|
|
|
Science Meets Parliament 2007
|
|
|
|
Science meets Parliament (SmP) is organised on a yearly basis by FASTS, to provide an opportunity for scientists and related professionals to meet with politicians or their aides, and present issues that are important for Australian science and scientists. Member societies of FASTS (which include WISENET) are encouraged to send 2 or more participants to SmP, with preference being given to early career researchers and women. This year, SmP also featured a “Women in Science” breakfast, which may also have encouraged women to attend, as the overall proportion of women registrants was ~40%, a record so far.
SmP starts with a briefing day, which serves to educate participants about the
meetings ahead, some basic rules of engagement, and what scientists might
reasonably expect to achieve through their meetings. Typically, groups of 3
scientists will meet with a politician, usually for about 30 minutes, and FASTS
tries to organise at least 2 such meetings for each scientist attending SmP. The
briefing day also included breaks during which we could meet and discuss
presentation strategies with other scientists who were scheduled to meet the
same parliamentarians. It was made clear that each scientist needed to have a
point, and get to it quickly, given that the 2 other scientists might have quite
different agendas. The briefing day also included presentations which provided
valuable statistics and information about research funding and performance in
Australia relative to other countries, which could be incorporated into
presentations the next day.
|
Sarah managed to squeeze in a meeting with Senator Rachel Siewert (Green, WA) at the end of the briefing day. Co-scientists at that meeting were a theoretical physicist and a marine biologist. Senator Siewert was extremely receptive to all issues raised by the group, had an excellent grasp of the science involved and indicated that she would raise questions on the key aspects of our lobbying. This included an interest in and support for initiatives to retain and support women in science.
The evening concluded with the SmP dinner held at Parliament House, which
featured John Doyle (aka Rampaging Roy Slaven) as MC, and Professor Will
Steffen, an eminent climate scientist as guest speaker. The dinner provided
further opportunities to meet parliamentarians, with 1-2 being seated at each
table. Jenny was seated next to the Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, who was keenly
interested in both alternative energy use and motor vehicle design. Clearly,
scientists can learn from parliamentarians, as well as the reverse!
The meeting day itself started early with the Women in Science breakfast. This
was attended by the Hon Julie Bishop, with whom the ACT WISENET link group met
in September 2006. Erin Wood from the Association of Professional Engineers,
Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) also presented the preliminary
findings from their recent Women in the Professions survey. One of the
interesting findings was that 53% of Australian professional women remain
childless compared with 25% of the general female population. There is clearly
still a problem with balancing work/life commitments. On the previous day, Craig
Cormick, from Biotechnology Australia, showed research that indicated that the
Australian public list ‘mothers’ as the third most trusted group in our society.
It would seem that supporting mothers to remain in the science and technology
professions may well improve society’s engagement with and trust in science. The
breakfast was well attended, with all women (and men!) present being encouraged
to go out and raise their own “women in science” issues with their assigned
parliamentarians.
Jenny then met with two female senators. The first, Senator Annette Hurley (ALP,
SA), had previous science training and was obviously very interested in
Australian science. Jenny met Senator Hurley with a young biomaterials scientist
and an experienced research administrator. We were encouraged to bring one page
summaries of our work, business cards, and also a “prop” (examples suggested
included a rock or a dead parrot). Since neither of these objects seemed
particularly relevant to Jenny’s work, she brought along some tissue array
slides, which proved to be a useful talking point. Although our backgrounds and
key messages differed, the group had done sufficient preparation to produce a
smooth overall presentation, and at times we were able to bolster other’s
arguments. As a possible meeting outcome, the Senator might participate in a
national research administration meeting being organised in Adelaide, the
senator’s home town.
Jenny’s second meeting was with Senator Kate Lundy (ALP, ACT), whom she met with
a biomaterials scientist, and a policy adviser with an environmental science
background. This meeting was shorter than
|
planned (15 as opposed to 30 minutes) and while the Senator Lundy was extremely welcoming, the meeting’s duration limited the degree to which she could engage with 3 very different presentations and messages. Senator Lundy was most interested in local environmental issues, and as such, the policy adviser was invited to follow up these by providing more information. Such outcomes may seem modest in themselves, but the real value of most meetings comes from making this initial personal contact. From this point, it is up to each scientist to keep in touch with their parliamentarians, and cultivate a relationship which may prove useful to both.
Sarah met with Senator John Hogg (ALP, Qld) in conjunction with a systems
ecologist and a parasitologist. In this meeting the major point of interest for
Senator Hogg was the impact of climate change on biodiversity, agriculture and
health. Her second meeting was more relevant to WISENET matters and was with Dr
Jade Sharples, Science and Research Advisor in the office of the Hon Julie
Bishop MP. This meeting was held with a fellow female scientist this time, a
biomedical engineer, currently in a contract research position. Dr Sharples has
a strong scientific background and left scientific research after postdoctoral
work as she was looking for greater security of employment. She was thus very
receptive to the WISENET proposals to improve retention of women in science,
particularly in mid-career. I also provided her with some relevant websites on
women in science from other government agencies around the world and suggested
that the Australian Federal Department of Science Education and Training could
provide links to these1. It was also agreed that they should consider providing
a direct link to women in science matters on their own website for posting
relevant information, initiatives, statistics or support programs.
All in all, SmP was a meeting like no other. Jenny and Sarah met more people at
SmP than at any meeting they have attended, and moreover these scientists were
from fields as diverse as physics, geology, mathematics and environmental
science. There were also many young scientists and a good representation by
women. This made for an excellent networking opportunity and contacts for future
support. We learned about Australia’s system of government, a little about how
lobbyists go about their job, and how engaging with the political process can
lead to change. This is surely one of the true privileges of living in a
democratic society, and one that scientists could exercise a great deal more to
improve the standing of science within the halls of power. In that sense, SmP
should just be the beginning…..
