More than 100 neuroscientists gathered in Washington DC recently to hear Australia’s Chief Scientist, and former neuroscientist himself, speak as part of the world forum, Neuroscience 2011.

As well as opening a lecture on “Schizophrenia – Research Developments towards New Treatment”, Professor Chubb was also invited to speak at the “Neuroscience Down Under” forum at the Australian Embassy.

In his speech he highlighted the value and importance of research conducted by Australian neuroscientists.

“Neuroscience is ubiquitous – understanding how our brains work can obviously improve our mental health in areas like Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia, but it also has the capacity to affect our daily lives by helping us improve the way we learn, or the way we relate to our family or friends,” Professor Chubb said.

To the audience, he acknowledged that the discipline can often be overlooked. “As a former neuroscientist myself; I will make sure this crucial science discipline remains on my agenda, especially considering its importance to the national interest,” he said.

The speech also highlighted some of Australia’s greatest contributions to neuroscience, including the 1963 Nobel prize-winning work of Sir John Eccles at the ANU on the ionic mechanisms of synaptic transmission in the brain and Professor Geoffrey Burnstock’s work at the University of Melbourne in the 1960s and 1970s that led to the discovery of purinergic transmission and the first formal proposal that neurons may release more than one neurotransmitter. His discovery has helped scientists better understand and work towards treatments for epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, pain, cystic fibrosis and cancer.

More recently, in the 1990’s Australian scientists were the first to identify the presence of, and eventually isolate, neuronal stem cells in the adult brain. This was the basis for a new field of research into neuro-regeneration which has potential for new treatments of neurological and mental illnesses.

It was also an Australian who discovered the first effective medication for a mental illness. Dr John Cade’s discovery in 1948 of the effects of lithium carbonate as a mood stabiliser for bipolar disorder heralded the beginning of psychopharmacology. In an age where the standard treatments for psychosis were electroconvulsive therapy and lobotomy Dr Cade revolutionised the way the world thought about mental illness.

Alzheimer’s research also owes a debt to an Australian neuroscientist, Professor Colin Masters research on amyloid plaques and A-beta protein identified a key pathway causing Alzheimer’s disease and are now the subject of world-wide research to provide diagnostic and treatment solutions.

To see photos of the event, visit the Chief Scientist’s facebook page at www.facebook.com/chiefscientist

Speaking at the National Youth Science Forum (NYSF) in Canberra, Professor Ian Chubb announced he would be judging a nation-wide critical thinking competition.

Australians of all ages are invited to create 3-5 minute videos presenting an argument on one of four topics:

• Considering the stated benefits and risks, should farmers be allowed to grow Genetically Modified crops?
• In order to reduce our carbon emissions, should Australia replace our coal-fired power stations with nuclear power generation?
• Geoengineering is being considered as a valid technology to slow or stop climate change, other scientists warn that the full effects of the technology is unknown. Should we use geoengineering to stop or limit climate change?
• Nanoparticles are being used to enhance many existing products. While this happens research into the effects of nanoparticles on the human body and environment is ongoing. Should the inclusion of nanoparticles in products be stopped until the safety of nanoparticles is assured?  

The competition aims to improve the critical thinking skills of Australians and encourage people to delve deeper into arguments they may hear in the media, from friends of family, or even politicians.

“People of all levels of education and power are susceptible to wearing blinkers sometimes, so it’s vital that we learn how to spot flawed logic or bad argument techniques,” Professor Chubb said to the NYSF students.

“The competition topics are complex and often difficult to understand, but they are those which will answer the questions of today for the benefit of tomorrow. We need to encourage people to analyse what they see, read and hear.”

The National Youth Science Forum brings together high performing senior science students from across Australia every year, exposing them to leading scientists, laboratories and potential careers.

“One of the great things about speaking to NYSF students (and I’d say this is close to my 20^th) is that I have come away 20 or so times convinced that the world has a chance; because if you look closely you can see that the world, or parts of it, is in good hands,” Professor Chubb told the students.

“I see students with the hopes and the aims and the freshness to do good things. Students willing to take us to new levels, as we search out what we are, why we are what we are, and how we got to be where we are.”

The critical thinking competition is a collaboration of the Department of Innovation’s Enabling Technologies Strategy, the TechNyou Science Outreach Program and the Office of the Chief Scientist. Educational materials for teachers are also available.

Entries close May 1, 2012 and will be judged by a panel of leading science communicators including:

• Australian Chief Scientist – Professor Ian Chubb
• Centre for the Public Awareness of Science – Dr Will Grant
• CSIRO Education – Ross Kingsland
• Science and Technology Australia– Anna-Maria Arabia

To find out more visit: http://technyou.edu.au/competitions/critical-thinking-competition/

You can download the speech here, or read it below.

Good morning,

I thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I should say that I have always found it a pleasure to start the year with a string of openings of various sorts: mostly summer schools, youth fora, conferences and the like. I have done them all. But I think it is a great to start a year in the company of people committed to learning and who are enthused by the idea of learning more.

It is important to have that enthusiasm, and to nurture it when we see it.

This planet of ours faces very many challenges. It always has; and I guess people like me have been standing up at shows like this and reminding people of the challenges we face for a very long time.

Probably each generation has been told that the challenges are great. Maybe the challenges of times past were sometimes less confronting than those of today. But scholars like you through the ages have applied themselves to help us understand the why, the how and the what – building on the knowledge that was available at the time.

It is important that you do. But it is important that we all recognise the context in which you do what you do.

We commissioned a survey recently of senior secondary students. Only a small proportion of the non-science students thought that science had an impact on their everyday lives almost always (I forget the exact phrase). The rest got down to never but the bulk thought sometimes through to more often than not.

At first blush, you might think that they were young people for whom a day could pass when they never used any or all of a mobile telephone – or a land line, switched on or off electricity to some modern appliance or other, ridden in car, pulled on a sneaker, eaten any food, watched TV, listened to radio, taken a medicine or even used a plastic bank-note. People don’t have much reason to pause and think about science and its impact; instead they tend to take it for granted. And that is where we start when we think about the why, the how and the what – or what for – today.

So the students of today, you and your colleagues, face challenges on a grand scale. Challenges like climate change, food security, population growth, sustainability and ageing populations. Yet we start from a position where the worth, the real value of science is treated across a spectrum from ignore through neglect to utter contempt, by too many.

There is a Presidential candidate in the US who reportedly declared the scientific evidence of global warming as ‘junk’ and ‘patently absurd.’ Just like that; no ifs, no buts, no can you explain it to me, I’m a lawyer. Just junk.

This is not the language of a man puzzled by scientific complexity, nor even one worried by what he doesn’t know. It is not a man demonstrating an understanding of the scientific process, or the scientific method, or even the role of scepticism in properly conducted science. But they are the words of a man aspiring to the most powerful elected office on the planet.

