Good morning and thank you for the invitation to be here today.

It’s a pleasure to be on a panel with Professor Hoj and Miss Carnell, no doubt one the most intelligent line-ups of the conference.

The short answer to WhatAustraliaWants is that we want a healthy and safe, socially, culturally and economically prosperous nation. And I doubt too many in this room would argue with the proposition that scientific research will be key to that prosperity.

The long answer involves finding out what we need to forge a path to get there.

Considering whatAustraliawants and discussing it here with you today is actually very timely. This time next week I will be addressing the National Press Club to launch my Office’s Health of Australian Science report, which examines in detail our successes and vulnerabilities in order to determine where our priorities should lie.

It is timely for today because in order to determine where the path should go, and which turns to take, we first need to be able to understand our current system and where we our present trajectory is heading us.

The Health of Australian Science report does just that: from our high schools, to our universities, to industry, to international comparisons, it offers a comprehensive overview of where we stand.

Of course, my media folk will kill me if I reveal too much too soon, but what I can say is thatAustralia’s science system overall, is a healthy one.

We have many strengths: we are well represented in the international scientific arena, our researchers are some of the most productive in the world and our education systems produce graduates in many of the areas we need. 

But there are areas for concern – some in regards to overall funding structures, and some that are discipline-specific. And while I won’t go into too much detail I will touch on the relevant findings that have led me to some ofAustralia’s wants and needs.

Included in those is an efficient, productive and innovative workforce.  And to get that we need education and innovation to be fundamental underpinnings to our systems.

There are a couple of approaches possible: make strategic choices wisely, or hope that activities will coalesce around important issues when they become important or when they appear to be.  The former has to do with investment choices among other things; the latter will depend on a capability being available when we need it but with no or limited planning to ensure it.

Being strategic, and being as prepared as possible is significantly more desirable. To lead us there,Australianeeds the ability to be able to set research priorities.

At the moment, 60% of government R&D goes to our universities[1]. The majority of that funding is heavily influenced by what the students choose to study, particularly the choices of undergraduates. 

This means that as a whole, more, probably much more, than 50% of all government spending on research is seriously influenced by the choices of our 17 and 18 year olds, usually under the advice of ‘choose something you find interesting’.

Students exercise choices when they identify what they want to study. And it is peoper that they do. Doubtless there are multiple inputs: their own interests, parental and teacher advice, friends.  When those choices turn into enrolments, the universities are funded according to where the students enrol and what they do  Base funding follows students, funding is used to employ staff; staff are expected, in many universities all staff, are  expected to conduct research; staff apply for research grants……

This basically logical approach to funding may well put some important disciplines at risk because they are not popular at a given period.  Fewer students, fewer staff, fewer applicants for research support in a field, fewer PhD candidates…

So is a popularity contest the best way to ensureAustraliais conducting research, and preparing a skill base that will prepare us for the challenges of the future? Or in other words, is it a strategic approach to developing a research profile and a skill profile?

I am inclined to say no, particularly when we look at trends in undergraduate enrolments over the last decade.

We have seen a steep decline in the number of students taking agriculture and engineering, as well as a disturbing trend in those taking the enabling sciences of maths, chemistry and physics. In agriculture in 2010 for example, we had only 743 graduates. That same year, approximately 4500 agricultural science jobs were advertised[2]. In engineering the story is similar: we produce less than half our annual engineering workforce needs, with around 6000 graduates annually.

To ensure our research funding is delivered most strategically, three months ago the government established the Australian Research Committee, which I chair. 

The terms of reference of the committee are to provide advice on emerging problems and opportunities for research investment. The primary focus for this year is the development of a National Research Investment Plan.

This plan will provide a strategic framework to help government make decisions about how much funding should be given in certain areas, how to balance research investment, between basic and applied research, and between universities, industry and government agencies.

The fact is, our investments at the moment are not underpinned by any sort of sustainable strategy because largely, it does not acknowledge that some areas of research simply ARE more important than others right now.

We need to ensure Australiais prepared for a future where entirely new industries will be born. A future where we will not always be able to rely on our natural resources for our prosperity. A future where the climate will affect us in ways we still find hard to predict, and a future where we will need local expertise in a range of research areas that may be different from those needed now.

So part of the national plan is to look at the key policy challenges over the next decade, and in that light, determine the priority areas for research investment.

This is something we need because we cannot do everything.  We need to have the discussion: how do we become strategic and seek to ensure that there are no (or very few ) gaps in our capability while avoiding the pitfall of ‘picking winners’ or being consumed by present exigencies or even being tightly constrained by what we know now?

