Diana Temple
The Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, ANZAAS, held its annual congress in Canberra in early October 1996. The congress, with the theme 'Defending our Planet', was hosted by three academic institutions in Canberra, the Australian National University, the University of Canberra and the Defence Forces Academy; it was sponsored by Energy Australia.
There were 187 people registered for the Congress - a far cry from the 2000-odd who used to turn up in the 1970s-80s. What has gone wrong?
Chairman Bruce McKellar in his report of the Congress in the ANZAAS journal Search says the Congress was a success, that the science reported was topical, controversial and mostly well presented. Indeed I agree that the program was good, but how do we measure success? Why did so few attend, and why so few also at the Congresses in Newcastle in 1995 and in Geelong in 1994?
Has ANZAAS made a mistake by charging 'user-pays' registration fees and by holding its Congress in a hotel/conference centre? 'Standard' registration for the 3-day Congress last year was $525 for a non-member and $380 for a member; the corresponding charges for one-day registrations were $260 and $200; early payment gave a discount of about 10%. These charges were about double those in Geelong two years earlier.
I believe that many people who might be interested in ANZAAS are put off by such amounts; only those who can charge them to their employer or a 'slush fund' consider such fees normal. Historically, Congresses were held on university campuses, and host universities were proud to be involved in their organisation. Not so, it seems, in Canberra, for reasons that are not clear.
Scientists and fellow travellers have for years been predicting the demise of ANZAAS, but it persists. Its congresses have excellent programs, despite recent poor attendance records. The low number of participants is variously attributed to the crowding of many specialist science meetings in the week of the common University and school break (indeed there were clashes), the contracting economy making it difficult for scientists to obtain support or even time to attend more than one conference annually, professional people becoming more and more stressed for time-Bruce McKellar says that scientists are suffering from overload, doing more work than ever with fewer resources, in recent years. Universities are less willing in the existing economic climate, to commit resources and to second staff to give time to organising such events as these.
The decrease in the Association's membership is serious. We have to ask: is there still a place for a generalist scientific association like ANZAAS with a science policy base? Have the growth of specialist societies, together with general associations such as FASTS (Federation of Australian Science and Technology Societies) and the science Academies, made ANZAAS redundant? ANZAAS members believe in cooperation with these bodies and that there is still a place in our society for this distinguished 109-year old association, born in Australia's centenary year, with an important function as a science lobby and as a liaison between scientists and the public.
Women scientists are disturbed by the relative invisibility of women participants at ANZAAS. There was a sprinkling of female faces among the small audiences, but the proportion of women speakers was even more woeful than at the previous two congresses - 1 woman speaker of 21 on day one, 3 of 22 on day two and none on day three: altogether women comprised fewer than 7% of speakers. Women in years past were numerous at ANZAAS meetings; at an ANZAAS meeting more than 12 years ago in Canberra, WISENET was conceived.
Although most scientists say that gender is irrelevant and that selection for appointments or promotion or representation should be solely on merit, there still seems to be a widespread tendency for selection committees to choose their own image and to work through old boy networks. Those few women who have climbed high enough to be selected as invited speakers are greatly in demand and overworked because of their relative rarity.
Gongs awarded at the Congress include the ANZAAS Medal and the Mueller Medal. The 1996 ANZAAS Medal went to Sir Arvi Parbo of the Western Mining Corporation, for his encouragement to engineers and scientists in the solving of problems; the Mueller Medal was awarded to marine biologist Dr Sophie Ducker of Melbourne University for her teaching and promotional work on marine plants.
The Unsung Hero of Science award from Australian Science Communicators was presented to Joy Mitchell of the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Joy made a forceful speech attacking cuts to ABC funding by the government and deploring the limited coverage of science on television. Incidentally, Unsung Heroes have been women in each of the three years since the introduction of the award.
Michael Daley Awards for Science Journalism are also presented at ANZAAS Congresses. Winners in 1996, in numerous categories, were: Bob Beale, Leigh Dayton, James Woodford, Scott Coomber, Helen O'Neill, Rod Taylor, Ray Moynihan, John Millard, Robyn Williams, Yvette Eckersley, Dean Hutton, Wilson da Silva, Cathy Johnston, Alexandra Smith, Owen Craig and Will Berryman.
(It was good to see ABC science journalists well represented among these awards. WISENET's was among many submissions to the Mansfield investigation of the future of the ABC, supporting and commending ABC science programs.)
The 1997 ANZAAS Congress is to be run by the University of Adelaide. Its theme is advertised as 'Science in Southern Asia - The Advancement of Science in Developing Countries'. It is to include workshops on many topics, including agriculture, aquaculture, biology, genetic engineering, environmental management, engineering, earth sciences, physics, chemistry, medical and veterinary sciences, social science and the management of science infrastructure. Let us hope it is a real success.