A very good summary of a big problem that needs action now!
A follow-up with the solutions is needed as quickly as possible.

You have highlighted what is going wrong with Australian Science. I have seen first hand what happens when research becomes a series of short-term low cost projects - our best scientists are going overseas and the new recruits are quickly disillusioned and change careers. Research laboratories are filled with overseas students who are eager to learn but find there is no one left to teach them. With only twelve months to work with there is no room for innovation or discovery or failed experiments - better to play on the safe side and only research the easy predictable stuff. At least then you stand a chance of getting a job next year.

Watching the slow death of our universities is hard to do. Particularly from the inside.

None of this is particularly new, the death throes /are/ getting more obvious now.

How or why accountants and their fairyland colleagues the 'economists' are allowed to run things still terrifies and confuses me. Accountants are very good at what they're trained to do. How that makes them qualified, or /more/ qualified, to do something else entirely is a mystery.

It doesn't help that whenever things go wrong, accountants are the first people called in. Followed by the lawyers. Why risk managers are brought in post-factum still elludes me.

Perhaps it's just me expressing sour grapes (though I /am/ a qualified lawyer) but why is budget more important in planning and so forth than actually *doing* anything that might actually achieve the objectives?

What a sad little article.

The author seems to think there is some correlation of action between this government and that of Stalin’s USSR.

Pretending a comparison between contemporary Australian socio-political institutions and Stalinist Russian socio-political institutions exists is to slander those Australian Institutions.

I guess if you have no basis for a statement and are starved of reason then the only recourse for those of such ineptitude is to slander those with capability.

Here we have this troll, for that is all he could possibly be, even with the postscript

“While this will hopefully never happen to such a degree here, it can be fairly contended that large realms of Australian science are already starving, either fiscally or intellectually, and that this will cost the nation in terms of its future social progress, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.”

having written what is, at best, a whining complaint letter about being held accountable for his activity.

We all have a duty to account.
No one is employed, by government or commerce. for a free-ride and that is what the author is, intrinsically asking for.

If this fellow wants someone to indulge his whims, regardless of the competitive expectations of all and any “funder”, then he should have organised being born to rich parents.

Even creative artists are expected to produce something by their philanthropic benefactors. A troll in a lab coat can anticipate no less an expectation for “output” (= accountability for what was defrayed to indulge them).

One of the difficulties of being a bean counter is, I see the world the way it is. The problem the author faces is, he only sees what he wants to see and if he had “power”, ironically, his abuse of it might possibly be as bestial and ruthless as that exercised by T.D. Lysenko.

Col Rouge - One problem with 'bean counters' in Australia is that most have gone straight from school into a business studies course. Few have discovered the wonderful world of science or the arts and what could be achieved given the resources. The finance company my husband started out with (another bean counter so I have nothing against them personally ;))insisted that its graduates had their degree in some other subject - it gives a more well rounded thinking employee with a better understanding of 'how the world works'. Maybe we should be encouraging this approach in Australian companies.

Economics is important and maybe should be the overriding factor in decision making but it is by no means everything. Also accountants and economists generally have a problem with any project that takes ten years or more to show rewards.

There is a progression in this which is a little alarming, and that is the utter conviction that anything worthwhile can be measured in dollar terms. While money has its uses, and can be usefully employed as a baseline for many business comparisons, it falls short of being the ideal that many would like it to be.

Health is a classic example. If everything within the health system is measured in dollars, the health providers (over a period of time, of course) will gravitate to the most profitable activities.

Which in all probability is cosmetic surgery on rich patients.

Is this a particularly desirable outcome? No. Is it the natural destination of a purely money-measured activity? Yes.

So in order to protect ourselves from this outcome (I am hypothesising here) we might take out insurance policies that guarantee the health service the same amount of dollars for attending a car accident as for conducting liposuction. At least we then have the "dollar measurement" bit covered.

