Does Australia care about science?

[strongmanmike]

From Australia's chief scientist Prof Chubb, this is an interesting read (http://theconversation.edu.au/does-australia-care-about-science-4011?utm_source=The+Conversation+Da ily+updates&utm_campaign=e26d6af057-DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email)for those wondering about where science sits in Australia.

Love the comments in the response section by The ProfeticKleenex...what chance do we have:rolleyes:

Mike

[vanwonky]

That is an interesting read Mike. The fact that something like the Dover Monkey Trial (sorry, not related directly to the article I know) could even have existed as late as 2004 was a concern and I think the dumbing down of science has probably continued despite the win.
I always get a good laugh at comments from people like 'The Pathetic Kleenex" but then end up with a shiver down my spine instead. There are too many people around now that would like to see us back in the dark ages!
I would have hoped the situation for scientists in Australia to be a little better but maybe not.

[traveller]

I agree that Australia as a nation undervalues science and scientific research, and worship sports men (and women) as heros and legends.
My father is a research scientist, he has supervised a dozen promising students through their PhD, only to see them dissappear to US, where corporations set up million dollar labs for them (for returned service and results, after all, this is the land of the brave and FREE :P).
My close friend's sister is a bio-engineer in the US, her husband doing research into plasma physics there.
We have produced many talents in Australia, but without Govt investment, they are snapped up by other countries. The founding chair of Suntech (which supplies most of our solar panels in Australia) is acutally a graduate from Uni of NSW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong . He was lured away by the Chinese Govt with generous subsidies, instead of fighting for chicken feed in funding from the Aust Govt.
The list goes on.
The celever country we are not.
So closes my rant of the day... :)
Bo

[bojan]

Yes..
The article is very interesting.. and so are the comments (from that kleenex guy) but in the opposite sense.

Recently I witnessed (over internet) a discussion on another forum that started after the certain lecture held in Split, which turned ugly (link (http://youtu.be/jqHNNpZyXt4)).
Basically, it was this creationist from US, talking about BB and Creation.. Attending was also a professor of astrophysics from the local university and couple of his students, and during the question time (the attempt was made to screen the questions which were supposed to be submitted in a written form) he challenged the "lecturer" on a number of statements presented during the evening.
Unfortunately (IMHO), the whole challenge was not prepared properly and was conducted on too wide a front, so the whole thing turned into a pretty ugly quarrel, and for the "outsider" (little Joe Smith) the "winner" was that creationist because he didn't loose his temper, and Prof. Vinkovic apparently did.
Couple of times on this forum I argued that the only way to deal with those types is to slowly, meticulously corner them on one single but crucial detail, and expose their incompetence - and not to chase them away or ban them from forum. Yes, it takes time and effort and patience and dedication, but the alternative is "their" moral victory, and the scientific community is painted as arrogant and dismissive - and this certainly is not the desired outcome.
The importance of good communicators of science to ordinary plebs is more and more important, especially now when ANYBODY can have a website and can promote anything she/he wants...

[renormalised]

Bo...the whole problem here is that this country is run by people with little or no understanding of science or how it works. How can you expect "bean counters" (accountants/economists/financiers/bankers) and habitual liars (politicians/lawyers) to run the place effectively enough to make use of all its resources (especially its human ones). Governments and business in this country have for many decades been negligent and remiss in their funding of science. That's why many of our scientists and such end up going overseas, where they're better appreciated for their knowledge and work, and are compensated accordingly for their efforts. The clowns that run this country are more interested in swilling beer at parties, checking up on how the cricket score is going and what other way they can rip us off and line their own pockets in the process. Oh, and appearing at all the latest swanky events to get their ugly mugs on the TV and in the news. Mention to them that it would be great if they could spare a little cash to help fund a project that an university is working on that will get people to Mars in 39 days, instead of 280 (ANU's helicon double layer ion drive) and their eyes just glaze over. Then they tell the universities they have to work now with half the funding they had previously and do twice as much. Or how about funding some of the critical breakthroughs this country has made in medical research over the years...that have fallen by the wayside. Meanwhile, they enthusiastically support deals for selling mineral resources to other countries where those other countries tell us what they will pay for our resources!!!!. Wouldn't be great if you could apply that logic to go buying a car or a house:P It's tantamount to walking upto a car salesperson and saying, "I'll buy that Bugatti Veyron off you and I'm only going to pay you $50 for it".

Science will never get its fair share of funding in this country until the business culture of this nation changes and the politicians that run it are replaced with people who actually know what they're doing.

