Some quick responses to queries and points made:
TurnRightThenLeft: I outlined the concept of a National Science council in an earlier article at:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6047
Essentially I suggested a model comprising both research institutions and individual scientists, having a budget of $6m and being totally independent of govt and free to speak its mind.
I honestly can't figure out why science is the only major Australian profession or industry to lack an independent peak national body, but it certainly curtails its influence. Having witnessed the birth of the National Farmers Federation from a mess of competing farm bodies, it is clear how having a unified voice can command national attention and establish greater relevance. The Academies, as I see it, are not adequately resourced, nor sufficiently free to speak their minds owing to their taking the govt's shilling. They are also many.
Sparky: you name the areas of science where we are dropping behind - greenhouse, NRM, water, energy, internet and communications technology, genetics, space science, maths, earth sciences, agricultural science. It's across the board.
Shadow Minister: I like the Reserve Bank analogy. That's the sort of expert, trusted and public advice science could provide if it desired to do so. The RBA also takes the politics out of interest rates. A science body could help dilute the politics in big science-based decisions.
Westernred: good points. When enough scientists realise how ineffectual they are being on behalf of science, and how much of our new knowledge is being wasted, then something may finally be done. Meanwhile most seem to hope someone will continue to push the brown envelope under the lab door.

TRTL, you say “This needs some prominent scientists to step forward and take a leadership role.”

That Fenner Conference, mentioned above, was such a step – a very positive one taken by scientists concerned, over and above their immediate professional niche of expertise, with the state of the planet and humanity’s precarious place on it.

That Conference was initiated by the science fraternity. It was not a one-off or a first. Similar public conferences and events had preceded it, attempting to bring together a broad mix from society. Its specific purpose was an attempt at establishing common purpose and cross-pollination across boundaries of disciplines. A great mix of disciplines attended, and the public were invited.

“Seems to me, it’s the scientists that need to get cracking on this”. They already have.

Until politicians get educated in science, don’t expect progress. Until they want to. That won’t happen while they continue to degrade society’s primary-to-tertiary education, chasing votes from religion, even from fundamentalist corners of America. An illumination from the SMH (25.9.07):
“Some conservative and evangelical churches in the US believe that it is more important to save souls and give spiritual comfort in times of crisis than to intervene on climate change. Others worry that acceptance of global warming science paves the way for the acceptance of evolutionary science.”
Science can not save us, if “us” insists expanding forever. “Us” needs to take an interest, educated, in science of how the world works, From pre-school to tertiary.
And until politicians are one of “us” they will not give science its due. No matter how hard scientists try – I hope I am wrong. And not trying is not an option.

Reckon if our so-called ruling Corporate Culturists realised that they are only dregs from the free-market colonial days when national corporates held not only most of Canada most of India and all of what became Sri-Lanka and all the Dutch East Indies, one wonders whether they might stop buying shares in companies that many ordinary thinking studying folks can see who is really calling the global tune.

Certainly Rupert Murdoch is a big part of it, when even people who hate his guts are being entertained and softened down through Foxtel?

We are falling behind in IT and web standards. Australian Universities are also falling behind in IT standards. Special Minister of State Gary Nairn responsible for IT and quoting the Australian Government Information Management Offie (AGIMO) wrote to me stating that "Australia is a world leader in e-governance". I spend hundreds of hours comparing and testing sites in the UK USA and Australia and he is wrong. The UK leads the world in e-governance. Australian Universities are a little better but many are in denial of web publishing standards and just want me to go away and stop showing up their html errors.

Results
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Results.html
Australian government web site tests
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
USA sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html
UK sites tested
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html
Study design
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/WebSurvey.html

I also tested Australian University sites for the validity of their documents and accessibility compliance with the 1992 Australian Discrimination Act. A 600 Kb page that took me a month to research.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustUni.html#skipnav

Yours Faithfully

Tim Anderson
Melbourne
The Editor
http://www.hereticpress.com