Except, of course, that insurance companies are profit-driven, too. The premiums they charge will be actuarially determined, so that (inevitably) the cost will eventually be borne by those who most need the services. Getting old will suddenly become a very, very expensive business.

Scientific research is in the same boat. Companies will allocate R&D dollars only to those areas that will create a return on their investment within a realistic horizon - which, unfortunately becomes shorter every year. The sort of research that crosses thought boundaries will disappear completely, in a society that measures every form of action in dollar terms.

The speed and direction of this particular juggernaut can be seen in the financial results of our Banks. Together, they rip twenty billion dollars a year from their customers in the form of profits, but produce absolutely nothing of value. Yet every year they are congratulated by their peers for “producing a profit”

With values like this, research doesn't stand a prayer.

A good example of this kind of short-termism in action is the vanadium redox battery. It’s 100 per cent energy efficient, and as far as anyone can predict, infinitely rechargeable. It can be used for anything a conventional battery can be used for, and in large installations can store power station excess generation. Its efficiency means the total fuel expended producing power can be reduced, and there are major benefits for load-levelling. Both clearly very good things indeed. It’s also emission-free and uses green materials.

Unfortunately, developing the battery was never going to be quick. The UNSW team working on it couldn’t get funding because they wouldn’t be able to produce quick results. They had to work on it in their spare time, holidays and so on, while other less-important but shorter-term projects were funded. A triumph of accountancy and KPIs over good science and good sense.

And blue sky science does tend to be the stuff that makes the real innovations. Rutherford never thought splitting the atom would lead to the development of nuclear power. He was simply doing experimental physics – something the managerialist new order can’t, so won’t, ascribe a value to. He actually toasted the experiment’s success with the words “Here’s to the atom. May it never be of use to anyone”.

Something for the bean-counters to ponder, perhaps?

This is very, very, very true here in Australia.

“The speed and direction of this particular juggernaut can be seen in the financial results of our Banks. Together, they rip twenty billion dollars a year from their customers in the form of profits, but produce absolutely nothing of value. Yet every year they are congratulated by their peers for ‘producing a profit’. With values like this, research doesn't stand a prayer.”

Absolutely Pericles.

And therein lies the essence of the problem – the pandering of our government, and society, to the continuous growth paradigm and the profit motive.

How can independent research, especially research that is very likely to come to the conclusion that this sort of narrow future-destroying focus is…well, future-destroying…possibly hope to get funded??

In the minds of the economic rationalists, research that is not geared very closely to increasing productivity and hence profits and GDP, is a waste of tax-payer’s money, or more to the point, a waste of effort entirely.

What an awful catch 22! It is exactly this science lobby – the one that espouses the urgency of sustainability – that is desperately needed, to get us off this future-destroying path.

At least there is not total suppression – we do have Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and perhaps a few others. But generally speaking the situation is dismal

Sajo “One problem with 'bean counters'….. Few have discovered the wonderful world of science or the arts and what could be achieved given the resources.”

I spent a year doing graphic design at Art College before I commenced on becoming an Accountant All the Accountants I know do more than just “count beans” and have interests beyond their chosen profession.

“Also accountants and economists generally have a problem with any project that takes ten years or more to show rewards.”

“Generalisations” are never a good bases for debate, however in this case

I worked in USA for a TV/Internet company. They had a plan which plotted a 7 year gap before positive cashflows. That was until they received the feedback from a focus group which halved the revenue expectation causing the cashflow to disappear completely.

The point, if you start with an assumption of a 10 years before something shows rewards, there is a certainty that you got something wrong and really the rewards will take longer.

Business is about achieving returns for investors and stake holders. Any business which plans to wait 10 years for a return is run by fools. If a deal is 10 years before it returns and you want to stay in business, you need to find a better investment alternative. Ask the old board of BHP – they invested in non-returning projects and it cost them dearly.

