Generally, there is little comprehension of science by politicians who mostly are educated in law and economics. Our PM is blatantly scientifically illiterate. He does not seek out the company of our best known scientists – but nothing seems to thrill him more than to be next to a sporting champion.

A parliamentary session opens with the Lord’s Prayer. It prays for divine guidance. As no thought or feeling is possible unless particles [such as molecules] move, if there is a creator, then he [it] cannot interfere with the interaction of the physical laws which move molecules without wrecking the whole system.

As all this is unknown to our parliamentarians whose understanding of scientific principles is about at the same level as what was know by the scientists of five centuries ago, can we wonder why science in 2007 is under-funded?

If Julian wants to wring more money from Canberra he’ll have to put up a better argument than this.

“An objective appraisal would find that it was science and technology which actually enabled the growth within a general setting of policies that allowed it to happen. It follows that greater investment in S&T will create more opportunities for economic growth, not to mention social and environmental gains.”

The first statement is not backed up with either reason or evidence but merely asserted as an article of faith. Would Julian accept as this reasoning from one of his students, I wonder?

Nor does the second sentence follow logically from the first – if research dollars are wasted, or if money spent on research could more beneficially be spent elsewhere – then more research funding will not produce more growth. In fact, there is no simple linear relationship between science spending and economic growth – otherwise, governments would be more than willing to hand more cash to Julian and his colleagues.

He implies that agricultural research generates $25-30 billion in exports every year, but this is not true – agricultural exports generate that amount, but is he arguing that, without giving money to agricultural science, our agricultural exports would be zero?

There is a case for government support for science, R&D and innovation, but this article greatly overstates the benefits and oversimplifies the means by which science supports growth.

Rhian has a point. I am a strong believer in building a better science infrastructure at every level in Australia, but I am frustrated when I see science advocates failing to make the case well. It is all too easy to lambast the supposed lack of vision of Australian polticans, and the usual crowds of true believers on either side will all violently agree with you that their political enemies are intellectual midgets etc etc, but if you really care about science, as against scoring a political point, you assume the obligation to build an evidence based case for increased funding. I would also rethink the scaremongering about the coming 'global famine'. Scientists are not a large, well funded lobby group and should compensate with more rigorous arguments, not more emotional ones.

Within the current framework it may seem as if it is the commercial world's interest in Science that holds the key to success.
But, if Science and its output are to be considered a national asset like infrastructure and resources, Science must learn to present its results to the market as valuable.
If ever there has been a time when we need Science, research, analysis and expert guidance on key and watershed issues, it is now!
Budget and Grant driven Science will no more meet the needs of the next century than politically driven Science as we have come to know it.
What is needed now is for Science (whoever that is) to stand up, force the political agenda by stating the bleeding obvious, and lead the discussion of the most pressing issues. This probably includes climate change, population, economic development in a non-growth environment, re-ordering of international relations, and the establishment of a global framework of initiative, co-operation and accountability. So we see the drift from issues understood best by acknowledging the science, to the need for political solutions. The political process is defensive, lazy and self-interested. It will not thank Science for the destabilising effect of informing the community about today's confronting issues. Hence the guarded relationship. Economics must shift from being the sole context of modern events, to being the discipline that provides the litmus tests that prompt us to seek deeper understanding of our time, using science as the tool of analysis.

I've been in Oz now for about 3 years, and have little desire to return to the States as almost all is good here. However, education and planning seem to be areas where little effort is focused. Given the great restrictions on what can be done with land here, i.e. farming is generally a marginal activity due to climate, only minerals offer much in the way of openning the great center. With populations limited to the coasts, which themselves only offer marginal water supplies, it is astounding that Oz is not a a world leader in water conservation and solar power. (As an aside we just got a subsidised toilet put in to conserve H2O, but it does not seal between tank and bowl and hence leaks!--so much for water conservation).

One has to ask "where is the leadership and vision"? or is it enough to win sporting events that no one else in the world even knows exist (Sorry about that all you netball fans!)