The Prizes honour Australians who have made significant contributions to building a more prosperous and progressive society through scientific achievements and science education.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research Chris Evans today encouraged the science community to nominate outstanding colleagues for the Prizes.

The Prizes are part of the Australian Government’s Inspiring Australia strategy to foster greater scientific engagement.

Science and innovation are key drivers to improve Australia’s living standards, health, productivity and environment.

The Gillard Labor Government highly regards our scientific community for the tremendous contribution it makes to build a richer, fairer, cleaner and safer nation.

In the past, the Prizes have been awarded for Australian discoveries such as wireless LAN technology and the bionic ear and for achievements in areas like immunology, quantum technology and astronomy.

Past Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science recipients Elizabeth Blackburn AC and Brian Schmidt went on to be awarded Nobel Prizes in 2009 and 2011 respectively.

Other past recipients include Ezio Rizzardo and David Solomon, John Shine AO, John O’Sullivan, Ian Frazer, Graeme Clark AC and the late Frank Fenner AC.

The prizes are awarded in five categories:

• Prime Minister’s Prize for Science ($300,000);
• Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year ($50,000);
• Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year ($50,000); 
• Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools ($50,000); and 
• Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools ($50,000).

As well as the cash component, each of the five Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science comprise a gold or silver medallion and a lapel pin similar to that presented to recipients of Australian Honours like the AO.

Nominations close on 27 April and the Prizes will be announced later in the year.

People can find further information on the Prizes and nominate online by visiting www.innovation.gov.au/scienceprizes.

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

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Minister for Science and Research, Senator Chris Evans, and Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, today announced a number of reforms to the Council to ensure it remains relevant and able to facilitate the best connection between scientific advice and policy.

The changes follow an examination of the Council’s operations seeking to ensure that it is nimble, relevant and able to facilitate the best connection between scientific advice and policy.

Key features of the new PMSEIC include a smaller membership and more frequent meetings (three times per year), with the capacity to deal with both short term as well as over-the-horizon topics requiring independent scientific advice to Government.  A key objective is to ensure that the PMSEIC agenda is relevant to the needs of Government, by providing scientific advice on issues which require the development of a policy response, either in the short term, or over longer term horizons. 

Commenting on the changes, the Minister advised that the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb AC, will continue to play a key role as the Executive Officer to PMSEIC.

“As in the past, PMSEIC will continue to offer advice and provide expert scientific opinion on policy challenges across the whole of government, including health, the environment, education, IT communications, agriculture and international relations,” Senator Evans said.

Professor Chubb said in the past, PMSEIC’s focus was primarily on issues facing Australia’s long term future, looking five to 30 years ahead, rather than on issues immediately affecting the country.

“The role of foresighting is still an important part of PMSEIC’s work, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Government also needs scientific advice on immediate issues like nanotechnology, immunisations, industrial waste and stem cell therapies,” Professor Chubb said.

Under the new model, long-term issues requiring a scientific response will be referred to the Australian Council of Learned Academies, representing the four Learned Academies, to undertake in depth, interdisciplinary research and report to the government through the Chief Scientist.     

PMSEIC’s revised membership will include:

• Prime Minister (chair);
• Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (alternate chair);
• Minister for Industry and Innovation;
• Other Ministers relevant to the meeting, at invitation of the Prime Minister;
• Australia’s Chief Scientist;
• CEO of the Australian Research Council;
• CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council and;
• Six individual standing members, chosen for their contributions to science and research:

                         Dr Megan Clark;
                         Dr Cathy Foley;
                         Dr Ben Greene;
                         Professor Robert Saint;
                         Professor Fiona Stanley; and
                         Professor Graeme Turner.

PMSEIC will convene in early 2012. 

Read the media release here.

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/

The Australian Government’s Inspiring Australia strategy has just announced a competitive grants round to support projects for the next three years.

The ‘Unlocking Australia’s Potential’ grants aim to increase the science literacy of Australians, work ing  towards a scientifically engaged Australia and  to target people who may not have had interest in or access to science engagement activities in the past.

The grant guidelines encourage a broad mix of innovative projects and activities – from small one off projects by individuals through to larger projects by cooperative groups of organisations over the three year period.

Applications are requested in the following categories:

• Small Grants – up to $5000 (GST exclusive) over the duration of the project – typically to individuals or small organisations for delivering innovative science engagement activities.
• Medium Grants – up to $45 000 (GST exclusive) over three years – to organisations for delivering high impact science engagement projects at a regional or national level.
• Large Grants – up to $500 000 (GST exclusive) over three years – to organisations, in partnership with other organisations, for delivering high impact and nationally significant science engagement projects.

Applications will be accepted up to the deadline of February 29, 2012.

To find out more, visit www.innovation.gov.au/InspiringAustralia

The next question you ask could be worth $50,000, a chance to work with a particle physicist at CERN and a chance to embark on a scientific trip to visit Charles Darwin’s living laboratory on the Galapagos Islands.

Google + has just launched its online Science Fair, open to 13 to 18 year olds from all corners of the globe. All you need is an idea.

The Science Fair is looking for the brightest young minds from around the world to submit interesting, creative projects that are relevant to the world today.

 To find out more visit http://www.google.com/events/sciencefair/index.html

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.