Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, is leading a review by his Office of Australia’s science education, research and development outputs set for publication in the first quarter of 2012.

The review will profile the strengths and vulnerabilities of Australia’s present science capabilities. Australia’s capacity to capture the benefits of emerging science areas and the increasing internationalisation of science will be particular focus areas.

The project will consider the physical (including engineering and technology) and life (including biomedical, agricultural and veterinary) sciences undertaken by government, university and industry sectors.

Key questions include:

1. What is the breadth and quality of Australian science?
2. What disciplines are vulnerable due to training, workforce or funding issues?
3. How reliant is each discipline on Government, Higher Education or Industry?
4. How do various disciplines compare internationally?
5. What are emerging science areas and does Australia have the necessary skills to develop them?

The aim is to ensure that Australian science has the skills needed for the future. This will ensure that Australian science can continue to drive innovation throughout the economy, deliver health and well-being outcomes for all citizens, inform defence capability, and provide the objective evidence required for sound decision-making across government, business and the community.

For this important project the Office of the Chief Scientist is collaborating with numerous government departments and agencies, the Australian Academy of Science and Universities Australia. To view the recent Universities Australia report on STEM and Non-STEM First Year Students click here 

In his speech, Professor Chubb talked about the challenges that Australia needs to address in order to sustain our food security and the important part that food science and technology will play within this.

You can download the speech here

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to have been invited speak to you today as Australia’s Chief Scientist.

Since some of you might not have known that Australia has a Chief Scientist, and as I am fairly new to this role, I thought that I would start with a quick introduction and give you some idea of what I hope to deliver in this position.

I am of course a scientist.  The first half of my adult life was spent trying to understand how parts of the nervous system might work. 

If that wasn’t enough of a challenge, I recall saying to my wife when I turned 40, that there had to be sharper edges to life.  What I meant was that there had to be sharp edges when compared with an academic life teaching enthusiastic medical students and a successful research laboratory that I had built with my colleagues.  I soon found that to be true.  I took various roles in higher education and finally ended up as Vice Chancellor of The Australian National University for a decade. Sharp edges (and minds and pens) all over the place.

I had retired for a whole 2 months or so when I was offered this position.  As I have said before, it wasn’t that I couldn’t find somebody to play golf with, but rather the fact that I was actually offered an opportunity to advocate for, and to work for, Australian science that encouraged me to accept the offer.  Add the fact that even at my age the thought of golf, golf and more golf did not thrill – I realised that I still hanker for the odd sharp edge.  I think I have found the edges again – with a lot to learn, again, because I don’t want to be like some people – an instant expert on everything.   

As Chief Scientist I have multiple obligations. I must advocate for science – to ensure that science has a voice at the highest levels.

I must advise Government and Ministers on scientific issues – the actual and the emerging ones – I have to make sure that scientific evidence is put before policy makers. 

And I will be helping people to see the links between science and their every day experiences. 

I will be helping to broaden understanding of science and its importance, to people directly, as we secure an economically, socially and culturally prosperous future for Australia.

So I took pleasure in accepting your invitation to speak today because the AIFST makes all the right connections; and I especially appreciate the opportunity to give the JR Vickery address at the 44^th Annual AIFST Convention.

JR Vickery, as many of you will know, was an extraordinary man who did many things.  Amongst his many achievements he won fame for extending the storage life of chilled beef and improving the quality of frozen beef during WWII. One of his tasks was to develop dehydrated meat for the Allied forces. In Britain it became known as Vickery mutton.[1]

I don’t need to tell you just how important this development was, not only to the war effort but to changing the way we live. It is scientific contributions like these, scientific leaps really, that make our everyday lives so much easier today, and sometimes even saves them!

Science has meant that we can now buy vacuum packed steak from every supermarket – instead of just bully beef in cans!  It is the sort of innovation and its application that sets the benchmark that we should always be aiming to meet – one that helps us to tackle tomorrow today – by ensuring our capacity to prepare quality and nutritious food for a larger population than just those fortunately close to the producer.  It makes sense: in terms of health, and in terms of the economy.

The food industry in Australia is a vital component of the economy today. And it has to be tomorrow. It makes a significant contribution, especially to the economies of regional areas through employment, business and service opportunities.  And it must do so tomorrow.