It is not that I think the candidate should accept the scientific evidence without thought or serious reflection; or simply accept it because the weight of evidence lies on one side. But the issue is also much too important for the evidence to be a casualty of the frenetic search for the maximum vote. I would certainly like to know, were I an American about to vote, that the candidate had seen the evidence on this critical issue, had come to grips with it personally, understood probability, and could explain why he thinks it is ‘junk’ or ‘patently absurd.’ If it could be reported that he could do that those who agree with him would know why; importantly, those who do not agree may well see something they haven’t seen before. But I’m not going to wait in breathless anticipation.

I mentioned earlier a few of the big problems that need solutions. And largely, these solutions will be in many ways dependent on the work of mathematicians like yourselves.

Maths is an enabling discipline. Engingeering, physics, chemistry, geology, statistics are all dependent on mathematics. The sequencing of the genome was as much a triumph of mathematics as it was an achievement for biological science. It is fundamental to the commerce on which our society depends and is at the root of much modern medicine. And yet so many people struggle to see its relevance in their day to day lives – as I mentioned earlier.

Somehow (I say hopefully) we must explain to the world at large why it is important. Explain that there are some amongst our cohort of scientists, mathematicians, engineers who will devote their time and their skills to the understanding of the very nature of things. We must explain that there are others who will use that knowledge, add to it, mould it and turn it into applications that benefit humankind. All are valuable, all are critical indeed, and all will play their part in meeting some of our challenges head on.

So we have the responsibility of doing very well what we choose to do, wherever in the spectrum it falls. We must do it ethically, and rigorously and with care. And we must work to take our community along with us – by explaining to it why we do what we do, and how.

The last of these has had too little attention. Gowers wrote a decade ago that of you asked a mathematician to explain what they are working on, you’d often be told that it’s impossible in such a short space of time. Worse still, if you push and ask if their work has practical applications, too rarely do you receive an impressive response[i].

Then there is a always a group who have no sense of obligation. Famously, Cambridge mathematician GH Hardy was proud that his work on number theory had a complete lack of practical applications. To Hardy the worth of his work was in its beauty. And I quote: “No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, the least difference to the amenity of the world”[ii]

This might be good for some – even good enough for those who believe that the support of their research even their salaries actually grows on trees – good enough for those who thing in terms of entitlement – but it really isn’t good enough these days. In any case, this idea of ‘impractical maths’ is a fallacy – the work of mathematicians over the last fifty years, even in obscure realms of maths, has had an enormous impact.

I imagine most of you in this room would consider yourself first and foremost mathematicians, and continue in honours and post docs because you appreciate the intricate beauty of mathematics. Some of you will being doing it for that reason alone – others with applications or potential uses in mind. Yet, the work of all of you may be fundamental to solving the complex problems we face.

Unfortunately for Australia – though perhaps fortunately for you – demand in Australia for maths graduates has outstripped supply. Between 1998 and 2005, demand for mathematicians and statisticians in the Australian economy grew by 52% – an annual growth rate of 5.4%. Forecasts up to 2013, project an expected growth rate of 3.6%[iii].

And yet in the period 3 2001 to 2007 the number of enrolments in a mathematics major in Australian universities declined by approximately 15%[iv]. Projected figures state that by 2020, there will be more mathematics PhDs retiring from the Australian workforce than entering it. This is in spite of the predicted 55% increase in demand by 2020 for mathematics and statistics PhDs across all sectors of the economy[v].

On the global scale, we are falling further and further behind. In 2003, the percentage of students graduating with a major in mathematics or statistics in Australia was 0.4%. The OECD average is 1%[vi]

So what can we do about it? We need to increase the number of people taking on maths in universities, now. Which means we also need to increase the number of  students taking high level maths in schools, now.

Late last year, I was asked by the Prime Minister to develop strategies to increase science and maths enrolments, so I have two months to come up with some good ideas. The advice is still being formulated – so if any of you have really, really good ideas, you can email them to me.

But there are obvious things – like teaching maths/science/stats interestingly at school and university, scholarships, career advice (not every PhD has to take their Professor’s job to be a success), links with industry – the list is long. And the other part is to get the community behind us: to show people that maths is vital to improvements in their every day lives – all the time.

So I congratulate you all on making it this far. You will be invaluable to Australia’s future. And there is no doubt we need people like you. And let us tell the whole world about it.

Thank you.

[i] WT Gowers (2000). The importance of Mathematics. http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/importance.pdf

[ii] G. H. Hardy (1940). A Mathematician’s Apology. Cambridge: University Press. pp. 153

[iii] Group of Eight (2009). Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Sciences and Quantitative Disciplines. P6 http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2010/go8mathsreview.pdf

[iv] Group of Eight (2009). Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Sciences and Quantitative Disciplines. P7 http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2010/go8mathsreview.pdf

[v] AMSI (2011). Making Maths Count for Cabinet Ministers. http://www.amsi.org.au/news/87-generaland-outreach-news/789-media-release-making-maths-count-for-new-cabinet-ministers

[vi] Group of Eight (2009). Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Sciences and Quantitative Disciplines. P7 http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2010/go8mathsreview.pdf

On Wednesday, 14 December 2011, the Australian National University (ANU) presented Professor Chubb the degree of Doctor of the University for his outstanding service to the University and his distinguished contributions to higher education and society.

Professor Chubb received his degree as part of the 2011 graduating ceremonies and also gave the keynote address to the graduands which you can read here.

You can download the PDF version here Professor Chubb’s Speech to ANU graduates 14 December 2011 

Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, distinguished guests and, most particularly, graduands.

Firstly, can I thank you Chancellor for the honour you have given me today. 

I was always pleased to be a part of this great university with the privilege it brought of working with many of the best staff and students in the country.  It was exciting to be part of a university where nearly everyone was always trying to do better – to understand more, to learn more, to use their skills and their knowledge – to do in fact what the ANU motto proclaims our purpose to be – first to understand the nature of things. 

It was great to be part of Australia’s National University – a University whose place in our community is special – a privilege given to us by legislation but a privilege earned because of the quality of the work – indeed the commitment to the role – of virtually the entire University. 

So I greatly appreciate an award that connects me to the University permanently and makes me part of it again – a place I’ll always value very highly.

Let me now offer my congratulations to all of you graduating today.  It is a great achievement; the culmination of a great deal of effort and the result of a great deal of commitment. You can all be proud of what you have achieved – you have earned that right. 

You science graduates are a rather special group.  You have talents and skills and knowledge that our world desperately needs if it is to survive, and if all who live on it are able to enjoy a safe, secure and sustainably prosperous future. 

You are prepared now for the next steps in your life, and the next steps in your career. It is an exciting time.  I know it is because if I try really, really hard I can just remember my level of excitement when all those years ago I took the step that you are taking today.

Simply put, my cohort all thought that it was fantastic, a real high – much better than any other type of high commonly experienced in the ‘60s and ‘70s – or so  I am told.  We had finished what we set out to do; we were going out there to face the world; we knew with the certainty of youth that we could change that world and we knew that it needed to be changed; we were tolerant, idealistic and wise beyond our years.  We thought.  The world was indeed our oyster – and we were filled with anticipation – no challenge could not be met, we thought.

And when you look back on it, even using the reality-tinged rear vision mirror, we did achieve a bit, my generation.  The world is a different place from then – much better in some respects though certainly not better in all.