It is odd in life how different things suddenly leap back into your mind from times long past.   I remember when competency-based assessment was the hot topic.  To some it meant assessing competence ahead of assessing knowledge and had strong protagonists and antagonists.  One of the lines against it was the possible stifling of creativity when the practitioners of today set the standards for assessment of those of tomorrow.  It characterises the discussion we now have to have: using the knowledge and wisdom of today’s practitioners to identify what we need to prepare for the unpredictabilities of the future without fixating on tomorrow.

This means we need to think through change. We need to have the levers in place to be able to respond to new challenges as they appear and give funding to the places it is most needed, not where bachelor degrees are most popular.

But even if we can change the funding structure so that the money no longer follows the students so tightly, it does not address the additional challenge that will affect our workforce if/when we do not have enough experts in the areas we need.

There are disciplines where we are already facing workplace and research shortages, and those where the shortages are expected to get worse – areas like engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry, agriculture and statistics.

We can’t force students to take degrees in the national interest – ahead of their own.  We need to make them so interesting (or show how extraordinarily interesting they are) that students  want to study these topics.  

No matter how much funding we pump into strategic research areas, it will be useless if we do not have the human capital to perform the research, to think innovatively and to develop creative solutions.

And the pipeline starts early.

The number of high school students taking high level maths and science has been declining for years. Between 1992 and 2009, the proportion of Year 12 students taking physics, chemistry and biology fell by 32%, 25% and 32% respectively. We need to find ways to entice students to study these subjects.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that students are disengaged from the ubiquity of science. In a study of Australian high school students, of the students not studying science, only 1% thought it relevant to their future ‘almost always’. That is a frightening statistic.[3]

How can we expect students to take up science subjects and degrees when they cannot see the relevance to their lives? I have already assembled a brains trust to tackle this very issue in my office and you can expect to hear more about it later in the year.

While part of whatAustraliawants is more science graduates, the other part is thatAustralianeeds more quality research. My office has recently released a report, and this one is public so my knuckles won’t be rapped for talking about it. This one looks at the OECD scorecard on science and howAustralia’s funding and research outcomes compare internationally.

In the number of publications per 1000 population, Australiaproduces 2.4, lower than Scandinavian countries, but higher than the UK, Canada, USAand much of Europe. Of those publications, almost two thirds are published in the top 25% of journals[4].

While our performance here is strong, one interesting trend from the analysis was that, in most cases, the higher the level of collaboration in a country, the higher the relative impact of publications.

Denmark for example has international collaboration on more than 50% of its publications, and their publications are cited 68% more than the world average[5].

For Australia to maintain its contribution to the global body of high quality science, we also need to maintain and improve on, our international collaborations.

This is for more than our own nation’s prosperity – I believe we also hold a responsibility as a rich, developed nation.

As the world continues to face global problems such as climate change, disease and food security, we must accept that no one country will be the solution to these problems and that these challenges require collaboration. With the resources to do so, we need to continue to contribute in a meaningful way, to the solution to the world’s problems.

The final thing I believeAustralianeeds is more research being conducted in industry, which Im sure Kate will speak on.

The OECD scorecard shows that we have one of the lowest number of researchers in industry out of developed countries, with only 2.2 researchers employed in business enterprises per 1000 workers. [6]

This is half the amount ofCanada, and almost a fifth ofFinland. This shows a critical lack of investment in, and a significant disadvantage for, innovation inAustralia’s industry sectors.

The relatively low level of R&D activity in business inAustraliais consistent withAustralia’s economy being heavily based on the export of natural resources, especially coal and iron ore.

To sum up, I seeAustralia’s needs as four-fold: a need for strategic funding mechanisms, more graduates in specific disciplines, greater international collaboration, and greater integration between research and industry.

Governing all of these, is the need forAustralia to make strategic decisions about our future – to make choices and invest in them appropriately, not to enter a challenging future with limited preparation and planning. The risk is just too high to hope that things will turn out in our favour.