The food and beverage sector consistently accounts for at least 18% of employment in the Australian manufacturing sector. In 2009-10 employment in the industry was 226,750.  The net trade balance in the food manufacturing sector was $5.7 billion in 2009–10.[2]

But as we tackle tomorrow today, Australia’s food industry obviously faces challenges.  With a projected growth in the Australian population giving us many more mouths to feed; and a global human population growing to 9 billion by 2050[3] likely to translate into an increased demand for Australian food – the big challenge is obvious. We will have to increase our capacity to meet additional demand at home and contribute to the demand from abroad.

For these reasons, it is imperative to invest in our intelligence, and our resources, to develop our scientific research, our industry and its development.  It is our best way to look after ourselves – and the best way to contribute to the global challenge – use our unique know-how.

The Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council, “PMSEIC,” published a report last year entitled: “Australia and Food Security in a Changing.” In this report they say that: “although Australia accounts for less than 3% of global food trade, we are one of just a handful of net food exporting nations of the world.”[4]

This elevates Australian food science and technology to a critical position on the international stage.  But it is unlikely that we will be producing enough food to serve the needs of the world – to be the world’s food bowl. There are too many factors working against us for us to be that.  But it does not stop us making a substantial contribution to the world’s benefit – by exporting know-how.

Indeed, as Michael D’Occhio of the University of Queensland has said:  

 “Australia never has been and never will be a food basket or the food bowl of the world. The reality is that we produce food for 60 million people. We feed 22 million-odd at home and 40 million overseas. But put in the global context, that 40 million that we feed overseas represents less than 3 per cent of global food movements. How Australia contributes to food security globally is through knowledge, training and technology transfer.” – what I called know-how.[5]

To put this into context, let me talk about an improved breed of Tiger Prawns – some of which I have sampled.

CSIRO scientists and the prawn industry have bred an improved Black Tiger prawn which is producing record yields in aquaculture farms.  The average industry productivity for farmed prawns is five tonnes per hectare. The new prawns produced an average of 17.5 tonnes per hectare this year.

Just as importantly – they taste great! These prawns have won five gold medals at the Sydney Royal Easter Show in the past two years, including ‘Champion of Show’, the highest award possible.[6]

The scientists from CSIRO’s Food Futures Flagship have used DNA technology, screening and selective breeding to provide a boost for prawn farmers and for the provision of the food.

There are many issues that threaten food supply and its adequacy.  These include: declining natural resources such as arable land and useable water; a burgeoning human population – the nine billion plus by 2050; a global decline in food research and especially development; and continuing protectionist policies in some countries that prevent food from moving to where it is needed, and which stops the market mechanism from sending appropriate signals to food producers.[7]

Climate Change

Another major issue that affects our food industry is the impact of climate change. It’s noteworthy that CSIRO scientists are already working on the basis that we need to factor carbon emissions into our food sustainability as part of the work conducted by the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship.

The Flagship aims to reduce the carbon footprint of Australia’s land use whilst achieving the productivity gains needed for prosperous agricultural and forest industries – and global food security. 

The Flagship provides a critical integration of knowledge and technologies relevant to sustainable farming systems adapted to Australian soils, climates and regional circumstances.  A key challenge is to maintain or increase our productivity and our support for regional communities – as we seek to meet national and ultimately global targets for atmospheric carbon. 

The national challenge goal of the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship of CSIRO will be to secure Australian agricultural and forestry industries through increasing productivity by 50% and reducing net carbon emissions per unit of food and fibre by at least 50% between now and 2030 through a mix of productivity growth, emissions reduction and carbon storage in soils and vegetation.[8]

Economics of Food Science

While all of that is important, we must also be mindful that, very fundamentally, the food industry in Australia is a crucial part of our economy – as I said before.

Australia exported $16.5 billion in substantially transformed food products and $0.36 billion in elaborately transformed food products in 2009-10.[9]

Australia’s 50 largest food and beverage corporations produce almost three-quarters of the domestic industry’s revenue.[10]

There were 12,624 businesses in food manufacturing industry as at June 2009.[11]

And, since 1991, there have been 28 CRCs performing research for the food industry. In total, these CRCs have been contracted to receive $588.428 million in program funds.[12]

As we tackle tomorrow today, however, and as we seek to extend the local economic benefits, in their own and in the national interest, we must understand that the status quo won’t get us happily through the challenges ahead.  We must get better at what we do. 