Anyone with an idea needs to do the following

1: Sell it to an investor on its “competitive merits”.
2: Show that they it is not throwing money down the toilet
3: Remember, what you consider as your “pet” is only an investment opportunity to others and they want Security as well as Return (names like Tri-Continental, Enron, HIH spring to mind).
4: You are asking them to take a risk on you.

Would you prefer your superannuation funds (a source of investment capital) to be invested in an organisation which respects your expectation for security with a financial return for risk or would you like them to gamble with your retirement funds at the race track?

Col Rouge - your approach only works after ideas have already been formulated and developed to the point where it is reasonably certain that a profit will be forthcoming in a defined timeframe. Companies are always enthusiastic to make money out of someone elses good idea. They are just not so keen on funding the basic research. Someone has to come up with the ideas in the first instance which is where the problem lies - we desperately need to provide the resources and opportunities for innovation and discovery. In the past companies could rely upon Universities and government research institutes to provide the ideas. However this just is not happening here in Australia any more. Scientists in both public and private sectors are funded only for short term projects with very specific objectives and do not have either the time or resources to develop their ideas outside those objectives. In fact the very people who have the skills and ability to do basic research are leaving Australia in droves.

It is a very sad time for Australian science. Fortunately some other countries still understand what is required so we will at least be able to benefit from them - we will however have to bear the cost

Sajo “your approach only works after ideas have already been formulated and developed”

WRONG.

Someone might have an idea which they think might be a “winner”

What should they do?

Find the reason for pursuing the goal/dream/invention because they feel "passionately" about it as well as believing it it is commercially viable.

Expect to experience some degree of discomfort. Such as

A spending hours in research and development.
B Pursuing one solution only to abandon it for a better alternative.
C being considered eccentric / weird by their family and friends.
D spending money to develop the idea in its prototype stages.
E Having the passion to continue because you can see that much further than others.

“Employees” are employed to develop what the employer will eventually own. In this context, academics are employees of universities or CSIRO or other institutions.

Employees don’t get to share the reward available to the true entrepreneur but of course they do not take the same risks.

Entrepreneurial Development of ideas is not about a cosy job in academia where the mortgage payments are assured. It is more about going out on a limb, making the mortgage payments on a creditcard, if need be, because you have faith in what you are doing.

And when you have it to a stage of commercial viability, deciding how you will produce it and deliver it to market. At this stage you might seek the investor who I spoke of in my first post.

I have just spent 4 years going through all of A to E above. Then I came across someone who was pursuing a similar goal. We have put our individual products into a single company. Because of our different backgrounds he deals with some aspect of the business and I deal with others. Our first customer presentation left us selling two products plus ancillary equipment (and not just the one we went to present).

We know how large our market is. We know the products we have “add value” and will be commercially / economically successful.

Otherwise, why would we bother?

Really, something happens in the Kingdom of England if an obedient product of this Dark Ages place provided comparison between modern (roughly speaking contemporary) Australian science–related issues and Stalin-era institutions. Brave enough, an author is near airing a very right clue: no significant difference as mostly any context in Kennett-Howard-Costello-akas Australia is.

Annihilating the intelligence of both biologically inferior that is non-native-Brits and natives of lower castes ascendance is seen as a vigorous practice of inherited "the top knowledge" as a birthright.

Debate of “gifted children” in the media is a poor reflection on astonishing degree of an intellectual genocide in this appendix of the UK, where stupidity and intentionally imposed elementary illiteracy in math and natural science but some English only, suppose to fit lackey status of the lower beings and serve the privileged feudals and their clans.

That is what Lysenko did with regard to “working class interests” in the Stalin’s USSR.

Col Rouge - I understand what you are saying and commend your dedication and persistence. Good luck - I am all for entrepreneuralism. However am I right in thinking you did not need access to a multi-million dollar laboratory and government licenses in order to pursue your goals?

It is difficult to come up with new ideas in medical science for instance without access to very expensive resources. Therefore it is necessary to sell your idea to an investor first which of course will require a business proposal based on a bit more than something you have scribbled on a piece of paper - some preliminary experiments and/or trials would be required. A bit of a catch 22 situation unless you are already a billionaire.

