Curmudgeon
Thank you.

"For example, is CSIRO meant to act as an over-arching research body for industry and agriculture? If so, why isn't industry paying for it?"

Exactly. If it’s supposed to be for the benefit of farmers’ productivity, why shouldn't farmers be free to choose whether to pay for it or not? The costs and benefits cannot be determined in the abstract, at the collective level. If particular farmers don't want to pay for particular technical assistance, it's because they judge that it would not be the best employment of their scarce capital. That being so, why should there be any compulsion to pay for technical knowledge they don't want, any more than for any other capital goods more than what they want, such as fencing or sheds or shearing?

Without the signals of profit and loss, how are producers going to know which consumers’ wants are more urgent and important? Politicians pandering to marginal votes? Rules and regulations? Coerced funding can only be the occasion of misdirecting resources.

For example, I&I (formerly DPI) in NSW publishes a guide to buying bulls. But no-one consuming this product is ever confronted with the choice whether the costs were worth it. Obviously anything might be beneficial if we don't count the costs of producing it. But this is irrational, because there is always a need to economise scarce resources to their most highly valued ends.

Similarly I&I provide certain veterinary services. Yet either the services of a vet are commercially worthwhile, or they’re not. If they are, the farmer should pay. And if they’re not, why should poorer people be forced into subsidising wealthier landowners specifically to engage in uneconomic, i.e. wasteful activity? It’s not scientific, it’s irrational.

And that’s only for services that are *intended* to benefit producers. But much, or most, state-fund “science” is actively hostile to productive activity. Since the only thing government produces is restrictions on liberty or forced redistributions, state-funded science inflicts untold cost on human welfare. These are ignored, because unknown and *assumed away* by the very assumptions of governmental benevolence and omniscience motivating it.

Peter Hume, great example.

In the Defence area, the DSTO, Government Research body and scientific advisers are so useless at actual timely advice, that the RPDE has been set up. Rapid Prototyping and Development Establishment, to give Defence a quick and timely response to real world problems - usually DTSO took 2 years (about the time to write a white paper, which contributed to their pay rises and promotion, no thought of the warfighter at all need be considered)

RPDE is funded by Defence, i.e. the taxpayer, as is DSTO. It is manned mainly by industry, with one or two scientists there, for form's sake. RPDE gets things done, DSTO are just a rest home for scientists, with only the occasional work being done that is of any value at all .. apart form getting more funding, or a Phd, or other "valuables" that are part of the inner circle.

Yes, there is a need for some fundamental research and ongoing research, but much of the work DSTO does is merely make work and completely self indulgent. It is of bugger all use to the warfighter, but over 3,000 scientists are thus kept in employment, and local universities churn out yet more of the parasites.

That's pretty well the picture of most government research in Australia.

if you go to CSIRO and say, what have you done, do you have a register of all the research done, perhaps I might want to use some of it .. they have no such thing, they do not know what has been done, unless you find someone with historical memory. All their effort is focused n new research and funding .. indeed, they don't even know if they are doing the same work, more than once.

Science in Australia needs a collective kick in the bum, it is so lazy and self absorbed and not in touch with the real world's needs .. but don't get near them at grant writing time, you'll lose an arm, the only time you see any motivation .. the trough

Science may be in the doldrums but, from an engineering perspective, Australia has already become a third world country.

Around 5,000 Australians annually graduate as engineers - this is about the lowest per capita rate in all the OECD countries. It compares with annual rates, calculated by Duke University in 2005, of around 352,000 in China, 112,000 in India and 137,000 in USA. (The Duke figures have been adjusted to fairly represent the number of comparable 4-year trained graduates from each country).

In China it is said that engineers represent 33% of all university graduates. Both President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao are former engineers. In Australia the only person in our current government who seems to have any technological training at all is Climate Change Minister Greg Combet who, according to his website, "studied" Mining Engineering at UNSW before he "graduated" in Economics at Sydney University. (One might be forgiven for thinking that the term "studied" might be being used as a euphemism for “dropped out of”.)

Whereas a country such as Sweden, with about a third of our population, has a wide range of indigenous design & manufacturing companies which includes Volvo (vehicles), Saab (vehicles & aircraft), Ericsson (telecommunications), Electrolux (white goods), etc. Australia’s only claims to fame seem to be the design & production of the Stump Jump Plough in 1870 and the Victa Lawnmower in 1952.

The current ALP/Green mantra, that a tax on “Carbon Pollution” in Australia will somehow produce technological breakthroughs in economical green energy technology that will create thousands of jobs here, is definitely quite bizarre – but, unfortunately, many seem to accept it.

On the question of bias in publicly funded science, I would have to say this is inevitable. With success comes money, and with money comes politics.

As for the suggestions that science should not be government funded, I would have to disagree. The same arguments against government funding of science, such as those who wish to benefit should pay (and vice versa) often fall apart when you discuss basic science of medical research.

While I am against big government, I still believe that basics such as police/defense, health and education needs to be government funded. Why? Well I won't pretend that any of these things are an efficient use of resources, but investing in these areas provide society with long term benefits. The sort of benefits that would not satisfy an individuals or companies requirement for short term returns. Many companies today are making profits from commercializing research previously funded by the government. If medical research is cut by $400 million in this budget, what will be the cost to the taxpayer in decreased health of society resulting in longer hospital stays etc?

mayrog - international comparisons are only of limited use. The number of engineers graduating in China may simple be a reflection of its still developing status.

You also use the example of Sweden. Again those industries are called forth by economic circumstances. Sweden has more of those design firms because it has to have them. For better or worse, Australia has a major minerals industry, so it hasn't grown the manufacturing industry Sweden has.. the exact mechanism is unclear but tne number of engineers is a result of economic cirucmstances.. increasing or decreasing engineers does not change those circumstances.. it just means more or less unemployed engineers..

Why is it whenever i hear orred someone talking about capitalism being the way and trickle down economics being the answer I always think of Golden showers?

The question I have is why does the right hate science so much? sure you can talk about how to fund it but I can't help noting the rage fueled demonic thumping of the keys by some of the posters.

To the Author I think the independent group would prove to be less independent then we would like it to be without some effective way of selecting them. Value is such a subjective thing.