If the world was our oyster then, it is yours today.  You, too, have completed what you set out to do in this phase of your life.  Like ours in those earlier days, your excitement will stem partly from that achievement and even sense of relief, and partly from the fact that not everything ahead of you is predictable – and many of you will feel the same thrill of nervous anticipation that we did. 

There are challenges out there; some big ones.  But you are well equipped to meet them.   

Because of your fine education, you will be confident in the value of the scientific method – you will know that hypotheses are there to be tested; that evidence is the basis of science; that being sceptical is at the core of science; that robust debate and the contest of evidence-based ideas, not belief, is the foundation of scientific knowledge.  You will know that science, and the uses to which scientific knowledge is put, must be acceptable to our communities so we must work within an ethical framework that is consistent with community mores.  And you will be able to deal with uncertainty, and with probability, because you will know that there is always more to know.  

Because of your fine education, you won’t be daunted by complexity but rather you will be excited by it.  You will use your own scientific discipline as your foundation, but you will know how to work with others as they put their disciplines, and their culture, alongside yours as you search together – to solve problems, or to lessen adverse impact.

There are indeed some big issues in this oyster of yours. Ones like climate change; reduced arable land and soil fertility; food supply; fresh water;  pandemics and health more generally; ageing populations – alongside population growth. 

The real question is obvious: how do we face challenges? How do we face them down, really? 

Even now, in 2011, we can’t feed or house the world’s population, nor provide all of it with clean drinking water, security or good health.  Our planet can’t sustain us now – there are already some 1 billion malnourished people yet by 2050 there will be an additional 2 billion people on Earth.

Many of you graduating today won’t believe that we can face the challenges just by doing more of the same – adding small incremental movements to everything.  Nor should you.  The rest of us don’t want you to be content with that approach either.

We all want you to apply your talents and your skills, your knowledge, to find new ways of doing things – better ways.  Ways that take us off an escalator and put us into an elevator – ways that move us from incremental changes and take us to necessary step changes.

Remember that it will be people like you, with an education like yours, who will discover what we need to know and who will have the ability to use that new knowledge to provide many of the answers that our future will depend on.  It will be quality thinking and quality work in the disciplines represented here today, and in the countries represented here today, that will help human-kind to meet the challenges head on – and win.  

I have come away from my 150 or so graduation ceremonies over the years convinced that the world has a chance.  Not just because they are happy days and we leave on a high, but because you can see that the world, or parts of it anyway, is in good hands.  You see graduates with the hopes and the aims and the freshness to do good things.  Graduates equipped to take us to new levels, as we search out what we are, why we are what we are, and how we got to be where we are.  Indeed, that basic understanding is another of the great challenges of humanity – learning, as I said earlier, the very nature of things.  And so, too, is taking what we have learnt and applying it for the benefit of all living systems. 

So let me leave you with a few simple thoughts: be proud of what you have done and face the future with confidence; never forget the less fortunate or the less privileged because they need you to use your knowledge and skills so that their lot in life can be improved; and never resile from your personal values, stand up for what you believe in and be confident of what you can achieve when you try.

Through all that you have done – and all that you will do – I hope that there is time for enjoyment.  I hope that you enjoyed your studies.  I hope that you will enjoy your work. And for now, I am sure that you will enjoy your celebrations.

I thank you sincerely for letting me share this day with you. 

Photograph taken by Penny Bradfield from The Canberra Times

Thank you for inviting me to open the National Forum on Education in the Biomedical Sciences.

There is no doubt that the teaching of science courses is a critical element in our future – especially if we want that future to be safe, secure and sustainably prosperous.

And we don’t start from a particularly rosy position – although the biomedical sciences are in better shape than most and there has been a slight increase in science enrolments in recent years.

For the purpose of the figures I am about to give you, Biomedical Sciences are defined as: biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, microbiology, human biology, medical science and pharmacology.

If you allow that definition, then in 2009, those biomedical sciences accounted for 28% of all science teaching to domestic undergraduates enrolled in a science degree – that is, load per BSc. This is about double the amount of teaching of maths or chemistry to science students.

For 2^nd and 3rd year students, the biomedical sciences accounted for 35% of all science teaching to domestic undergraduates enrolled in a science degree in 2009. This is around three times the amount of teaching of maths or chemistry to those students.  I should add that other biology takes the ‘biological sciences’ figure up to about 60% of the total.

As I said, the biomedical area is in a better position then physics, chemistry and mathematics.

But, personally, I would find it hard to argue that we can have robust biomedical sciences alongside weak or weakening physics, chemistry, mathematics and statistics. Biomedical sciences without the foundation that those disciplines offer would be pretty flimsy.

But that isn’t the end of it.

In our schools, there has been a fall in participation in science subjects in year 12 that should alarm us all.  Some work done for us by the AAS shows that between 1991 and 2007, Biology enrolments are down from 36% to 25% of students enrolled in year 12; Chemistry from 23% to 18% and Physics from 21% to 15%.

While the decline appears to have slowed, there is no sign yet that it has stopped.

As Chief Scientist – even as a former VC – I don’t think that the signals that these numbers send are good for our country. As a once practising scientist, I can’t imagine how we did then, and apparently how we still, miss the opportunity to explain the awesome wonder indeed the beauty of science to our students – let alone the importance of science to our future.

But, if you look at the responses from students to surveys, you find that they too many too often declare that science is hard, boring or presented in a not very interesting way.

Didactic approaches riddled with formulae and content that is disconnected from what the students see and hear around them in every day life.  And this approach is compounded by a recipe-based approach to practicals that are right or wrong not imaginative ones that stimulate thinking.

It would appear that too many students are taking the content given to them and trying to remember enough to pass. And for many in school they drop it when they can; and for many in university they take some science in first year because they need it and then stop it when they can – first year science enrolments are some 50-70% of total science enrolments.

Surely in our schools and universities it is time to consider how we interest our students in ways that kindle a flame.

We know from our Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s work that there are a lot of good ideas out there – the question for us – for you – is how to learn from them, how to harness them and to provide a science education in our schools and universities that interests students in science and ensure that it is an interest that grows rather than dampened by the way we go about offering science to our students.

It is not all straightforward.  Our intake is not homogeneous. The growth in our sector has meant that there are many students enrolled in science programs from the ATAR of 100 to something much, much lower.  Accommodating the breadth is not easy: setting the bar too high simply means that there are many disillusioned who will probably fail or drop out; setting it too low is not in our interests – we need to stimulate and challenge all students including our best.  

This sorts itself out to some extent: our universities are not an homogeneous set either.  Different universities will cater for different parts of the cohort and aim for different outcomes.  We know they do. 

And we can predict that the outcomes are different: the highest percentage increase in science enrolments over the past two years (off a low base) was in a university with an ERA score of 2; 6 of the Go8 contributed collectively some 45% of additional science enrolments with an average ERA of 4.2.  I expect the students are taught in a different environment. 

But it also means that we have to work hard and probably differently to ensure that all our students are well prepared for their university studies AND then receive what they are entitled to expect: that if a university enrols them in a program, they are entitled to expect that with diligent application they have a fair chance of succeeding. 