The system of using Universities and government research institutes is a far more efficient way of sharing ideas and resources that can then be developed into a commercial product. At least it should be. There is probably scope for government to be making more money from commercialising funded research which could be reinvested in basic research. That is where we need the 'bean counters' - just please can we have some with a bit more long term vision than we currently have.

Sajo, definitely government-funded science creates more stable environment to researchers but need one innovations in a place already described above?

MichaelK - actually private research is far more stable - at least if you are any good. You can get a reasonably well paid permanent position in a private company - particularly if you go overseas. Public research basically involves going from one 6-12 month contract to another, hopefully without too long a break between projects and with any luck you won't have to move house each time. The days of secure tenured positions are disappearing fast.

It is rare to find a private organisation that will take on the basic research and there would be a great deal of bias. If people have problems with bias in the CSIRO just imagine what would happen if a company like Monsanto pulled ALL the strings. Having worked in both public and private research I can say without any doubt that private research organisations are far preferable to work for. I even had to clean the windows myself at the University laboratory where I was a postgraduate student - they hadn't been done for at least five years due to lack of funding. At the private lab we got free tea and coffee!

Discovery, innovation and commercial success have a thousand parents. Bafflement, imitation and commercial failure have none.

Should basic research be better funded in Australia? Perhaps.

An obscure, unfunded patent examiner in the Swiss patent office wrote three papers in 1905: on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect and on special relativity. Oddly, the second of these won a Nobel Prize.

At the other extreme, let's visit Silicon Valley near Stanford University in 1998. Millions a week were being poured into innovation.

Geeks wanted to sell dog food over the internet. Pets.com is no longer with us. Other geeks built an internet seach engine called Backrub in their dorm rooms - now worth $50 billion.

Was it Mao who said, "let a thousand flowers bloom", before stamping on most of them?

Good strategy, lamentable implementation.

In The Australian newspaper on Saturday, Thomas Barlow gave a precis of his new book in, "Hail, the clever country", which claims to explain where Australia's scientific strengths lie and to debunk the notion that our research is inadequate and poorly funded, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,18814700,00.html

Space forbids even the main points to be summarised. (The original article is available, I think, for 2 weeks, before it vanishes behind a paywall. Catch it while you can.)

Barlow is complimentary about Australian quality, commitment to and results of research, but he puts his finger on an interesting problem:

QUOTE
... where Australia is positioned closer towards the bottom of developed nations is not in the extent of overseas ownership of Australian inventions but in the level of Australian ownership of foreign inventions. Australia has one of the lowest rates of ownership of foreign-sourced inventions in the developed world. Only about one in 10 inventions owned by Australian residents was sourced abroad. In other words, Australia's biggest problem is probably not that a disproportionate number of inventions end up overseas but that not enough foreign inventions end up in Australia.
END QUOTE

If it is not the funding bodies or researchers who are letting Australia down, who is it? Lazy senior executives with stunted imaginations and flaccid ambitions?

So, “At the private lab we [sajo] got free tea and coffee!” - for how long?

“In The Australian newspaper on Saturday, Thomas Barlow gave a precis of his new book in, "Hail, the clever country", which claims to explain where Australia's scientific strengths lie and to debunk the notion that our research is inadequate and poorly funded, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,18814700,00.html “ –who know of Australia’s scientific strengths (and science in general) outside a circle of local higher education business enterprises – “Australian universities” ? Oh, yes, there is recently at least one world-recognised specialist, a professor to a male fertility, by who medicine was proven by independent foreign researchers to be poisonous rather than helpful on broad terms (read Australian media).

And more from MikeM: “If it is not the funding bodies or researchers who are letting Australia down, who is it? Lazy senior executives with stunted imaginations and flaccid ambitions?” Who? - The system, where everything has been inherited and not personal merits but a generational thoroughbred-ness is the most.