And we will achieve this with the industry and the R&D sector working together, because when they do that well, good things happen leading to products and services that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer

Innovation

I am not the first to talk about the importance of innovation as a driver of the Australian economy into the future – not the first and certainly not the last.  I would wager it is said somewhere in Australia, in public, every day.

While Australia has done well on the world stage with a number of Nobel laureates, it’s often the seemingly mundane, or the unexpected, that can make a difference.

For instance where would we be today without the microwave oven?

The invention of the microwave happened when one Percy Spencer was touring one of his laboratories. He stopped briefly in front of a magnetron, the power tube that drives a radar set, and noticed that the chocolate bar in his pocket had begun to melt.

Following this he did what any good inventor would do, he went in search of some corn. Holding the bag of unpopped corn next to the magnetron, Spencer watched as the kernels exploded into puffy white bits.

It took a while for the microwave oven to be refined to a point where it would be useful to the average consumer. But today, Percy Spencer’s radar boxes melt chocolate and pop popcorn in millions of homes around the world – and probably out of this world, too, in space-craft.

An observant scientist, a clever mind, some lateral thinking and a revolution in the way we prepare food.[13]

Enabling role

Biotechnology and nanotechnology, not known that way in Percy’s time, can be expected to do the same thing:  transform production and preparation processes that lead to more sustainable production and processing of food.

In turn, this will help ensure Australia’s future prosperity by helping to retain high-quality, high-value jobs and improve our health, wellbeing and environment.

Alternative resources

And then you have to get it to market.  It needs packaging – and something other than, or additional to, the tin can.  Something akin to the need Vickery confronted – but with the same basic principles: to get food to where it is needed that is conserved, preserved and delivered safely.  We might now add, given the apparent sophistication of our times, that it should also be quality food that is not just safe but a delight to eat. 

Packaging materials based on a converted agricultural product, starch, have been developed and commercialised in Australia by Plantic Technologies.

The company is a spin-off from the Cooperative Research Centre for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science which first developed the technology more than a decade ago.

The company started in the confectionary and baking markets.

In partnership with the CRC for Polymers, Plantic has expanded its R&D to develop a new bioplastic in 2008 that was suitable for products ranging from Easter eggs to USB thumb drives.

It’s been well-received, with the major UK retailer, Marks and Spencer, using Plantic-developed plastic trays for its entire Swiss chocolate range last Christmas.

But we have to do it again, and again, and again.  There are no oars or laurels to rest on in this world.  It is about getting better, getting more productive, improving production and always looking for the innovation that gives us an edge.  Our research, and our development, is critical to the future.

Growing R&D

We don’t do badly.  Total Australian Government funding for rural R&D for 2008/9 was AUD710 million.[14] Food manufacturing (excluding beverages) R&D expenditure for 2007-08 and 2008-09 was approximately $369 million and $389 million.[15]

This is a good start.  But it does mean working to ensure that governments are willing to continue to invest in the food sciences and their R&D – and to increase that investment as resources permit. 

That means persuading them of Australia’s capacity to deliver a substantial contribution to our own food security as well as playing a role as a global citizen.  And it means persuading the public that there is a major global issue that Australia can help resolve – even if we are small.

What do I conclude from this?

In order to ensure our R&D effort continues we need, all of us, to be advocates for science.  It is important that the community realises the value of science and its impact on their lives.

That’s it, at the most basic level.

Raise the profile

I think that people take for granted the very worthwhile outcomes of science.

For example, while there has been a spectacular rise in food related TV shows urban living seems to have created a cultural disconnect between us and food production/preparation. There is a risk that our children or our grandchildren will forget that a chip comes from a potato; or forget that milk is not produced somewhere in square invariably plastic containers.

It’s incumbent on all of us to ensure that we raise the profile of science. And that our children and grand children have a level of science literacy that far exceeds the norm today.

In turn this will encourage more people to embrace the notion that a career in science is highly worthwhile.

Taking all things into consideration, and putting aside my natural bias, if I was starting again I would still be choosing science as a career – at least as my early career.

