• Business Analyst - Integration
• Project Manager - Permanent...
• Support Analyst
• BUSINESS SUPPORT OFFICER
• Project Manager (S15CM0052)...

CEDA: Making Australian science work

Dr Peter Doherty, Information Age

10/12/2002 17:14:03

There is an urgent need to allocate more resources into science education if Australia is to build long-term capability in the biotechnology industries, Peter Doherty recently told CEDA'S Melbourne Trustees.

Australia, like all Western nations, faces an enormous challenge in responding to changes in work patterns brought about by factors such as the Internet revolution. We have moved to a knowledge society and for Australia this is a challenge in itself because of its small population. The amount of creativity and knowledge that can be generated in a country such as the United States with a population of 280 million is significantly greater than what can be achieved with our population of only 20 million. No matter what the quality of our education system, it is simply a question of numbers.

Australia's long-term approach should be to encourage good general education. We have to nurture all the creative talent we have, and identify individuals who can really contribute, and niche areas where we can have a substantial impact. Some of these niches will be historically determined. Due to the work of some key individuals, we have great strengths in molecular sciences - in plant molecular sciences at organisations such as the CSIRO and the Waite Institute, and in animal molecular science at institutions such as the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. A lot of money, in Australian terms, is going into developing these areas.

It's great to build a new industrial base in biotechnology. But to do that effectively over the long term we have to establish a culture of venture capital-a culture where scientists and business people interact. In the United States, the path that leads to the development of a new biotechnology industry begins when a scientist in a federally funded laboratory makes a discovery. The US Government provides an enormous amount of money for basic research in the biological sciences. For example, the National Institute of Health allocates around $US16 billion a year in research grants.

When a significant discovery with commercial potential is made by a researcher, a professional manager is then employed to identify funds to commercialise the discovery. In centres of biotechnology development, such as Los Angeles or Seattle, you will find people who have worked in many biotechnology operations. The fact that some of these ventures may have failed is not significant. They are accepted as high risk-it's regarded as a "churn rate in expertise".

Australia needs a similar culture, not just in biotechnology but in other areas as well. There is danger in focusing research budgets on only a few priority areas. This may be a response to funding constraints, but valuable research should not be excluded because it does not fit into one of the targeted areas. We have all heard of the brain drain. Nothing is more likely to cause a brain drain than telling a scientist that the country does not value his or her field of research.

There are reasons for concern about education, particularly science education, in this country. I am Patron of the Australian Science Teachers' Association and at a recent conference I listened to the concerns of science teachers. Students are tending to move away from the hard sciences because they are seen as difficult, Science is regarded as boring, obscure and too demanding, and there is a lot of discussion about how to make it more interesting. A young science teacher told me that Queensland is mandating only 180 hours of science teaching for Year 8 through to Year 10.This is despite the fact that Queensland is selling itself as a knowledge state.

Young children generally like science - they like doing experiments and interacting with nature. It is in the middle school years, Years 8 to 10, that science students are lost. There is peer pressure to switch off - the attitude of "who wants to be a nerd?" It is essential to encourage the interest of young people in science through this period. One hundred and eighty hours over three years is only 60 hours a year. That's very little science teaching. On the other hand, New South Wales is mandating 450 hours over the same period of time.

We must ensure that state education systems are strong, particularly in rural areas. Many of Australia's best scientists have come from the state school system (notwithstanding that some in the medical area have come from the better-funded private school system). Science has been fuelled by people who are driven by curiosity - it doesn't matter what your family background is, you can make it.

The universities are a matter of real concern. Something like $1 billion has been taken out of the university system since the Howard Government came to power. A competitive structure between universities has been set up, where they compete with each other for fee-paying students. The result is cafeteria-style development where universities sell product that is attractive to students, rather than fostering an academic culture that provides good training.

The attractions of studying the hard sciences such as physics and chemistry have not been great, but if we are going to build a biotechnology industry in this country we need a strong understanding of sophisticated chemistry. And we are going to need physicists. Universities will have to be strong in these areas and offer inducements to attract students to these subjects.

Currently there is a debate about the relative roles of the group of eight universities and the regional universities. The political reality is that no government will do anything to disadvantage the rural universities. So the question is: how do we best structure the university system? This is a very important debate for every Australian, and it is enor-mously important for the economic future of the country.

My personal view is that we need to consolidate particular strengths in specific universities, We need to develop good-sized groups dealing with a particular subject in one institution and then network institutions. For example, students of Harvard University can take courses at MIT, or the University of Massachusetts, or Boston University. We need to make much better use of the institutions we have and rationalise our resources. Currently, there are agricultural courses at La Trobe University, University of Melbourne, and Victoria University. Why do we need three separate operations? It would make more sense to have one really good operation in one university, so that, say, La Trobe University would be seen as the place to go for agriculture, the University of Melbourne would be the place for biochemistry, and so on.

How could this be done? We have a centrally funded system, so the funding providers can exert some control. In the United States, the public universities are all state systems. For example, the University of California has campuses in Los Angeles, San Diego, Berkeley, and so on. They are administered by the state as one system. You don't see the University of California, San Diego, starting up a course in forensic science and Berkeley starting a similar course. Yet I believe there are around 17 forensic science programs in Australia because there was a TV program that made forensic science look attractive. There are not many jobs available in forensic science. It really makes no sense.

There needs to be a structure that identifies strengths on an institutional basis. It does not have to be in the cities only. We can network very effectively, as demonstrated by the success of the Co-operative Research Centres (CRCs). The CRCs bring together science, industry and government laboratories in a useful interactive way.

There is a lot that can be done with the universities, but it won't be easy. A recent newspaper article said that reforming universities is like moving a graveyard: it's smelly, unpleasant and you get no help from the inhabitants.

There is an urgent need to do something substantial for Australian education. We have supportive state governments and some support from the Federal Government. The Wills Report on medical research led to more funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Batterham Report resulted in more money for the Australian Research Council. But we are dealing with governments that are basically economic rationalist in approach, and it is up to us to show that the funds allocated to research will lead to economic advantage. I hope to do what I can to help make this happen, and to promote the cause of higher education in Australia.

These edited highlights of an address by Peter Doherty to CEDA in Melbourne, August 2002 appeared in the October issue of CEDA's Australian Chief Executive magazine and are published by arrangement.