As for that article that Mike posted the link to....very interesting. That "prophetic kleenex" was a troll. If he/she honestly held onto the beliefs they espoused there, then that person is a complete fool and an idiot. Unfortunately, there are too many people like that around. However, I'm suspicious of the "fact" that he is one of them. Most people like that can't string along a logically consistent argument without getting tongue tied (actually most can't argue logically at all). He/she was a little too eloquent (i.e. could string along a coherent sentence) for that:):P Which is why I think it was a troll looking for an argument, just to get their jollies.

[AstralTraveller]

Looking at science from my perspective, from the inside, I'd say governments and (consequently) unis like grand openings, glossy brochures and tasty foyers but know and care very little about what happens in the lab. It's like a mudguard - nice and shiny on the outside but covered in mud and s||t on the inside.

My pet hate is the underfunding of human resources. It's not too hard to get serious $$$ for state-of-the-art instrumentation but try to get funding for maintenance and consumables and you'll be shouting into the wind. As for technicians to made them work and get the best out of them - forget it. A rough estimate is that the area I'm in needs 5+ technicians if we want everything to work all the time. We have 1.5. A mate has just had his job in a prestige research group 'rejigged' and he is now supposed to maintain, operate and train users of 10!! instruments, several of which require a dedicated tech to get them to operate. And it's not as though dedicating half the hours get half the output. Generally nothing will happen unless you put in more than some threshold amount of time. With the instrument I know best running the technique I know best, to get anything done you need at least 4hrs per day every day. Otherwise you just run the systems checks but never get any samples run. I've spoken with techs who've been around for decades and we all agree that the waste caused by the absence of technical support is horrendous.

Then there is the financial support for post grad students - the people in labs who actually do the research (Profs don't have time to touch equipment). Apart from the fact that their scholarships don't support them there is the under funding of their research. At the moment post-grads get $1500 per year for expenses!! What a joke!!! Fieldwork, lab consumables, specialised parts, standard reference materials, more consumables etc etc will come to many times $1500 per year. [eg $1000 for a GC colums, $350 for a cylinder of UHP He, $1.20 per litre for liquid nitrogen, $500 per fill of liquid Ar, $500 per litre of UHP nitric acid etc etc] To be honest, the fact that anything ever happens is a tribute to the dedication of all concerned. But we could do so much better given half a chance.

[wavelandscott]

Put into perspective in grad school at my USA based university (a few years back now) I was given free tuition and a 1/2 time assistanceship which paid my $15,000 per year...and all the gear and computer time I needed. That was a lot of beer and pizza back then!

[CraigS]

I don't understand the bewilderment of opinions in this thread.

Its perfectly clear that Australia has no idea of what to do with scientific research. Our economy completely lacks the manufacturing base to productise any new scientific research, so by definition, there will never be any return on investment into research. The best this country can ever hope for is to sell any meagre research outcomes, or sell the expertise ... which is what this country specialises in .. sales/consumerism and service industries.

The 'Chief Scientist' in this country, might as well be a one man band who is able to chant in resonance with what he has consumed from overseas sources. Its an oxy-moron, actually. Why would anyone expect a newly educated scientist to stay here? Of course they'd high-tail it overseas .. why wouldn't they? This country has never known what to do with scientific research .. and I don't see that changing in our lifetimes. What specifically, would ever change this situation?

What gets me here, is that there seems to be an expectation that science should, for some obscure reason, find a nice comfortable haven here in Australia ! Why would anyone have this delusion in the first place ? What could possibly be the reason to think that Australia has ever been a country which nurtures science or scientists?

Cheers

[marki]

In this country we dig holes and sell our future for instant gratification, it's what we do best. But do not think for a moment that it is all beer and skittles for scientists that give up trying to earn a living here leaving our shores for brighter pastures overseas. A very good friend of mine after completing his PHD secured a research position at Harvard Medical school. He packed up all his gear and new wife to head to the land of plenty. It soon became obvious they could not survive on the very low wage he was paid and as his wife could not work due to visa restrictions so they relied on the goodwill of their parents who regularly wired them money from Australia. Now you may think this has a happy ending with Bernard making a fabulous discovery and being showered in cash and glory but that is not so. Yes they are still there 15 years later but not because of him. A few years after arriving in the US Bernard's wife Michelle managed to get a greencard and was able to work legally. She is a graphics designer and began making greeting, birthday cards etc. This turned into a booming business with their disposable income increasing massively allowing them to live well. Bernard is still slaving away with his cancer research but he is only still there because his wife lucked out in the greencard lottery.