Can I ask that you join with me, and that you work at all levels, to engage with your industry partners in Australia and overseas, with the community and with your local schools to remind them just how important science is to their lives; to their health and their nutrition.

I also ask you to be vocal in your communities in your support for science and particularly in this area of science where you have special expertise.  The reality is that if we don’t tell people about the importance of science and what it means to them, the importance of what you do, how will they ever really know? And it is too important simply to think that they will find out somehow.  Too important to leave to others to get the message across, we must own that responsibility. 

But let me leave you on a lighter note. Food and science are a marriage that will never end in divorce, in fact they can work so well together they can earn you three Michelin stars. Heston Blumenthal has become one of the world’s best chefs by using scientific methods to create his unique dishes. When he roasts potatoes he insists on cooking them in oil and not the preferred Nigella Lawson rule of goose fat. Why? He says oil makes them crisp up better. Now, as scientists we would ask, but why? Well, Heston asked the same question – let me quote the man himself:

 “The oil does not go into the potato itself. I know this because a scientist at Cambridge did an MRI scan on potatoes for me. He monitored the water flow into a potato covered in oil. The oil remained on the surface.”[16]

So the next time you indulge in a Sunday roast with golden, crunchy spuds, you can marvel at how the hot oil remained on the outside and feel slightly less guilty about eating one or 5, all thanks to an MRI machine that some scientist(s) invented… and Heston of course.

Thank you.”

[1] Science Image Bringing Science into Focus, AR1341, 2001, CSIRO, Australia, viewed July 5 2011, http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/index.cfm?event=site.image.detail&id=1341

[2] ABS, International Trade in Goods and Services, Australia, Manufacturing Exports and Imports (Cat No 5368.0 Tables 32a & 35a).

[3] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

[4] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

[5] Straight. K, Landline, 26 June 2011, The Future of Food, ABC, Australia, viewed 5 July 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/landline

[6] Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation – http://www.csiro.au/science/tiger-prawn-farming.html

[7] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

 [8] Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation – http://www.csiro.au/org/Sustainable-Agriculture-Flagship.html

[9] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—about Australia fact sheet series, Food Industry

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research – http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/CRC/Pages/default.aspx

[13] Ament. P. Fascinating facts about Percy Lebaron Spencer inventor of the Microwave Oven in 1945. Troy MI: 1997-2006, The Great Idea Finder, 20 October 2006, viewed 5 July 2011 http://www.ideafinder.com 

[14] Productivity Commission, Rural Research and Development Corporations, September 2010

[15] Ibid

[16] Stogdon. C, 17 November 2008, Heston Blumenthal: Good chemistry, The Telegraph, viewed 5 July 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Professor Chubb’s speech focused on his vision for science in Australia and how he wants to achieve this through his role as Chief Scientist.

You can download the speech here

“Good afternoon.

It’s a great pleasure to be with you today, for the fourth time, I believe, but this time in my new capacity as Australia’s Chief Scientist.  I look forward to having my free membership of the Club renewed – and promise I’ll be back in a year looking for the same outcome.

Let me start by assuring you that after one month in the job I know that I am far down a learning curve with a steep slope in front of me.  It’s a familiar place – I have been down here before.  Different curves maybe, but way down nonetheless. So at least I know what to do – learn before you speak.

This afternoon, therefore, I will focus on a bit of ‘the vision thing’: my role, not statistics and not great detail.

First question then: why did I accept appointment as Chief Scientist?  There is a simple response:

• The value of good science to our nation and the world is colossal – and I want to work for Australian science and its place in the world.

Science has got us to where we are today – many of the good bits and sometimes the bad; and it holds the key to our future.

It is the key to understanding and tackling the big issues we face as a nation and as a world.

Now, if science is so important – you may well ask – why does it struggle to cut through into the mainstream debate?

Unfortunately, we seem to be living in a world where sport, celebrity and the 24 hour news or, more accurately, a 24 hour commentary cycle sprinkled with news, seem to dominate relentlessly.

• Do any of us really believe that the future of the world depends on whether the Swans win this year’s flag?
• Does it really matter who wins MasterChef?
• And do we care if Shane Warne and Liz Hurley are about to get serious?

Of course, in the global scheme of things, none of these things matters much at all.

But science does.

