A Day On (Under) the Hill
Juliet Lloyd-Smith
On
the 12th and 13th of November I attended Science Meets Parliament, an annual
gathering of Scientist and Parliamentarians, now in its third year. The two
days encompass a variety of events, aimed at increasing dialogue between
scientists and policy makers.
The event kicks off with a National Press Club Luncheon, addressed on this occasion by Dr Keith Williams of Proteome Systems fame. The remainder of the first day was a varied schedule, with individual society meetings peppered with plenary talks from the scientific and policy making glitterati; Lord Robert May, and his antipodean alter ego Dr Robin Batterham, Wendy Jarvie from DEST, and politicians including Senators Carr and Stott-Despoja, and Mr Gary Nairn. A cocktail party held at parliament house was an opportunity to mingle with politicians in a more relaxed setting, including Minister’s McGauran and Nelson.
The majority of day two was spent in or around Parliament House. What a lovely building! Wooden floors polished to opalescence, commissioned artworks littering the walls - the overall effect was grand and spacious, but still utilitarian and the use of natural materials lends an organic quality. Very nice! A highlight of day two was my meeting with Senator Ian Macdonald, and a chance to exchange with other charismatic mega fauna of politics. Minister McGauran, Minister Nelson, and Mr. Simon Crean were all very approachable, and encouragingly enthused about science. I was a little nervous at first, and armed with a lethal mix of Helpful Suggestions (“have a great opening hook”) and too much coffee, I was all primed to burst into Senator Macdonald’s office with an Irish Reel. Fortunately my assigned partner for the meeting, a level headed Scientist from CSRIO Plant Industry, advised against this. We spent a pleasant hour talking about different aspects of our work and science in general. Most politicians I spoke with also seemed interested in my age (27) and women’s lack of representation in science.
What interested me just as much as the politician’s curiosity about age and gender balances, was the reactions from fellow scientists about WISENET. Bar a few skeptics who dismiss anything involving women as "special interest" – (one scientist expressed surprise at the inclusion of "special interest" groups in FASTS) most of the interest in our organization came from men, generally young fathers finding it difficult to balance a 60-odd hour week with quality family and personal time. As noted at the end of this article, I think we should explore our options for a formal presentation at next year’s event.
I was also a little surprised at the attitudes of some fellow scientists towards the event itself. I was told on the first day from a number of colleagues "not to expect too much". If it was going to be that bad, then why were they bothering at all? Perhaps chagrined by the previous year’s unfruitful meetings, some attending scientists were at great pains to project a sense of ennui, and the need to water down your science so "the politicians could understand it".
It is far easier for us to caricature politicians and a purported of scientific naïveté, than to shake off our misconceptions, and attempt to foster real and regular engagement between the political community and ourselves. Science Meets Parliament appears to be the first step to this end.
Historically, the relationship has perhaps been tenuous. The major complaint was that: "we" (scientists) bury our research in obfuscatory journal articles, hence locking it away from correct and proper scrutiny. Our perceived "honesty" has also been called into question relating to the information provided in the ongoing stem-cell debate. The pollies themselves displayed surprising candour during the scheduled meetings. (Although, this was the only downside to SMP thanks to one politician I spoke with. One man’s candour is another man’s rant, and here was someone with a powerful Intel-patent-worthy chip on his shoulder about factional infighting. He wasn’t interested in science, rather a sympathetic ear.) Overall, though, the cartoon manipulator who would kiss babies on Monday only to cut off their immunisation shots funding by week’s end simply didn’t exist. In fact they are all reassuringly human – and astonishingly busy with loads of conflicting priorities.
It broke down the notions of "them" and "us"; so rather than Agents Of The Dark Side and parliament being a portal to the gates of hell, I found a bunch of very nice people in a gobsmackingly lovely building buried into the side of a hill. Yes, they are agenda driven, but by necessity. Yes, they will try and get your vote with a little bit of politicking, but only because all pollies- independent of political colour - seemed to believe in the basics of democracy i.e. that every vote is valid and important. Ignoring the mildly appalling behaviour witnessed in question time, where hubris hangs like a heavy smog over two warring cities, the whole day was enlightening and most importantly, great fun. The result? I wouldn’t hesitate to try and contact/involve/inform a politician.
Recommendations for next year’s WISEnet attendee?
1. We need to eliminate the impression that WISEnet – is
a "special interest" group separate from our FASTS cousins. Not only is this
erroneous – we are a professional organisation consisting mostly of women, not
a women’s organisation – but furthers the calumny that anything, scientific or
otherwise, of relevance to women in particular is special interest despite the
fact that women represent over half of the population.
I would like to see WISEnet run a session on the first
day of proceedings – there is so much interest in what we do and why we do it
from women and men. The topics for a two-hour workshop/discussion are
limitless.
Some scientists appeared disappointed with the results of their individual meetings. I am not entirely sure why, but don’t just tell the politicians about the technical aspects of your work. I am lucky enough to travel on a regular basis to localities all around Australia as part of my research. The politicians were interested in the reactions around the country to the work. Don’t go in expecting them to indulge a polemic concerning the finer aspects of global warming and ocean thermal expansion, but bear in mind they are all pretty switched on regarding scientific principles, and can digest a lot more than you may have been led to believe by the media.
Juliet Lloyd-Smith is a Canberra based scientist in
the Resource Futures Program at CSIRO’s Division of Sustainable Ecosystems.
She has an honours degree from Melbourne University in Meteorology, and is
finishing her doctoral thesis in contaminant hydrology.
Her email is Juliet.Lloyd-Smith@csiro.au