Thank you

_{Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to speak today.}

_{It’s a pleasure to take a moment, in your company, to think about where Australia’s science and technology future is headed. Beyond this, to think about how that future can contribute to global security and prosperity.}

_{As members of the Australian-Israel Chamber of Commerce, you are already well versed in understanding the value of international links for the economy. Today though, I would like to talk about the value of globalised science- not only for the economy, but for all foreign policy.}

_{And I speak of this from a unique position. As Chief Scientist for Australia, I am an independent advisor for the government and an advocate for science here in Australia. I also have a responsibility to advocate for Australian science internationally – one of the many hats I wear is as science diplomat.}

_{At first glance, scientists and diplomats are not obvious bedfellows. While science is a quest for truth, Sir Henry Wotton, the 17th century English diplomat, famously pegged an ambassador as “an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”}

_{Regardless, science diplomacy is gaining tract world wide. It is a term that captures the various roles science plays in foreign policy, with a particular emphasis on the ability of science to build partnerships between countries – partnerships that can be sustained regardless of the political winds.}

_{President Obama has made a concerted effort to improve foreign relations by using science diplomacy, appointing three  ‘Science Envoys’ and making the famous ‘call to partnership’ with the Muslim community in 2009, announcing the establishment of three cooperative science centres. Likewise, the UK Foreign Secretary recently appointed for the first time, a scientific advisor to the Foreign Office, and just last week called for a much stronger role for science in foreign policy, stating “the scientific world is fast becoming interdisciplinary, but the biggest interdisciplinary leap needed is to connect the worlds of science and politics.”}

_{In international relations, science diplomacy makes a lot of sense. For centuries, science and its flow of ideas have traveled across the globe, uniting humanity in the search for knowledge and the application of newly discovered facts, to create technologies, businesses and to form the basis of education.}

_{Now, our planet is facing several global challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water , energy and cyber security require worldwide collaboration to find sustainable solutions. It is science that provides our understanding of these issues, and it is science that will underpin our solutions.} 

_{But as the climate change ‘debate’ demonstrates, these are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. In short, the solutions need to be based not only on sound science, but on sound politics as well.}

_{It stands to reason, then, that scientific expertise should be a fundamental part of diplomatic efforts.  As single nations can neither solve them alone nor develop solutions to every problem, scientific cooperation becomes an increasing necessity.}

_{So how does Australia stack up on scientific collaboration? In Australia, we are in a unique position. Our geographical isolation and small world fraction has had two effects: on one hand it has forced us to be self reliant and develop our capacities at home. On the other, it has pushed us towards strong research collaborations in areas where we don’t have resources or capacity.}

<sub>In astronomy, for example, Australia, participates in the Gemini Project along with the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Brazil and Argentina. The collaboration gives Australian researchers access to optical and infra-red telescopes in Chile and Hawaii, and spares any one country the costs of having to build and maintain a facility on its own.

Similarly, in marine geoscience, Australia is a partner in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, a partnership led by the United States, the European Union and Japan. Participation in the program gives Australian scientists direct access to seafloor drilling technology that is worth about US$1 billion and has annual running costs of about US$200 million.</sub>

_{But even on smaller projects where collaboration isn’t built through facility necessitation, between 2002 and 2010, the number of internationally co-authored publications in Australia more than tripled. Now, just under half of all Australian scientific publications are co-authored with overseas collaborators.}

_{More than that, we have seen a shift in the way Australian scientists are engaging with the rest of the world. Historically, we have had strong ties with North America and Europe, and while that continues, there has been much faster growth with our Asian neighbours. In mathematics, engineering and chemistry for example, China is now our strongest partner in collaboration.}

_{As we enter the ‘Asian century’, and the Government continues to push Asian literacy in schools and industry, the question could very well be asked, out of science and policy, who is following whom?}

_{But there are countries with which Australia shares great similarities, and yet collaboration is weak. Israel is one such nation. In terms of arable land, climate and water supplies we are very similar, and on the global scientific stage there are even more similarities.} 

_{In terms of the percentage of papers produced relative to percentage of world population, the figure is exactly the same – 9.4 for both Australia and Israel.}

_{On the global impact of our research, measured by citations, Australia and Israel share three of their top four fields: physics, plant & animal sciences and space sciences.}

_{On international collaboration, over 40% of both countries’ papers have international co-authors.}

_{And yet despite the similarities, Australia and Israel’s international collaboration together is remarkably small. Less than 4% of Israel’s international collaborations feature Australian co-authors, and only around 1% of Australia’s papers feature Israeli co-authors.}

_{And it’s not getting better. In 1995, Israel was our 14th highest collaborator but in 2010, they ranked 20th.}

_{While this Chamber might be working hard to build strong relations with Israeli business, we must also seek ways to engage more on scientific and innovative levels. If innovation drives business organization, then science, the innovation force, will have to be more closely integrated with business for the well being of both.}