The question is how?

 The issue that I know confronts you, that interests you, is an important one: how do we learn from each other and advance the cause  – we know that in contemporary times, by working as individuals or in small groups it is just not going to work.  Active and strategic collaboration is needed.

This forum has all the right foundations and the right motivation.

It has been initiated by the Academy and the network (CUBEnet) has been funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council and has the support of the Australian Deans of Science. The main aim of the network is to identify and address the key issues and challenges facing biomedical science educators in the 21st century and in the process to:

• develop a leadership group of active tertiary biomedical academics at the national level to create a program‐wide approach to the biomedical curriculum
• maximize the efficiency of development, dissemination and adoption of innovative curriculum elements
• aggregate, filter and connect ideas and information with the other teams and networks to achieve effective, transferable and sustainable solutions.

I think it is what needs to be done – and I commend your initiative. 

I do think it is important that we come to terms with the reality of today.  We need more science, more people with a science – based education, more people comfortable with science and more people prepared to help lead the community through the scientific complexities of the modern world.

If we do that, we will have done well by our students, by our country and by our world. I am happy to declare the forum open.

Good morning

It is a pleasure to be here today to participate in the celebration of the 75^th anniversary of NHMRC.  

I congratulate the NHMRC on this milestone – and recognise that it has been an important part of Australia’s scientific, medical and health outcomes throughout its life.  Arguably, its importance will be even greater as humanity tries to tackle some of the great problems that loom and as Australia, a keen global citizen, seeks to contribute even more to the health, the security and the prosperity of human-kind. 

75 years is a good age. ‘Even older than you’ – some undergraduates might say these days!  Although both of us have more to come.

But in other respects it is not so long.  Especially when you think of the accomplishments that we as a nation and that we as scientists and researchers have achieved in that ‘short’ time.

Warwick has outlined some of those and I won’t repeat them.  But just try to recall what Australian research was like in 1936 – essentially a country with very little research anywhere.  We had universities that were still 12 years away from producing their first PhD; it was10 years before a research focussed university (ANU) was established – one that sent substantial numbers of potential staff overseas to acquire their PhDs.  We were an Australia that was essentially ignorant of our region with little scholarly work devoted to it, and an Australia that was well and truly tied to ‘the mother country.’ I have described us during this period as a mendicant country – outside looking in and hoping we would get what we needed because it would be given to us though we made little effort to contribute ourselves.

We are now a proud and independent nation.  A global citizen that earns its place at international fora because of the work we do and the qualities we bring. With 0.3% of the world’s population and 3% of the world’s research output, we do a lot right.

The founders of the NHMRC and their heirs and successors can be proud of their work.  The first funding allocation of 30,000 pounds back in 1937 has grown into $673.7 million this year for 1,140 grants to support researchers, research projects and research institutions Australia-wide.

And when you combine that with the quality of the work supported, over the years, it’s a true testament to the wisdom of the founders – and the politicians who have supported it over the 75 years – sometimes with the odd hiccup and skid marks on the tarmac. Australian expenditure on medical research is estimated to be 1.1% of the global expenditure but the proportion of world health returns attributable to Australian research is 3.0%[1].

So again, we are contributors to the international pursuit of knowledge on the one hand and to improving human health outcomes on the other.

But no future is certain – however rosy the past.  It is neither wise nor sensible to sit back as if this heritage is really an entitlement.  It is the foundation on which we can build – and the means by which we can amply demonstrate the return on investment, that adequate support in the right hands can deliver.

And we need to do that – relentlessly.  In a world facing the financial turbulence that we see around us all the time, what investments are made, where and by whom for what purpose will be forever under scrutiny.  The instinct to cut is the dominant characteristic of our times; the instinct to invest, wisely and carefully, is one we need to encourage.  And it is up to us to help that latter instinct grow and flourish. We need to explain, patiently, that we must never again be the mendicant – that we get a place at the table where the big decisions are made because we earn a place at that table.

I doubt that the Australian public would be happy for us to be on the outside looking in.   

On the surface it’s easy to see why.  Health and medical research is unique in the scientific community as the effect is felt on a very personal level. Although some might argue that using a microwave or computer daily is personal too, or that combating climate change is extremely personal, nothing seems to resonate more than our health.  We might forget the science behind the microwave or the mobile and take for granted the science behind the plastics and the food we use every day, but when we get sick, we don’t forget medicine, medicines and medical research. 

Some recent statistics showed that 91% of Australians support the federal government spending more money on medical research.

Only 6% supported more money to sport programs to help champion athletes win Olympic medals[2].  However, come London 2012 this maybe a different matter considering our current form….

It is also encouraging to note that in the same study 89% of Australians indicated that they would be willing to pay $1 more for each prescription medicine if they knew that all the money would be spent on additional health and medical research.[3]

This is good – no doubt about that.  But, as I said before, we can’t rest on our oars and presume it will ever be thus. And that as a consequence funding will never be an issue.  Sure it is the best first step to have the public onside – but remember it wasn’t so long ago that there were doubts.

It wasn’t that long ago that health research was struggling as the tobacco industry rallied against scientists, sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of research into the effects of tobacco smoke on our lungs, heart, throat and children.  I am sure we have all seen the very, very old person wheeled out from somewhere who smoked heavily and drank alcohol everyday for, what 80 or more years; living proof that, really, it wasn’t so risky.  Combined with the ‘it won’t happen to me’ syndrome, people still smoke.

The merchants of doubt as they have been called are alive and well – and probably waiting.

As we do things differently, as we do new things, we have to take the care and the time to bring the community along with us.  We will do things differently; we can’t expect a world with a population of nine billion by 2050 to be fed, secure and reasonably prosperous if all we do is a bit more of what we do now.  And as we push and change and evolve – as we play our part in that future for humanity, let me repeat, we have to take the time and make the effort to bring the community along with us.

We have to explain the regulations that are in place within the scientific community to protect the public from rogue science – think of the MMR vaccine and the impact of flawed work on vaccination.  We have to explain the regulations in place to protect the community from genuine science that is truly experimental and we need to explain the licensing and the ethical arrangements that are in place to protect against a world where simply anything can be done because the doer says that it is good.

The NHMRC codes, including the ethical requirements, identify the requirements that medical researchers must meet – the public has a right to know and it is important for our future work that they do.  

When we look into the future there is another matter I would like to raise.  It is estimated that by 2019, almost six and a half thousand members of the health and medical research workforce will have retired, 4000 of whom have PhDs[4].

We currently have sufficient rates of medical research PhD completions to maintain our current workforce over the next ten years[5]. But if Australia is to have the most highly educated, best skilled and highly trained health and medical research sector in the world, which must be our aim, the number of PhD qualified researchers would need to expand 2.5 fold to be on par with the European workforce[6]. 

In order to achieve this, or at least help to it along, we need to look at how we support medical research and the jobs in medical research.

