When Australians take an almost prurient interest in what some silly economics magazine in Europe says of us, it is a cultural cringe. When Australians take the slightest notice of the opinions of the grossly inadequate British tabloid press, it is a cultural cringe. When, however, an internationally highly regarded magazine like Nature reflects upon Australia, it is worth taking notice: not because it is a British magazine, but because it is a publication of world stature. So what if our Treasurer is Treasurer of the Year according to some European magazine; so what if he is Lizard of Oz according to the gutter press of Britain. But when Nature magazine reflects upon Australian science it is worth taking notice.
The most recent edition painted a picture of Australian science far different from the view within. Nature points to projects of great merit; an embracing of the importance of science in wealth creation; much excellent science and a growing optimism within Australian science. It also points out, quite rightly, that there has been too much “”democratic inquisition” through which organisations have been “”repeatedly appraised often at the whim of a new minister or at the urging of parliamentary committee”. Even now the CSIRO is undergoing yet another review of management and structure with the usual round of threats about keeping it secret. The big difficulty for science is that its cycle of spending and results is very different from the political cycle. Politicians like a three- , or at the most, six-year cycle, whereby money goes in at one end and the warm, feel-good result comes out before the next election (or the one after at most).
Science, however, is not like housing grants, child care or drought relief. Money in today will not necessarily result in a political picture opportunity in two or three years, if at all. It is the most politically expendable expenditure; but it is the most nationally important. Despite all the governments inquiries attempting to justify funding cut-backs or switches from pure long-term research to short-term industrial research, it appears that Australian science is still in reasonable shape. How long that remains so is another matter. Inquiries and cut-backs cannot go on indefinitely without serious long-term damage. It was pleasing to see that the Nature article showed science in Canberra doing well, citing several major successful projects.
Canberra’s success has been reinforced independently by the success of the recent Science Festival. A wise Federal or ACT Government would overcome its short-term, industry-based science-funding policy and chip in a bit to make next year’s Science Forum equally successful. It is important to ensure more young Australians take up science as a career and to change present trends which make various forms of paper-shuffling more attractive _ law, accounting, journalism, politics, public relations and so on. There are huge returns for Australia in keeping up a good base in theoretical science research. We become tapped into the world. For a small percentage of the world’s cutting-edge work we get access to much of the rest. If we have no worthwhile cutting-edge research we get cut out of the rest.