Science is given low priority in Australia at all levels from kindy to coorparate domination and politics. Not many Australians have a clue about science let alone the vision to see what can really be achieved. Its all about big houses with a swimming pool, 2 cars and a boat for the weekend. Why? Because we can do it without risk, plenty of easily accessible minerals in the ground no need to do anything else.

Mark

[traveller]

Dig a hole in the ground, sell the minerals overseas, import manufactured goods to satisfy our consumer culture.
Build a research centre, educate a bunch of bright (and young) talents, have them poached overseas, then buy their technology and innovations.
Little wonder the country to going backwards.
Bo

[Nightshift]

Umm, I'd be interested in knowing what qualifies as science in reading this thread, I know for a fact that some of the worlds leading health scientists are right here in Australia doing amazing work, saving lives today and in the future, heart, cancer, brain and drug research is happening here today. For their sake I hope none of them ever read this post, it would be somewhat insulting and dis-hartening. If we export all of these so called intelligent scientists trained here in Australia then who trains them? Well duh, scientists, people with PHD's and doctorates who havnt sold out, they are right here, my wife works with one of America's and the worlds leading scientists in Autism, right here in QLD, so we import some too, cmon guys, think bigger than the science in your own head, we do some of the worlds leading genetic sciences here too, luv em or hate em, they are clever people. The CSIRO has some of the worlds best too, lets not forget some of our leading astronomers working out of Sydney, Canberra and Coonabarabran, yes some go overseas but they return with more knowledge to share with all of us.

[Bassnut]

I understand US universities have a long standing tradition of "old boys" and the companies they own/work for providing huge funding for the unis they graduated from. This funding source is the difference between OZ and the US, not gov support. Is that right Scott?.

[blindman]

Very interesting comments, and unfortunately I have to agree with above.
My wife was the only One in the world on Herpes Vaccine Research (on humans), ended up with Patent in this field in Europe. Sad !
Cheers all Nev

[Paul Haese]

While this might ring true for the majority, I know of one instance where this science is not valued idea to be wrong. My sister is a PHD. Won the Westinghouse award for her PHD and did a fellowship in the US. Stayed there for 5 years and got paid really well. She also won an Australian award for her PHD. That paid for part of her time there.

She got back from the States several years back. She now runs a lab here in SA at the Hanson institute, also co-runs a lab in the states. Is being constantly head hunted by east coast (Australian) firms to run their programs. She wants to work here because it suits her.

She is not the only one either. Science is valued here, but some areas of research are valued more than others. While things look like we value sport and voting in idiots, we have many fine scientists here in this country. They don't get paid like engineers, or medical professionals, but every person in science knew this from the first lecture at Uni. Most people in science are involved to make a difference not a buck. There is something to be learnt from that idea I thinnk.

[avandonk]

In the end you get what you pay for folks. If you prefer sport then that is what you get.
My colleagues and I were working on many debilitating preventable diseases that involved very complex solutions that we were quite capable of doing. I have retired in disgust at the lack of finance and I hope you never suffer from these diseases.
Bert

[wavelandscott]

It depends...

No doubt that former graduates that have done well do steer money and projects back to their Alma Maters and this does help fund many Department Chairs and build bright shiny labs. However, I think the bulk of the money is more company/industry focused...in addition the US Government is still a large funder of basic research in many different forms.

What I mean is that industry/companies tend not want to avoid paying for infrastructure (and actively negotiate the amount paid for overheads) in projects. They only want to pay for the activity...so the "old boys" tend to donate their personal wealth to pay for the infrastructure (name abuilding/lab/ teaching position)...

I've not seen any offical figures in a while but would guess the split at 1/3 government and 2/3rds industry in terms of funding. The government money is split beween University research and "Government Lab" research but this line gets blurred pretty quickly.

Now it is quite common for Universities to start with Government "seed money" and then shop the results to Industry after proof of concept and accelerate it to development. License agreements are worked out on the Intellectual Property and the funding stream to some degree is self fulfilling.

The "Land Grant" Universities themselves (specifically focused on Science - Agriculture and Engineering) were established by President Lincoln and that really got the system going. Reading about these Land Grant Universities is pretty illuminating and their existence helped fuel the expansion and growth of the USA...heck for a farm boy like me, they represented a way for me to get educated and advance. My family could never have been able to afford a "private" university for all 5 boys. This feeling of gratitude is common and feeds back into the "old boys" wanting to give back.