Let me ask: does our present system of scholarships, numerous post-docs, grants, grants and more grants lead to jobs that are satisfying and secure?  The answer from a fair number of people would be ‘no’, we need to rethink how we support our best and brightest – at all ages and at all stages. Because we care – and because we need them.

Change is a part of our lives – some changes we can control and some we can’t. 

Thinking about the future workforce and how we encourage people to see it as a fantastic career, in the numbers we need, is a challenge we can’t ignore – and a change over which we can exert some control. 

None of these are issues or responsibilities avoided by the NHMRC or medical researchers more generally.  Even my generation of medical researchers we were taking the first tentative steps and being available to the media. 

Sure we often cringed at how we were reported; we worried about what our peers would think of us – especially when a cheery photograph appeared under the headline announcing yet another ‘breakthrough.’ And we were nervous, anxious and not very good at it.  But we did it because the NHMRC took the line that public support for medical research was an important part of the case for funding.

As a junior member of the then Medical Research Committee – with prospects they probably said – I remember meeting with John Chalmers, John Coghlan and John Funder in the back room of some restaurant in Sydney Road, Coburg in the early 1980s to discuss the tactics – getting to the public, getting to politicians, getting, particularly, to the Prime Minister; working out the return, the place of Australian research in the international efforts, getting a fix on the future health threats (only some of which were predictable).  We talked about how to use the media as it used us; how to enjoy what we did – not just on the night in that place.

Indeed, as I stand here, I can reflect on how much I learnt from being part of the NHMRC. 

So I conclude by wishing you well – and remind you that as you contribute to the NHMRC and its role, it is changing you and preparing you for roles that you might play.  That, I think, is not a bad return on your investment.

Thank you again for allowing me to share in these celebrations.  

[1] Australian Society for Medical Research. 2008.The value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/ExceptII08.pdf

[2] Research Australia. 2010. Health and Medical Research Opinion Poll 2010. Available: http://researchaustralia.org/Publications%20Public%20Opinion%20Polls/Research%20Australia%20Public%20Opinion%20Poll%202010%20low%20res.pdf

[3] Ib id

[4] Australia Society for Medical Research, 2010. People make research happen: Planning the Health and Medical Research Workforce 2010-2019. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/workforce09.pdf

[5] Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Research Workforce Strategy 2011

[6] Australia Society for Medical Research, 2010. People make research happen: Planning the Health and Medical Research Workforce 2010-2019. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/workforce09.pdf

Good morning. 

Thank you for the introduction.  It’s an honour to be representing Australia at what is an important opportunity to share ideas and learnings about how we all go about engaging our citizens with science and the ideas and inspirations it brings.

Science has always been a part of my life.  In fact, I have been immersed in science for as long as I can remember.  At every stage of my career, I have, in some way, worked with scientists, scientific institutions, or the government to improve the relationship between science and society. 

Based on this, I can tell you that the Australian Government’s experiences and priorities when it comes to science and science engagement are similar to those of many countries around the world. 

As a nation, we are working to strengthen our innovation system through development of our science base, our supply chain of future scientists and technologists, and the relationship between science and society. 

Developing our science base is our highest priority.  When it comes to funding, the lion’s share supports institutions, infrastructure, networks, and the people who work to solve problems and create new knowledge. 

But there is a wider need to ensure we also invest in good quality education.  In turn, this secures the supply of scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians that will increase the potential of today’s workforce and replace the ageing workforce in the future.

I’m pleased to say that the complex relationship between science and society is receiving more attention from the Australian Government and the Australian public than ever before.

Issues like climate change and nuclear safety are bringing scientific debate into homes across the world.

Against this backdrop, a new initiative is driving development of the first Australian national strategy for science engagement, and it is this initiative that I will focus on today.

Developing a national strategy for science engagement became a priority after previous government reports identified a need for better coordination of existing science awareness activities.  These reports concluded that objectives needed to be refocused.  And they identified a need for more strategic leadership and more targeted policy formulation.

As a fundamental part of achieving these goals, we needed to look at the way we communicate science to the public.

Effective science communication is vital for supporting science more broadly.

This is because:

• It has immense downstream effects,
• It educates and inspires future scientists,
• It builds a case for more funding and support to the researchers and their institutions, and
• It connects the public to the science that benefits their lives.

The Australian Government’s Inspiring Australia initiative responds to the need for a national strategy for science engagement.

It aims to build a strong, open relationship between science and society that is underpinned by effective communication of science and its uses. 

Inspiring Australia provides a national framework that establishes a coherent approach to science communication.

It aligns the activities of science research agencies, government departments, education providers, community organisations, businesses and industry. 

Inspiring Australia has been developed following widespread consultations. It has had input from scientists, science communicators, educators, journalists, academics, government officers and community representatives from right across Australia. 

The initiative also follows a strong call for national leadership in science, and for a more coherent approach to the previous fragmented endeavours to engage people in the sciences.

This call has had a positive response from government leaders.

Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said, ‘We live in a crucial time for science in Australia and around the world.  It is a time demanding strong leadership, from the grassroots to the highest levels of government.  Together we must ensure that science, research and innovation can continue to play their part in shaping our future and guiding our decisions’.

I support these words, and would like to acknowledge that a key element of the national initiative is to inspire a sense of national pride by promoting activities that recognise and reward the achievements and successes of Australians science and scientists. 

The promotion of our successful scientists and acknowledgement of their excellent and dedicated work will contribute towards many of the main objectives of Inspiring Australia. These include attracting increasing national and international interest in Australian science, and encouraging young people to pursue rewarding careers in science.

Launching the Inspiring Australia report in February 2010, Innovation Minister, Senator Kim Carr, said, “Science communication matters because democracy matters.   Science communication matters because so many of the decisions we make these days are based on science.  Decisions about who gets what, when, where and how.  Decisions that influence people’s chances in life.  Decisions that may well determine the fate of the planet.  Citizens can only have a meaningful say in those decisions – whether for or against – if they understand the science. If we are serious about giving people a real voice in how we run this high-tech world of ours, we have to be serious about science communication”.

Inspiring Australia sets out the principles and 15 recommendations for a coherent public strategy to tackle public engagement in the sciences.

In May this year, the current Australian Government honoured an election commitment to provide 21 million dollars over three years as part of the ‘Science for Australia’s Future’ package.  This funding will drive the action that Inspiring Australia has called for.

Community expectations of what is Australia’s first national science communication strategy are high.  The initiative is being led by Questacon, Australia’s national science and technology centre and a division of the Australian Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Although Questacon’s national centre is based in Canberra, it has a national reach. It operates exemplar outreach programs that promote greater understanding of science and awareness within urban, regional and remote communities across Australia.  This makes it the ideal organisation to take Inspiring Australia to fruition.

Since the Inspiring Australia report was released in February last year, it’s already given momentum to programs of real value as part of its coherent, national strategy for public engagement in the sciences.

National Science Week is an existing program that is now funded under the Science for Australia’s Future package. It is a week-long program of science activities engaging the community in a huge variety of ways and at a range of different levels all around Australia.

Inspiring Australia will seek to do more than National Science Week in unlocking Australia’s full potential through year-round events in cities, in regional and in remote areas.

