Ian,
There is hope while the Howard Government is in power of a resurgance in research, however I doubt if it will be of the public kind.

Australia's silver has been slowly sold off, over the past 25 years, and who knows C.S.I.R.O. could be next to be offered to the Packer family at little cost. Then some research could be undertaken, with a public subsidy to save the Packer family the HUGE expense.

So look ahead with confidence, untill you find yourself on the scrapheap, even then, pray for the wealthy, for they are the way of the future.

Not only is scientific effort in the public interest being clobbered - so is impartial dissemination of information in regard to it.
Rosslyn Beeby noted as much when she wrote in the Canberra Times on January 16 2006 in regard to the Sydney climate change gathering of shiny-tails:
"The Science Media Centre (set up in Adelaide) e-mailed out(to journalists)its list of suggested experts as the Asia-Pacific Partnership talks on climate change kicked off in Sydney last week. It was slim pickings indeed. Not one solar-energy expert, not one atmospheric scientist, or any mention of experts on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Ah, but we were offered the mobile number for the head of the Cooperative research Centre for Coal and Sustainable Development."

Every paragraph in this article by a citizen of the highest ethical standards involves money. Money is the primary agent in every problem he raises. Yet it never dawns on him to address money, let alone seriously consider it.

That's how deeply ingrained in our culture the magic nonsense of money as a store of wealth is. We whinge about its consequences, forever mention it directly and indirectly in passing, but never see it for what it is. And Ian Lowe is a questioner; he is very concerned about the public interest; and he is very bright; and yet his eyes see not [and his ears hear not; and his mind thinks not] when it comes to money.

What are the odds of a serious scientific investigation of money?

Ian I couldn’t agree more.

This is just another one the fundamental ways in which our government is failing us, and successive governments for a long time now. One of the fundamental roles of government is to look after society in the long term, is it not? But what do they do? Pander more and more to the big-business short-term vested-interest profit-motive. This sort of future-destroying directive that we see with the CSIRO and tertiary education has got to be a labelled a total perversion of democracy (‘demoncracy’). It is purely disgusting.

Of course these institutions should have secure ongoing funding that does not bias their research, findings and expression. OF COURSE!

What a sad state of affairs it is when the CSIRO cannot speak out in a balanced manner. I remember CSIRO’s comprehensive submissions to the Inquiry into Australia’s Carrying Capacity in 1994. But since then they have been progressively less progressive, being more and more suppressed in what they can say, for fear of offending big business and government. Some of the things that they feel can no longer be openly expressed are right at the core of Australia’s carrying capacity and sustainability issues.

The issues are in part whether it is better for Australia to focus on basic research, free of commercial influence or expectation, or to put more emphasis on commercially-driven research while depending more on the vast amount of basic research done elsewhere in the world; or whether we can sustain a high level of curiousity-driven basic research at the same time as fostering commercially-focussed research. While I tend to sympathise with Ian's view, these are legitimate policy questions for the government of the day when prioritising expenditure.

And I don't hold Ian in such high regard as do the previous commenters. Years ago, following briefings on global warming by IPCC luminaries such as Sir Frederick Houghton, I was perhaps the first economist in Australia to suggest a study of the potential economic impacts of GW - surely such an understanding would inform better policy. But when I raised the issue of economics involvement in environmental issues, I was publicly and viciously abused by Ian. The same Ian has in recent years shown great faith in IPCC projections of global warming of about 1.4-5.8 C by 2100. What is little recognised is that ALL of these projections are based on economic modelling, and that eminent economists and statisticians such as Ian Castles have totally discredited the modelling. If modelling of the most likely scenario were revised in the light of these critiques, warming would probably not be significantly different from zero.

So before we hand the keys to the Treasury to pure scientists, it would be nice to know whether they uphold the impeccable standards of Sir Frederick or whether they favour the agenda-driven approach of many of his IPCC colleagues and of Professor Lowe.

Ian, As usual, a very poignant reminder of how much time we don't have left.

How can we make such an important issue part of the common political dialectic?

Most punters don't know anything about research, let along public interest research.

We need to close the gap between "public interest" and the -who/what/why –this approach to research is so desperately overdue and pivotal to any sustainability at all.

Once this is done it will develop its own momentum.

These hot summers (2005 being the warmest on record) would convince even the most ardent critic of global warming.

A political party that flags it will launch a public interest research policy that integrates across all government departments and funding regimes will get my vote hands down.

Simply funding public interest research through one arm of government will not do.

Ian wrote the article for a general science and research audience, but it is important to note the comments regarding sustainablility in the last paragraph. Australia and the world is not living sustainably at the moment, and is really not showing any desire to. When the issue of the future, in light of increasing population and demands on resources is brought up, the answer is usually "technology will save us." Some new breakthrough will provide cheap energy, reduce pollution and provide safe drinking water.

Is that kind of research being done? Do the coal companies want a cheap renewable energy source? Isn't "commercially viable" research inherently short term? Will corporate executives pay for research that will show benefits in 30 or 40 years?

If the plan is for "technology to save us," then we better start investing in the kind of research that will save us.