_{Because, according to the OECD, whose analysis essentially echoes our own common sense, knowledge is the main source of economic growth and improvement in the quality of our lives. Nations which develop and manage effectively their knowledge assets perform better. And without collaboration, it is very hard to innovate.}

_{According to our Academy of Science, the last major Australian invention that did not involve some international input was the stump-jump plough… in 1876. Without a competitive strategy to engage with the international scientific community, ongoing innovation would be more than just a challenge.}

_{It can be hard attributing economic success directly to the outcomes of scientific research. As an example, an investigation of ocean forecasting of internal waves across Australia’s North West Shelf provides information for operators of natural gas drilling and production platforms worldwide.}

_{But how are its benefits, in terms of reduced operating down time and production efficiency gains within a multibillion-dollar industry, traced back to the original scientific collaborative work? It is a long financial bow to draw but it is real. And it is something that is recognised across the globe. The proportion of all papers worldwide  with one or more international co-authors increased from about 25 per cent in 1996 to over 35 per cent by 2008.}

_{But science diplomacy goes beyond research collaborations. Another way to link foreign policy and science is through science and technological aid to developing countries.}

_{Australia’s overseas aid program – which doubled between 2005 and 2010, and is expected to double again by 2015 (although last week’s budget has extended the time period for the expansion) – aims to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest.} 

_{Globally there is a general consensus that giving aid is an issue of security as well as morality and fairness. It improves our regional security by helping partner governments improve law and order, recover from conflict and manage a range of transnational issues.}

_{However, there is also general consensus that at a global level at least, aid is not always working. Driven by science and technology, the world is changing at a rapid rate.  The gap between rich and poor countries is widening and the problems facing the developing world continue.}

_{Science and technology must therefore, become rooted in the social fabric of developing countries. This sentiment was echoed recently in a Science and Development Network editorial which stated that:}

_{“the biggest single factor limiting developing countries’ potential for achieving sustainable economic growth – or even attaining the Millennium Development Goals – is their ability to access and apply the fruits of modern science and technology.”}

_{While the editorial  acknowledged there are many obstacles – political and economic – to accessing science, it is nonetheless crucial that capacity building use science and technology be ‘at the heart of both international aid policies and broader diplomatic initiatives’.}

_{The Colombo Plan is one good example of Australia’s diplomatic aid efforts. Part of the plan involved the sponsorship of tertiary students from the Asia-Pacific region to study in Australia.  Many of those students eventually returned to their own countries where they rose to high level positions within their own science and government structures.}

_{The benefits of science diplomacy are three-fold.}

_{Firstly, strong international collaboration in science improves the capacities of our own scientists at home, giving them access to facilities they might not have otherwise had, and enabling them to build on ideas from the world stock of knowledge.}

_{Secondly, it gives our country opportunities to build relationships with nations, we might not otherwise have had, and to repair or improve our standing with those we may have tension with.}

_{Finally, in a political environment that faces the need to respond to global challenges like climate change and food security, successful science diplomacy can work to create solutions. No single nation is the sole cause or solution to these challenges. But through science collaboration, we can build bridges of trust and cooperation for the benefit of all.}

_{As Chief Scientist, I take my role as an ambassador for science seriously. I do not know whether Sir Wotton would consider me a good man, but perhaps that is ok. Because in my own diplomacy efforts, I do not have to lie to promote Australian science. We already perform strongly and bring much to the international table.}

_{And though, in this room, we may be concerned with international business linkages, we must also, as businesses, foster innovation and seek new markets and new ways of achieving efficiency. Only through our scientific and economic linkages can we ensure Australia is on the right path to an innovative, prosperous future.}

_Thankyou.

Tonight’s announcement of a $54 million budget allocation by the Government to support science, mathematics and engineering education was warmly welcomed by Australia’s Chief Scientist, ProfessorIan Chubb. 

“It is a truly positive move taken to set the nation up for a positive future.” Professor Chubb said.

The announcement follows Professor Chubb’s report submission to the Prime Minister earlier this year titled Mathematics, Engineering and Science in the National Interest that has been under careful consideration leading into the budget. The funds will target key issues raised in the Report.

Making the joint budget announcement this evening, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Senator Chris Evans, and Minister for School Education, Peter Garrett, said that the Gillard Government has responded to Professor Chubb’s report to ensure there are resources in place both to attract students to these critical subjects, and so that teachers will have the support to be able to engage students in a more practical and relevant manner.

There will also be a National Mathematics and Science Education and Industry Adviser located within the Office of the Chief Scientist who will champion the role of mathematics, science and statistics across education and industry.