In particular it will support science communication programs that target under-served groups. These will include:

•  people living in outer metropolitan, regional and remote areas;
• Indigenous Australians;
• people for whom English is a second language; and
• people who are disabled or have limited mobility. 

Inspiring Australia also provides a framework for connecting with mainstream media, and new media, to communicate science issues and achievements.

Another key element of the program is engendering a sense of national pride by championing activities that recognise and reward the achievements and successes of Australian science and scientists.

The Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science is an annual event that is now being funded through the package.  This year, prizes were awarded to scientists who have contributed to industrial chemical processes, advanced research for a more sustainable future, our knowledge of the beginning of the universe, and inspiring our younger generations.

So, in addition to increasing the general profile of science, the initiative is also supporting the showcasing of Australia’s capability in the sciences for scientists, science policy makers, overseas counsellors and other potential Australian science ‘ambassadors’ to use abroad. 

This means that our framework for science engagement will also be able to provide a basis for informing future investment decisions by the government and its partners.

The success of this national strategy will depend upon building partnerships and using networks. 

It will also depend upon how well existing science communication activities are aligned across Federal, State and Territory jurisdictions. 

And they have shown their support already.

The Framework of Principles for Science Communication Initiatives has been endorsed at Ministerial level by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Advisory Council on Innovation and government departments and agencies involved in the Australian Government Coordination Committee on Innovation. 

The framework sets out to define and improve standards, promote consistency of best practice, optimise appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency and increase accessibility. 

It is intended to guide, rather than mandate, government involvement in science communication initiatives.  And there is an important difference. 

By broadly guiding communicators, we leave the detail to the communicators themselves. 

This gives them the space for them to create new, innovative, and relevant ways of connecting to their target audiences, while communicating the key themes that have been developed through our research and consultations.  These themes are designed to connect with all Australians and include ‘Telling the stories of Australian science’ and ‘Unlocking Australia’s full potential’.

Other principles encourage the use of credible science, defining the target audience, and evaluating and designing programs that enable effective delivery.

The principles also serve to guide the involvement of governments in a number of other ways.

Overall, the framework addresses the importance of support for a scientifically engaged Australia as articulated in the Inspiring Australia report.

It clarifies the need for government involvement.

It provides consideration for the way that government collaboration is needed between all our federal government departments and agencies, as well as our states and territories.

And, the principles address the responsiveness needed to meet Australia’s evolving demands and needs. 

A more coordinated approach between the Federal, State and Territory Governments can be expected to lead to better alignment of resources with increased impact.

And with all that in mind, I’d like to finish by telling you more about what’s happening here and now to advance the principles and continue Inspiring Australia.

Two expert working groups have produced reports on Science and the media: From ideas to action and Developing an Evidence Base for Science Engagement. These reports hold practical ideas to improve practices within existing resources.  

A new expert working group will consider how various science communication organisations can best work together to unlock the potential of regional communities in Australia’s vast interior.

Another will consider how a mix of research agencies can best collaborate on telling a better story of marine research in Australia. It will replace the preconceived notion that we are just a dry land with a beach, with the reality that we are the world’s third largest marine nation.

And we will see an ongoing stream of programs supported by Inspiring Australia in the coming months and across the next few years.

There is no shortage of goodwill. The first Inspiring Australia National Conference – Inspiring Science, Inspiring Australia: Telling Australia’s Brilliant Stories – attracted over 200 attendees. Many were from the science communication sector looking for ways they could best fit within the new initiative.

A recent compilation developed for a Square Kilometre Array forum showed that Australia has significant strengths in science communication[1].

However, we also have what I have already referred to as a lack of cohesiveness in its approach that results in gaps in provision or duplicated effort.

Australia aspires to be an innovative society with a scientifically engaged community and a technologically skilled workforce. 

Strong scientific engagement provided at a national level and implemented locally will mean we will become wiser, healthier, more sustainable and more competitive. 

And that’s a goal that we can all aspire to.

[1] http://www.ska.edu.au/educators/assets/engaging_the_world.pdf

Good evening.  It’s a pleasure to be with you tonight.

It caps off a pleasurable day in fact, because one of my other duties has been attending today’s graduation ceremony at the Charles Darwin University.

During my many years in academia, as a teacher and researcher, and then as a Vice-Chancellor of two universities, I have attended and presided over more than 150 similar events.

And they are always wonderful occasions because, despite the fact that they represent the conclusion of a stage in the lives of the participants, each is filled with anticipation and conjecture about what the future holds.

Tonight I want to build on this a little more and link it with a number of themes that I think are relevant not just to you as policy advisors and decision makers in the Northern Territory but for policy advisors and decision makers wherever they are.

I want to talk about evidence based policy development and how science can and should be contributing to it. So at this early stage, I want to nail my colours firmly to the mast, as a scientist and as an advocate for science, by saying that science and scientific endeavour is absolutely central to our world.

As I recently told the National Tertiary Education Union, a scientist engaged in meticulous scientific work can alter our world view. This occurs when their work is compelling and when it stands the scrutiny of their peers – not just those who agree to publish their work – but all their peers in their specialisation.

So, it’s appropriate that since we are in Darwin I talk about the difficulties Charles Darwin had in gaining acceptance for what challenged the conventional wisdom of his time. Initially his work, supported by meticulously gathered evidence was challenged by scientists (and theologians) of his time. However, ultimately his Origin of Species was accepted in the scientific community simply because his evidence had been so carefully documented and over time was supported by other independent research.

Darwin’s life and experiences simply underscore what science and the practice of science is about. Scientists are dedicated specialists who spend many years developing their knowledge and skills, sometimes singly but more often than not nowadays in collaboration with others.

It’s important to spell out some parameters here, although these are evident in what I have just said about Charles Darwin. I want to affirm that science, in the true sense, is first and foremost a discipline; it is practised ethically and regulated where regulation is right; and licensed when that is appropriate.

I can also tell you what it is not and that is some free ranging, hypothesized activity that deals casually with facts and evidence and therefore lacks responsibility or authority.

Unfortunately, it is the latter that sometimes holds sway in public debate and therefore impacts on public policy decision making. Indeed this can be to the detriment of what I could term ‘real science,’ because scientists often become bogged down fighting a rear guard action against the ‘bad science’ asserted by those who seek to question the ideals, values, principles and practices of science.

To a point, scientists may have been complacent and allowed this to happen, because it seemed that the battles over the value of science, of the contribution that universities and other public research make to the common good and the importance of intellectual freedom were won.

Instead, we have lost sight of what forms the very basis of science and the values that make up an informed, progressive and enlightened society are under siege.

So, what do I mean by real science? Scientists unpick, examine and reconstruct.  They seek to replicate, re-analyse and re-interpret – and when they do, certain directions and conclusions that withstand this scrutiny and become much more central to our thinking. They are not, ever, immune from challenge – but when an observation has been made and confirmed many times, it can be considered secure if not absolutely certain.  However, when different evidence comes to light, and it withstands the scrutiny, it will shift the way we think.

This hasn’t changed.

