Interesting article. However, I'm just wondering in what areas we are falling behind in because of Goverment lethargy? I've been told we were apparently world leaders in embryonic stem cell technology until the moratrorium about 3-4 years ago. Does anyone else have any examples of where bad government policy has hurt scientific research? (Or the converse where good policy has helped?)

The Scientific method involves gathering the facts of a situation, building a hypothesis / model that fits the facts and then using the model to predict future scenarios and recommend actions.

Most political groupings appear to have a pre defined policy based on religion, emotion, or self interest and then collect facts to support it and ignore facts that oppose it. This results in politically palatable, but illogical policy being implemented to the extreme frustration of the actual people involved.

Possible a competent forum that is independant, in the way the reserve bank is independant, can be established to produce recommendations that the government is compelled to consider.

Yet another whinge about the human condition.
Yet again a case of “he/she/they don’t understand me”.
Just get a divorce and start again – if only we could.

A few years back an attempt was made to address this lack of understanding. It was a Fenner Conference, under the aegis of the Australian Academy of Science.

Participants came from near and far. Some flew in from America, others came by foot from Canberra, and a great variety in between. There were economists, social scientists, scientists out of biology and geology etc., demographers, politicians, media representatives with reporter and editor having time at the podium.

What a gathering, oh my countrymen. A time when you and I and all of us fell down. We did not rise to what this high-powered occasion offered. An enormous coalescence of talented minds, it focused on the need for interdisciplinary understanding and networking. This was the occasion which brought disparate groups together to cement bonds between them, a constructing of doorways through walls of intellectual silos. We went away feeling good. But become bogged yet again by entrenched bureaucracy.

So, here we are again – Julian Cribb distressed because “they don’t understand us scientists”. Indeed they don’t. And what would he have scientists do – have politicians and others genuflect to scientists-on-a-pedestal? Scientists who can’t see past the glow they get from a pat on the back because they have provided more sophisticated means of screwing the planet?

That Fenner Conference had scientists who could see that we are all in this together: scientists, other disciplines, and society. All in a dire situation due to excessive stress upon the planet by a single species – Homo sapiens. A situation rapidly approaching a nasty climax. A situation where scientists need to be more than mere tools for ever-increasing exploitation by humans of their own limited ecological niche in a finite world.

colinsett - I hear what you're saying, though it comes across as being pretty narrow minded. Sure, science has helped screw the planet. Problem is, it's also the only thing that can save it. As for pollution and so forth, I'd argue we've taken steps forward since the industrial revolution and that's likely to continue with current concern over climate change and the like.

The science councils is an excellent idea, but it's not really something the government should be behind. This needs some prominent scientists to step forward and take a leadership role. Seems to me, it's the scientists that need to get cracking on this.

I'd be interested in seeing Cribb put forward a more delineated proposal for the representation and structure of this council. Once an idea is out there, scientists could go about modifying it or filling the spaces...

Governments listening to scientists is a bit like an individual listening to their GP - we all know that no smoking, low fat low salt diets and lots of exercise is the way to go but most people will nod politely , leave their GPs office light up a fag and grab some Maccas on the way to work in their car.

We generally need a heart attack or the political equivalent thereof , like the Murray Darling drying up , before we take any action. Even then opinion will be divided based on perceived self interest.

Anyway if scientists can't organise themselves to be heard then I would have to question whether I would rely on the advice of such disorganised and ineffective people.(It's Monday I am feeling catty!)

Germany seems to be doing rather well in the field of renewable energy and I quote from 'Surviving the Century' (ed. H Girardet) "... the initiatives in Germany emerged from Parliament, based on its consitutional duty to act for the common good and not for the special interest of small fractions."

Surely here in Australia something as basic and undeniable as climate change should have had the active interest of every member at every level of government? Even if the whole suggestion of carbon dioxide as man-made global warming were a furphy, in a country like ours, why aren't we leaders in solar technology in order to be free of oil dependency? Actually, we may be, but with neither support nor encouragement from the Government, this may be an example of where the politics of science in Australia has been not just motivated by ignorance.

Interesting to think of a Government which believes it has "a "constitutional duty to act for the common good." Wish we had one.
Diana