Jan
Thomas
Most of us choose to enter the scientific professions because we look for satisfying careers in exciting fields which may create a better world. We know it is unlikely to lead to fame or fortune but we hope for a decent salary, stable employment, opportunities for intellectual challenge and a collegiate working environment where the contribution of all is valued.
The title Science Politics—Daring to Dream was chosen because successive governments have made this kind of outcome for beginning scientists very difficult and undermined what many scientists thought they had already achieved. Corporatisation of the universities and bodies like CSIRO, combined with a reduction in government funding and less support for business research and development, have seriously eroded the fabric of Australian science. It has created an environment where options for scientists to pursue worthwhile careers has been lessened and, in addition, a climate that many women - and men - find unappealing. The competitive nature of many contemporary scientific workplaces can be damaging to the collegiate working environment and to personal and family life.
There is little doubt that Australian science is in crisis. We need to dare to dream that this can change but we also need to pursue actions that may make the dreams become reality.
At a time when the rest of the developed world is investing in science and technology, it is difficult to understand why Australian governments have treated this sector so badly. The current government has pursued an agenda which has taken no account of the efficiencies which had been achieved by the tertiary and other sectors involved in basic research. Thus the universities had already taken 20% more students without increasing teaching staff. This may have been sustainable but the reduction in funding since has seriously eroded the capacity for research and the quality of teaching. Expectations on other bodies such as the CSIRO to find much of their funding from sources other than government have led to a concentration of their research agenda on what is profitable. As a result unprofitable, public good science becomes difficult to sustain.
There is no vision for Australian science although some state governments have shown that this is both possible and helpful. As a result it would appear, for example, that any chance for Australia to be a player in Information Technology is remote. For this to have occurred it would have required maintenance of the core disciplines underpinning this sector such a mathematics. However, mathematics in the university sector is barely meeting the needs of business and industry, let alone other sectors including education where there is an urgent need for more mathematics teachers.
A vision for Australian science would identify the kinds of graduates that would be needed to fulfil that vision. It would target research and industry support to that vision. Instead there have been haphazard cut-backs which occurred within a funding crisis that meant that crucial disciplines have been cut in the universities and profitable industry research and development has become the domain of multinationals or wealthy nations who are prepared to invest in potential wealth generating ventures.
Australian scientists have seen globalisation present both opportunities and dangers. The opportunities have come with being part of the bigger scientific world and a sharing of ideas. The dangers have come with the opportunities for outsiders, especially big multinationals and wealthy nations, to take advantage of developments in smaller or poorer nations. There is little doubt that globalisation has increased opportunities for Australian scientists to seek careers overseas. However, the lack of vision and support for indigenous science in this climate has dramatically reduced opportunities for worthwhile careers in Australia in universities, bodies such as the CSIRO and business and industry. Until this is addressed there is little chance that women or men will find it encouraging to pursue careers in science.
The decline in science in Australia has its origins in political actions. Few scientists feel comfortable in the political arena and the paucity of scientists in parliament is no doubt a reflection on this. Further, at a time when it is important for scientists to be part of the debate, political action on the part of individuals has become dangerous and can result in damage to one's career.
The role of professional societies in maintaining a forum for open debate about the politics of science has become crucial. Australia is fortunate to have the integrated lobbying capacity it does through FASTS and other bodies such as the academies. However, all of this depends increasingly on the core professional societies remaining strong as they get less and less support from bodies such as the universities. At the same time the cost of some of their core business such as producing journals has risen.
The current debate about genetically modified foods is a good example of the difficulties facing Australian science. There is need for community support for science. The best way to get this support is to provide the community with the kind of information they need to make informed decisions. In the case of genetically modified foods this is going to need sensitive comment about the benefits and the possible dangers. Now are ambitious young researchers going to put their potential industry funding on the line by being involved in the latter and should they be placed in this situation anyway? More importantly, what will be the view of their vice-chancellors even if they are prepared to do it? Yet it the public is not properly informed and problems develop later, won't science be further diminished and even less trusted?
There has been little discussion about the silencing of many people through control of funding and positions, tendering arrangements, confidentiality agreements and other mechanisms. However, providing a forum for discussion of controversial ideas and preserving the core values of science become part of the politics and they put a heavy burden on the profession societies which increasingly need to provide this.
There are some actions that some of us can take because we have reached a certain stage in our careers so that risks can be taken. Some of us are taking risks because we are near the end of our careers and we want young people to have the same opportunities we had. My message to people beginning their careers is leave the risks to those of us who can do this without coming to too much harm and do the things that you can do to support us. There is much that you can do.
Jan Thomas teaches in the Graduate Diploma in Secondary Education. Jan is interested in linguistic and cultural factors on mathematics learning especially as they affect students learning in a second language; policy in the mathematical sciences and politics of mathematics education; teaching and learning of tertiary mathematics and the education of mathematics teachers.
Currently she is Vice-President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and part-time Executive Officer for the Australian Mathematical Society. Previously Jan was President of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Council and member of the National Committee for Mathematics. She is involved in an International Committee on Mathematical Instruction study on the teaching and learning of mathematics at the tertiary level.