It’s under attack, often because the conclusions science leads us to are inconvenient, or tell us something that some don’t want to know.

So we have shifted from a society which trusted and respected scientists for the outcomes they were delivering to people. Putting a man on the moon was a great achievement and, to borrow an economic term, it had enormous multiplier effects for science and everyday life. Similarly CSIRO research associated with astronomy yielded wi-fi communications. Even simple science has enabled us to survive what 50 years ago were often fatal, for example, vaccinations for polio and small pox and treatments for HIV infection.

So many of the applications that have flowed from science are around us all the time that many of us, instead of marvelling at the achievements, take science and what it offers for granted. And we forget to defend science.

As a society, we should be challenging those who, regardless of reason or factual basis, mock science and scientists for their own spurious ends, whether it is a headline or avoiding an inconvenient truth.

Let me be clear, the challenges we face will continue to become more complex and with this complexity the importance of science will become even greater.

In my recent NTEU address I urged academics to contribute to public debate even when they come against great challenges from critics.

These challenges that researchers face should be known by everyone, especially policy-makers and advisors who work with science.  They should understand how science works, its value, and where critics stand and the relative weight of the criticism.

Against this background we should be considering how we, the scientists, and you, the policy makers and advisors, can work together more effectively to develop public policy.

In June 2011 the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an organisations serving 262 affiliated societies and academies of science with a world-wide constituency of 10 million individuals, concluded a statement on the impacts of attacks on science and scientists with the following comment: “While we fully understand that policymakers must integrate the best available scientific data with other factors when developing policies, we think it would be unfortunate if policymakers became the arbiters of scientific information and circumvented the peer-review process,”[1]

It goes further by saying that this might become counter productive: “Moreover, we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.”[2]  

Consider the implications of that for a moment, what would public policy developed in an evidence vacuum, or an evidence-weak environment achieve?

The Australian Government has recognised that grounding policy in science is of great importance. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Blueprint for Reform[3] acknowledged that building connections between academia and policy makers was a major driver for innovation. In its submission to the Blueprint, your own institution – the Institute of Public Administration Australia – said:

“The future is always uncertain. It is an important task of policy advice and formulation, supported by quality research, investigation and data analysis, to appreciate the variety of possibilities and to place government in situations where they can be handled advantageously.”[4]

If we don’t utilise what science has to offer, then it would a missed opportunity at best, at the worst, in some cases, it may even be catastrophic.

Maybe we need to take a new approach. Maybe it is time for science to be sold more vigorously and defended more rigorously.

Certainly, Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, believes this. He wrote in New Scientist: “We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge – with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology.”[5]

Defending science can be challenging, it can’t be done in a 10 or 15 second sound bite.

In the past fortnight there have been some supreme examples of just how the scientific method of accumulating evidence from a multitude of sources using a variety of approaches has again been verified.

The Nobel Prize in Physics this year was shared by three individuals in two groups who, working independently of each other, came to a common conclusion, a conclusion that has withstood intense peer scrutiny.

Closer to home we are also rewarding the scientists who are placing Australia at the head of meeting major global challenges like food security.

At present Australia produces enough food to contribute to the diet of some 60 million people – we are a net food exporting nation, one of the few in the world. Along with the rest of the world we will face challenges such as access to arable land and usable water which will affect global food security. By 2050 Australia’s salt-degraded land will have increased from a present 5.7 million hectares to 17 million hectares.  Our already urbanised country (with 90 per cent living in urban settings) will grow to ~37 million. No doubt housing them will continue our encroachment on arable land. On a global scale, by 2050 we will be striving to feed 9 billion people when we can’t presently feed 7 billion[6].

Realistically, Australia will never be the food bowl for the world, but we are nonetheless able to play our part to prevent a catastrophic food crisis.

So I’d like to share with you one of many glimmers of hope.  Just last week, Associate Professor Min Chen won the Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year.  Her work with chlorophyll f has the potential to lead to more sustainable agriculture, because chlorophyll f harvests red light, which is lower on the energy spectrum than visible light.  Utilising chlorophyll f could lead to more efficient energy collection in solar cells and crop plants[7].

Dr Chen’s work has the potential to lead us in to a more efficient and sustainable future in food and energy production.  Her work, and the work of other researchers, gives us the evidence-based foundation to inform measures we can take to overcome our greatest challenges.  But governments and policy makers need to support and work with researchers like Dr Chen every step of the way.

Maybe this is a daunting task.  Public servants tend to have a very different set of skills than those of researchers.  Coming together to collaborate and build strong, evidence-based policy may not come naturally.

Recent research done internally within the Federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research[8] found that collaboration between researchers and public servants can create real tension.  Not only do they speak different languages, but they have very different priorities when working together.  They also don’t always have the skills they need to manage the relationships over time, communicate effectively, and give each other the feedback and support they need throughout the policy-making process.

There’s a lot we can do to help both researchers and public servants to do this better.  We can train them, we can encourage more networking and relationship-building opportunities, and we can help policy makers, and the Australian public at large, gain a better understanding of how science and scientists work.

I think this is vital.

The Australian Government has certainly opted for a new approach for renewal of Australian attitudes to science. Its $21 million dollar initiative Inspiring Australia aims to integrate science and society, and support clearer communication of science.

Not only will this three year initiative benefit the science sector, but it will help Australians understand how science is woven into the fabric of their daily lives and, through this, help our industries and businesses to flourish. As the Inspiring Australia report says: “Australia aspires to an innovative society with a technologically skilled workforce, a scientifically literate community and well informed decision makers”.[9]

I want to come back to Paul Nurse and the New Scientist article I cited earlier when I was talking about the challenges of defending science. He argued for a pure approach to policy development: “It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications.”^[10]

So when it comes to science, the question that springs to mind is – who should you trust?

Too often, ordinary Australians, along with some policy makers, are easily tempted by the opinions of the one scientist who tells them what they want to hear. But, that’s very unsafe.

I’d like to use a quick analogy. Suppose you are attending a medical conference and you have a suspected heart attack. There are plenty of doctors in the room, including 10 cardiologists. Who would you consult? Of the 10 cardiologists, nine say that you need heart surgery. The 10^th says the other cardiologists are frauds and that your condition can be treated with rose petals. Who would you listen to?

The scientific community works on evidence and facts.  But although not all scientists have the same evidence, you’ll see that, with uncontroversial topics, the large majority of scientists around the world tend to agree on the same point.  Just because one or two scientists think differently about something doesn’t make the others frauds.  We need to encourage academic freedom and allow critics to say what they have to say.  But, ultimately, decisions need to be made on the weight of evidence – sometimes called a scientific consensus.  Our nine cardiologists.

I’d like to share with you a real-life story that shows us that we don’t do this in reality.

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield made the claim, against scientific consensus, that the triple measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – the MRR vaccine – might be linked to autism.

He suggested that, rather than giving a triple vaccine, the vaccinations should be given separately.

The British Medical Journal revealed that not only was Andrew Wakefield in the minority, but he had a major conflict of interest.  His motivations lay elsewhere: he had a patent for a single measles vaccine, and he was being paid by lawyers who were assembling a case against MRR manufacturers[11]. 