Professor Chubb said of the announcement, “I am encouraged that Prime Minister Gillard, Minister Evans and Minister Garrett have supported this substantial investment at this particular time. This funding reflects the high priority accorded science, mathematics and engineering by the government.  It is an investment inAustralia’s future. As the world’s dependence on knowledge and innovation continues to grow, we need the skills to anticipate rather than follow.”

The funding comes on the back of the recent announcement of $10 million for the Australian Council of Learned Academies to support the work of the Chief Scientist and the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council.

Read Professor Chubb’s report, Mathematics, Engineering and Science in the National Interest here.

The funding will support research and project work by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACoLA).

ACoLA brings together our four Learned Academies, including the Australian Academy of Science, Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, and the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

The academies, working with the Chief Scientist, will be responsible for research projects that are identified by PMSEIC and that will help develop policy to underpin a resilient economy and secure Australia’s future.

The link with ACoLA will allow PMSEIC to draw on the expertise of the academies, and such other expertise as particular topics require. ACoLA will manage the research projects to get the best possible advice to government.

The decision was formalised at the latest PMSEIC meeting, held in Sydney on 30 March, 2012. The meeting, chaired by the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, was the first since new arrangements for the Council were announced by the Government in January this year.

The 23^rd meeting of PMSEIC was attended by Senator the Hon Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research; standing members of PMSEIC; as well as Australia’s Chief Scientist, who is Executive Officer of the Council. 

Other topics of the meeting included the preliminary findings and recommendations of a report on the Health of Australian Science from the Office of the Chief Scientist.  This report is a comprehensive analysis of the state of national science research and education effort, science teaching, science workforce and international research collaboration.  It will be published in May 2012.

“The Prime Minister is committed to ensuring she has access to the best possible scientific advice for policy decisions, and I am confident the new PMSEIC and ACoLA arrangements will make that happen,” Professor Chubb said.

PMSEIC will meet again in Canberra on Monday, 9 July 2012.

Media Enquires: Erin Gordon 0410 029 407

Download a PDF of the media release here.

• Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC)
• National Research Infrastructure Committee (NRIC)
• Defence Science and Technology Organisation Advisory Board (DSTO)
• Australian Research Committee (ARCom)
• Education Investment Fund Advisory Board (EIF)
• Climate Change Authority
• APS200 Committee: Place of science in policy devlopment in the Australian Public Service
• Forum of Australian Chief Scientists
• PM Science Prizes Committee
• Ministerial Advisory Council on Regional Australia (MACRA)
• Commonwealth State and Territory Advisory Council on Innovation (CSTACI)
• National Science Colloquium
• Reference Panel for the Working Group on Water, Soil and Food (WGWSF)
• Joint South Australian Cancer Research Committee (SACRC)
• International Education Advisory Council
• Sub-committee of the Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust Bicentenary Advisory Committee (Lachlan Macquarie Medal)
• Northern Australia Expert Advisory Panel
• Patron of Science Industry Australia Ltd (SIA)

Reference list:

¹ Lacis, A. A., et al. (2010), Atmospheric CO₂: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature, Science, 330(6002), 356-359, doi: 10.1126/science.1190653.

2 Le Quéré, C., et al. (2009), Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, Nature Geoscience, 2, 831-836, doi: 10.1038/ngeo689.

³ Peters, G. P., et al. (2012), Rapid growth in CO₂ emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, Nature Climate Change, 2, 2-4, doi: 10.1038/nclimate1332.

4 Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2012), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi: 10.1038/ngeo1327.

5 Howard, W. R., et al. (2008), CO₂ Emissions and Climate Change: Ocean Impacts and Adaptation Issues, 15 pp, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre,Hobart,Tasmania.

6 Siegenthaler, U., et al. (2005), Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene, Science, 310(5752), 1313-1317, doi: 10.1126/science.1120130.

7 e.g. Rockstrom, J., et al. (2009), A safe operating space for humanity, Nature, 461(7263), 472-475, doi: 10.1038/461472a.

8 Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (2011), Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies, 33 pp,Bipartisan Policy Center,Washington, DC.

9 Royal Society (2009), Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty,London: Science Policy Centre of The Royal Society, 98 pp., royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate

¹⁰ Boyd, P. W. (2008), Ranking geo-engineering schemes, Nature Geosci, 1(11), 722-724, doi: 10.1038/ngeo348.

11 Read, D., et al. (2001), The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change, 27 pp, Royal Society,London.

12 Archer, D., et al. (2009), Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 37(1), 117-134, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206.

