Need to be SMARTer over science

Today in Australia our attitude and policy towards Science is not smart.

Not smart by any means, and there is no SMART plan.

No Strategic, Measured, Accurate, Realistic, Timed, approach.

At a time when our defence force is undergoing a comprehensive restructure, we are cutting the funding of Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

However, this capability should be increased in order to save the taxpayer money.

In this context it is critical to have a dedicated science minister in order to have a coherent policy.

On one hand, we are setting up a huge medical research fund to massively increase medical research, and on the other we are issuing significant cuts to CSIRO, DSTO, ANSTO, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Marine Science .

This is not a coherent policy.

There are a lot of questions with this policy.

Is this funding to medical research going to be general, or specifically targeted at cancer, Alzheimer's and the like?

How are we going to source those researchers?

They don't grow on trees, and the training required is long and arduous, and very long lead times are required.

What is this saying to those who might want to become mathematicians, physicists or chemists, hard sciences that are already in crisis?

These questions are valid and important. They need to be examined thoroughly and explained to members of the science community and the general public. These policies affect all of us.

As an aside, the PM asked me to draw up recommendations on science to improve the area, saying that I was the most interested in science in parliament.

I consulted widely, and worked hard on the recommendations, which I presented a few months ago.

They are now up on my website for anyone who wishes to see them.

What is the most troubling is that I see no evidence to suggest an improvement in science policy.

In fact, the reverse would appear to be the case, and not only are we not putting in place policy to improve science, but we are putting disincentives in place to people who might consider careers in the hard sciences and maths.

I am not saying that the likes of CSIRO, ANSTO etc should not be subject to review and restructure.

Far from it, I believe that there are issues that need to be addressed, and once again I refer people to my webpage for some suggestions in that regard.

However, it is foolish to have such a policy disincentive, while at the same time massively incentivising medical research.

This is about our national interest, and how to maximise economic and other benefits to our nation.

There appears to be a lack of understanding of how science works.

Many advances, including in the medical field, are not the result of directed research, but as a matter of more fundamental research that was not directed.

For example, X-Rays and CT scans and radiotherapy for cancer, came from fundamental physics looking at atomic structure.

PET scans that resulted from fundamental work on antimatter.

These were not the result of some effort coordinated by government to achieve a specific breakthrough, they are a result of work driven by the quest for knowledge and understanding, that had fortuitous benefits.

Consider that a third of the world's economy is based on the work of what some would consider obscure physicists (mainly German) in the first quarter of the 20th Century, nearly a century ago. It was these visionaries who laid the foundation for our modern lifestyle and changed the world for the better.

I am talking of quantum physics and solid state electronics that resulted due to fundamental insights. When no one else, including their government, could see the true value of science, they never relented. We are greatly indebted to their vision and persistence.

.

In many cases, government does not understand the value of inventions and scientific discoveries unless they are taxable. Consider 19^th Century physicist Michael Faraday, when asked by then Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone what value electricity had, replied "Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it."

In 1916 Albert Einstein rushed back to his wife who was also a physicist and said, "I have seen a beautiful light", talking about what is known as population inversion in electron energy levels.

This resulted in the first laser in 1960, which at the time critics referred to as "a solution looking for a problem".

Now of course, lasers are in Blurays, DVDs, CDs, and even for communications (lasers are needed for fibre-optics, which is the so-called fibre that is touted with the NBN).

Einstein's famous Theory for General and Special Relativity laid the basis for the accurate GPS systems we use every day.

How could Einstein have known these applications at the time? He couldn't! His theories were the foundation for physical inventions and creations.

As science evolved and progress, more doors opened to greater and more fantastic inventions.

Many times we use things like our GPS systems without realising the many years of history and development behind such an amazing creation.

That is why I believe it is important that the government does not direct scientific research to an end result. It is many times the unexpected development that creates the greatest of inventions.

Indeed, you need look no further than Australia, where wifi came about as a result of radio astronomy research.

It came about as a result of a failed experiment into finding atomic sized mini black holes.

Herein lies the problem with the way scientific research is being viewed and funded. While science should not be micromanaged, a coherent and coordinated approach should be implemented when funding it and developing it.

This is one of the biggest problems of not having a dedicated science minister.

I have been quiet on the lack of a science minister since I first criticised it when the ministry was announced, the first time we have had no science minister since 1931.

I am bitterly disappointed that my fears have come to pass.

This is a critical portfolio, and as I stated at the time, the issue was not necessarily one of a lack of coverage by the ministers responsible for various parts of the portfolio, but the fact that there was a lack of coordination, a lack of a single chain of command, a lack of a clear line of communication not only within government, but among those working in science.

Not a single G8 nation lacks a dedicated science minister, and this bodes ill for our future.

Our Western Australian Premier, Colin Barnett clearly sees the importance of science, and recognises the need for an identified single minister responsible.

Premier Colin Barnett has seen the portfolio as so critical that he has taken that portfolio on himself.

These issues of Defence and Science are critical to our future, and we neglect them, or downgrade their importance, at our peril.

We are a great country, and this is not something that our nation can afford.