But people listened to him.  Parents listened to him.  They chose not to vaccinate their children based on what he said.  And a drop in MRR vaccination meant the inevitable outbreak of preventable diseases.

The real story of Andrew Wakefield and the MRR vaccination highlights something very important about the human psyche.  That is that the ordinary person can easily be swayed by the extreme minority when it comes to science.  Scare tactics work.  And they can lead to terrible consequences for themselves and for society.

As policy makers, politicians, and those who make and influence important decisions, it is your responsibility to understand science and do the right thing by it.

I think that much of what I’ve said so far will have sounded like common sense.  But you’ll also be aware that time pressures can get in the way of common sense. Governments work on tighter timelines than research and this presents considerable challenges and needs careful management.

I’ve spoken so far about the importance of science, of creating evidence-based policy, and how we should use and interpret the science we have.

But there’s one more thing that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Sometimes, science is not perfect, and sometimes it’s not even available.

In fact, it’s never perfect – and I prefer that to be a great strength, not a weakness.  Science works on evidence, so whenever we get new evidence, science adapts.  Once upon a time, people and scientists thought that the Earth was flat.  That was because they had not yet made the observations and gathered the data necessary to update this theory. Once the data conflicting with the old theory was in, the model was updated to reflect it. Conventional wisdom these days is that the Earth is round, but we can’t really be 100 per cent certain. Perhaps one day, when we gain a deeper understanding of the fabric of space and time, we’ll discover that the world is not round at all – it just looks that way from our perspective.

As a more recent example, just to show that this sort of thing happens on an ongoing basis, you may have heard that European physicists recently found evidence that tiny sub-atomic particles can travel faster than the speed of light[12].  If these experiments are confirmed, then scientists will have to re-evaluate Einstein’s special theory of relativity.  This will mean rethinking our models of space, time, and our universe.  It will be fascinating to see the implications, but we must first wait for the peer community to check and cross-check the outcomes.

Our theories, even from the most prominent scientists, are working models of the world.  We can never say with absolute certainty that these working models are correct, for that would require complete knowledge that science never claims to have.

To better describe this, I’d like to use an analogy by another Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman[13].

He said that the scientific process is similar to trying to describe the rules of chess without prior knowledge of the game. When you first watch a game, you observe things like ‘bishops stay the same colour over time.’ And further observation leads to the theory that bishops move diagonally, and so on with the other pieces. Thus you develop theories on the ‘laws of chess.’

But then something that you hadn’t predicted happens and a pawn reaches the other side of the board and becomes a queen.

The message here is that although our world is not the same as a game of chess, our observations don’t always lead to a complete understanding of it, and science adapts in response to the information available.

We can never claim absolute certainty over anything unless we specify bounding conditions and timeframes.

The dynamic nature of science and its reliance on the evidence that we do have is what makes it relevant to us as the world changes, as new discoveries are made, as new technologies are applied, and as governments and public policies forge ahead to make the foundation for a more prosperous future.

However, because of the fundamental need for evidence driving science that I have been talking about and the fact that evidence can come from many different sources, there is not always a consensus on every issue.

Most individuals can form opinions on just about any topic without knowing everything there is to know about it.  But science can’t form ‘opinions’.

So what do we do when we don’t have evidence?  And, importantly to us here tonight, what do decision makers and policy makers do when science can’t give them conclusive answers?

Sometimes, we need to make decisions in the absence of evidence, or in the absence of a robust scientific consensus.

Whenever there is imperfect knowledge, a clash of opinions, or an outright lack of evidence, policymakers shouldn’t ignore the scientists.  And researchers should not be tempted to think that they have nothing to say when they can’t give 100 per cent certainty.

If decisions on scientific matters are made without scientific consultations, then nobody is doing their job effectively.

When you are tasked with making decisions when the evidence is far from conclusive, then I encourage you to be resilient. Be as scientific as you can and don’t be misled.

You have a responsibility to understand the way that science works to inform your decision making.

But on the other hand researchers also share some of the burden. The UK’s Overseas Development Institute argued this in a 2004 briefing paper Bridging Research and Policy in International Development:

[Researchers] “need to develop a detailed understanding of i) the policymaking process – what are the key influencing factors, and how do they relate to each other? ii) the nature of the evidence they have, or hope to get – is it credible, practical and operationally useful? and iii) all the other stakeholders involved in the policy area – who else can help to get the message across?

It said: “…they need to develop an overall strategy for their work – identify political supporters and opponents, keep an eye out for, and be able to react to policy windows, ensure the evidence is credible and practically useful, and build coalitions with like-minded groups.

Finally:  “ … they need to be entrepreneurial – get to know, and work with the policymakers, build long term programmes of credible research, communicate effectively, use participatory approaches, identify key networkers and salesmen and use shadow networks.”

Conclusion

After all this, I am encouraging you to use science, but I’m encouraging you to use the right science.  It would be very dangerous to have an idea in mind then go and find a scientist to support it, then use that as evidence for your decisions. 

When there is a majority view in science, then that’s what you need to listen to.  That’s what we need to build on when we develop public policy, or when we choose what research to fund, or when we choose how we should plan for a more prosperous country.

As with the legal system, science will only ever at best come down to the civil proof, of ‘a balance of probabilities.’ The art is getting the balance right.

[1] American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 “AAAS Board: Attacks on Climate Researchers Inhibit Free Exchange of Scientific Ideas” 29 June 2011, viewed 4 October 2011, www.aaas.org//news/releases/2011

[2] American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 “AAAS Board: Attacks on Climate Researchers Inhibit Free Exchange of Scientific Ideas” 29 June 2011, viewed 4 October 2011, www.aaas.org//news/releases/2011

[3] http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/aga_reform/aga_reform_blueprint/part4.3.cfm

[4] http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/aga_reform/aga_reform_blueprint/part4.3.cfm

[5] Nurse, P 2011 “Stamp out anti-science in US politics”, New Scientist, 14 September 2011, viewed 4 October 2011 www.newscientist.com 

[6] Professor Ian Chubb’s Address to the AIFST, 20 July 2011 www.chiefscientist.gov.au

[7] http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/InspiringAustralia/PrimeMinistersPrizesforScience/Recipients/2011PrizeRecipents/Pages/2011ScienceMinistersPrizeforLifeScientistoftheYear.aspx

[8] Graduate project report findings.  The report has been finalised but has not been approved for distribution.

[9] http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/InspiringAustralia/Pages/InspiringAustraliaAnationalstrategy.aspx

[10] Nurse, P 2011 “Stamp out anti-science in US politics”, New Scientist, 14 September 2011, viewed 4 October 2011 www.newscientist.com 

[11] http://theconversation.edu.au/mondays-medical-myth-the-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-3739

[12] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/particles-travel-faster-than-light-scientists-say/2912450

[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4

The session was moderated by Veronique Morin, Science Journalist at Tele Quebec and included two other panellists: 

• Dr. Remi Quirion, Chief Scientist Quebec
• Dr. Peter MacKinnon, President, University of Saskatchewan