¹³ Chisholm, S. W. (2000), Oceanography: Stirring times in the Southern Ocean, Nature, 407(6805), 685-687, doi: 10.1038/35037696.

14 Boyd, P. W. (2008), Implications of large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 364, 213-218, doi: 10.3354/meps07541.

¹⁵ Buesseler, K. O., et al. (2008), Ocean Iron Fertilization–Moving Forward in a Sea of Uncertainty, Science, 319(5860), 162, doi: 10.1126/science.1154305.

16 Wallace, D., et al. (2010), Ocean Fertilization: A Scientific Summary for Policy Makers, IOC/UNESCO,Paris.

17 Boyd, P. W. (2002), Environmental factors controlling phytoplankton processes in the Southern Ocean, Journal of Phycology, 38(5), 844-861, doi: 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2002.t01-1-01203.x.

18 Boyd, P. W., et al. (2007), Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993-2005: Synthesis and Future Directions, Science, 315(5812), 612-617, doi: 10.1126/science.1131669.

19 Gnanadesikan, A., and I. Marinov (2008), Export is not enough: nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 364, 289-294, doi: 10.3354/meps07550.

20 Peng, T.-H., and W. S. Broecker (1991), Dynamical limitations on the Antarctic iron fertilization strategy, Nature 349, 227-229, doi: 10.1038/349227a0

21 Matear, R. J., and B. Elliott (2004), Enhancement of oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO₂ by macronutrient fertilization, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109(C4), C04001, doi: 10.1029/2000jc000321.

22 Lampitt, R. S., et al. (2008), Ocean fertilization: a potential means of geoengineering?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1882), 3919-3945, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0139.

23 Kirchner, I., et al. (1999), Climate model simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 104(D16), 19039-19055, doi: 10.1029/1999jd900213.

²⁴ Crutzen, P. (2006), Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77(3), 211-220, doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.

²⁵ Morton, O. (2007), Climate change: Is this what it takes to save the world?, Nature, 447(7141), 132-136, doi: 10.1038/447132a.

²⁶ The “SPICE” Project is a UK feasibility study funded by the NERC: www.nerc.ac.uk/press/briefings/2011/05-spice.asp

²⁷ Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai (2007), Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering, Geophysical Research Letters, 34(15), doi: 10.1029/2007gl030524.

28 Andreae, M. O., et al. (2005), Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future, Nature, 435(7046), 1187-1190, doi: 10.1038/nature03671.

29 Kravitz, B., et al. (2009), Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 114(D14), D14109, doi: 10.1029/2009jd011918.

30 Robock, A., et al. (2009), Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering, Geophysical Research Letters, 36(19), L19703, doi: 10.1029/2009gl039209.

31 Conference of the Parties (2010), Decision X/33: Biodiversity and climate change, 9 pp, United Nations Environment Program Convention on Biological Diversity,Nagoya.

³² Resolution on developing a common EU position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), 20/9/2011,  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2011-0522&language=EN

33 Resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the Regulation of Ocean Fertilization, International Maritime Organisation,London.

The report, Unhealthy Science? University Natural and Physical Sciences 2002-2009/10, was prepared by Dr Ian Dobson and is an examination of recent higher education enrolment figures.

The analysis showed that science enrolments increased by 30% between 2002 and 2010, only just behind the sector average of 33%, with over 18,000 more science students enrolling over the period.

However science had the fourth-lowest growth rate for 2002-2010, with only enrolments in agriculture (-0.5%), information technology (-34.5%) and education (+23.8%) faring worse.

The leaders in student enrolments were health and management & commerce, which had 97,000 and 66,000 more students by the end of the decade respectively.

Despite enrolments increasing at almost the average rate, Professor Chubb said the figures offered little relief for concerns about the future of science and technology in Australia.

“We need a growing pool of science graduates to ensure Australia will be able to continue to compete on the international stage and develop scientific solutions to problems facing our nation,” he said.

Professor Chubb was particularly concerned by the lack of growth in the numbers of students taking enabling science subjects: mathematics, physics and chemistry. Well over half of science students studied them only in their first year of university.

According to the author of the report, Dr Ian Dobson, the figures were strong reason for concern.

“Even if sciences are no longer in decline, one needs to ask whether zero-growth is god enough in a technology-based knowledge society. Typically one expects innovation to come out of science and technology rather than from say, management and commerce,” Dr Dobson said.

The report was prepared to inform Professor Chubb’s advice to Prime Minister Julia Gillard on ways to increase maths and science enrolments due in March.

You can download the media release here and the full report here.