constraining for the post-doc.

Leaving to work overseas was not seen by the group as a disadvantage to Australia. Rather, how to get them to return is the issue, especially considering the limited number of university faculty positions available.

Summary remarks

Many of the themes raised during the workshop are consistent with themes currently circulating throughout Australia. A number of themes, such as the skills shortage, are also consistent with what the Government and alternative government have stated.

Mid-career fellowships were identified as needing further attention, especially in attracting mid-career researchers back to Australia.

Many of the issues raised during the workshop or raised elsewhere are relatively unsupported by actual data and research. However, before undertaking studies or collecting data, existing data should be pulled together, as much of this would provide some factual evidence for the arguments presented. An area for which it may be valuable to collect conclusive data is regarding Australia’s loss of researchers to overseas positions. However, any studies would need to be very carefully undertaken, to avoid giving the Government incentives to drop funding of post-doctoral places.

A study named Postdoctoral Training and Employment Outcomes, funded by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, was published in 2001. http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip01_10/default.htm

The National Committees provide a good opportunity to look into the issues raised during the workshop, either independently or in conjunction with other committees.

back to top