MARCH 2003
Pockley's Razor: Research Priorities Finalised in Secret

Much has happened in public and behind closed doors since the last “Razor” went to press, little of it giving confidence that the ship of science is sailing away from the effect of cuts made in the first Budget of John Howard/Peter Costello in 1996.

After a few furious months of consultation with panels of hundreds of scientists, Howard has announced four national priorities for research funding. However, this “process” became opaque at the crucial stage. Science Minister, Peter McGauran, told me the recommendations to Cabinet from an Expert Committee are not being released: “They are Cabinet-in-Confidence”.

While scientists on the Expert Committee remain muzzled, it seems we shall never know what they proposed and whether that was accepted or changed by Cabinet. This sits at odds with the Seven Principles of Public Life [the Nolan Principles] and the UK’s Code of Practice for Science Advice, which stress the centrality of openness and transparency for gaining trust in science (expounded by Lord Robert May in conScience on p.43).

This seems daft given that the broad themes announced appear to be devoted to “the public good”. They are:

• An Environmentally Sustainable Australia;

• Promoting and Maintaining Good Health;

• Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries; and

• Safeguarding Australia.

Even when these headlines are expanded, the first three, at least, carry no connotations of national or commercial sensitivity. Virtually all lines of research currently supported by government can be matched to one or other of these priorities.

“Safeguarding Australia”, however, is somewhat mystifying as it echoes the current political catch-all cries of “security” and undefined “national interest” that pervade the government’s justification of military hostilities. We are left wondering who introduced this debatable, secretive flavour into civil science, and why.

Legacy of Cuts Lingers

Meanwhile, the only real game remains the perennial question of funding, which afflicts the whole scene of public research, especially universities and CSIRO. In its annual proclamation of top issues for R&D, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) has called again for a funding boost for university science.

FASTS President, Prof Chris Fell, declared: “The Innovation Statement of 2 years ago was the first step to reinvest in Australian science, but we continue to lag in international terms. It’s time to take the second step and increase our national investment to the OECD average by 2012.”

Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, maintains that the Innovation Statement delivers the goods. Yet, the Group of Eight Universities provides telling evidence that this has not even halted Australia’s slide in the internationally accepted relative measure of Gross Expenditure on R&D as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. Based on official Treasury figures, the slide began in 1996. It flattened out a bit from 1998-99 to 2002-03, but the projected trend then drops down again.

Throughout this period, and for the years ahead, the weighted average of OECD countries displays a consistent increase in relative commitment to R&D. The gap with Australia grows each year. The weak point for Australia is that government “fixes” for persistently low investment by business in research have had no effect.

Joy and Despair over New Research Centres

There was good news for 12 new Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) and eight Centres of Excellence (CoE) that won funding from July. But, the cut-back of applicants was fierce, indicating a huge unmet demand for research support. No less than 27 applicants for CRCs and 80 bids for CoE failed.

The termination of the CRC for Renewable Energy provoked outrage from conservationists and industry. Particularly poignant was the rejection of a renewal for the Hobart-headquartered Forestry CRC, leaving a dim future for 75 postgraduate students. They had written collectively to McGauran, appealing for support after CSIRO’s Forestry Division, an existing partner, scuttled the bid by withdrawing at the last minute.

The new CoE are dominated by the physical sciences: Quantum Computer Technology, Mathematical & Statistical Modelling of Complex Systems, Autonomous Systems, Ultrahigh-bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems; Quantum-Atom Optics, and Advanced Silicon Photovoltaic & Photonics. Only two won funding in the biological arena: Integrative Legume Research and Biotechnology & Development.

Funding comes from the Innovation Statement, which the Group of Eight shows is inadequate to sustain the national status quo.

CSIRO Watch - Restructured Again

At the end of the second year of his 5-year term, CSIRO’s Chief Executive, Dr Geoff Garrett, has pulled the upper echelons of his “corporate” structure apart again.

At the heart of CSIRO - its research - Garrett removed Dr Graham Harris from heading its vaunted seven Flagship programs. With five Emerging Science Areas, these will gobble up 55% of government appropriations. Garrett’s claim of solid commitment to seven fields of research (first revealed in AS, August 2002, pp 15-17, and presented in detail to the government’s research priorities panel) has morphed into a mixed signal. Some Flagships seem reasonably well-defined while others are back in the melting pot.

Adding to the organisational lines of command and communication, a new layer of four “Executive Chairs” of “Self-Managed Teams of Divisions” have been appointed, covering Agri-Food & Fibre, Environment & Natural Resources, Information Technology, Manufacturing & Services, and Sustainable Minerals & Energy.

Anxiety levels among staff are high, as further redundancies have become unavoidable from the 10% per annum cut in appropriations to Divisions to fund the Flagships. It is widely expected internally that none of the redundancies will be revealed officially until after a decision on Triennial Funding.

The huge risk in Garrett’s “strategy” is its predication on substantial growth in income. A Board-approved Strategic Business Development Plan projected last year that external earnings must rise to about $450 million by 2005-06, especially in the international category. Yet, external income decreased in real terms for 2001-02, the first of Garrett’s full financial years.

Government appropriation will have to lift from about $600 million to about $850 million. On warnings that the May Budget will give priority to defence and security, it seems implausible that the government will commit an additional $250 million to CSIRO over only 3 years. But, anything less will leave CSIRO scientists - and Garrett - high and dry.

Much money had been invested by Garrett in revamping his “corporate communications” under Di Jay, the Director hired for a six-figure salary from Medibank Private despite her lack of experience in science or its communication. Talented and committed staff members were shunted out (AS, May 2002, p.10), there was a series of public relations disasters, and senior staff reacted to her directives that all media contact should be under centralised control.

Figures obtained by AS show that, under Jay, five previously successful programs were terminated: Parliamentary Science Briefings (Federal and State); the “Australia Advances” TV program, which averaged 75 TV spots for CSIRO science per week, reaching 4-5 million viewers; the Sci Files radio program, reaching 250 radio stations; the Gene Technology Information Program; and public opinion research and media analysis. Two other services were reduced: CSIRO’s Feature Service (which provides articles to industry and the general media) and media releases about CSIRO research (254 in 2002, down from 299 in 2001 and 340 in 2000).

As part of the big restructuring, Jay was pointedly downgraded from direct responsibility to Garrett and put under Dr Ron Sandland, promoted as Deputy Chief Executive. Jay protested bitterly to Garrett, but the writing was on the wall and she resigned in January after only 12 months in the post to run “a peak planning organisation”.

Peter Pockley