Science can cure diseases. It has given us GPS and mobile ‘phones, and it has given us the ‘talking movies’ and the internet.

But because it’s everywhere, we don’t often seem to think about what science has done for us, just as we sometimes seem to take both the power and the potential of science for granted.  As in, she’ll be right, it’ll be there when we need it.’

But make no mistake, our future as a nation, our prosperity, our quality of life and the well being of the entire planet, all depend very much on science.

And as the challenges we face become increasingly complex, the importance of science, and the understandings derived from good and properly conducted science, will become ever more important.

To address the big issues – which include sustainably securing our economic, cultural and social prosperity – we require the input, the expertise and the guidance of our scientists.

So we need them, and we need their expertise, in many fields and across many fields.  To get them we have to continue to invest – in the right way, in the right place – and with the right amount and at the right time.

Unfortunately, expenditure on science is too often seen as a cost – something that is somehow taking away from other more pressing, more immediate needs. And its value gets lost in the ‘it costs a lot’ argument.

But far from being just another cost, expenditure on science is a sound and prudent investment.  We must encourage the Government to continue its commitment: it will reach nearly $9.4 billion this financial year and includes a record investment in CSIRO, important provision for infrastructure, supporting better the indirect costs of research, growing PhD scholarships and other important elements.  We need also to provide the Minister with the evidence to argue for growth.

And we have to make clear that we are in it for the long term. The dividends may be now, tomorrow, or they could be 10, or 20 or 30 years away.  We need them whenever they come.

In that regard, does anyone really think that the public research funds spent over years on much of agricultural research or energy or the cochlear implant, the cervical cancer vaccine or the influenza drugs was not an investment?

Of course not.

In economic and in quality of life terms, for ourselves and others around the world, investments like these have been an unparalleled success.

Australia must continue to expand its scientific capabilities if we are to remain internationally engaged, competitive and relevant.

And sure… this costs money.  And of course how much will always be a judgement call

But if we want that prosperous, healthy and secure future we must organise for it and continue to invest for it.  It won’t just happen because some time out there we will wish that we had.

We don’t want to find ourselves in the situation of importing skills, technology and know-how – we don’t want to go back to what we used to be.   

Let me remind you.

For the first half of the last century, there was little (not none, but little) research done in Australia.  The CSIR (later CSIRO) was established in 1926 – but research was not seen to be a central function of universities.  This was not true in Germany from about 1810, or the United States where teaching inspired by research on the German model flourished from the 1860s. 

Britain was slow to follow: Oxford introduced the DPhil (PhD) based on the German and US model in 1914 (the first in the UK to do so). 

We were like Britain, just slower: we produced our first PhD graduate from the University of Melbourne in 1948.

In a manner of speaking, Australia was then a mendicant country.  We contributed little to the world’s stock of knowledge but we hoped to get what we needed when or whenever we needed it.  Some would argue that we often got something, but not always what we needed.

Then in the mid-1940s, post-war reconstruction of Australia was planned and led by politicians and public servants with imagination and vision. They saw that it was time for a ‘new’ Australia, a different Australia that was socially, economically and culturally prosperous, and an aware and respected international citizen.

To that group, it was not an option to let Australia become again a country that depended so much on what others did.  It was accepted that we needed to contribute to the world’s knowledge, and through that contribution help Australia assume its proper place in world affairs – as it was put.  They sought to change the culture – and they did.  

They established the ANU as a research hub; they encouraged other universities and now Australian universities educate students in a research-rich environment and are major contributors to research and development an innovation.

But sometimes prosperity breeds complacency.  Now I sometimes hear: why?  Why can’t we let others do the hard yards, do the investment and carry the cost, while we float by extracting what we want for a minimal effort?  Not earn our place, just expect it.  A free rider.

We are small in population terms.  We are small in university terms.  We are small in research terms.  But we do make, in many fields, a major contribution to the world, partly through our publications and their quality, partly through the perspective that comes from being who we are, and partly through the particular perspective that comes with being where we are.  And while we may contribute just 4 or so per cent to the world’s knowledge, we also must have people with the capacity to use some of the 96 per cent to our advantage.

I think that those planning reconstruction after 1945 can be proud of their legacy.  Those of us who have inherited it need to make sure that it is not squandered.  It is up to us to ensure that our contribution to knowledge is of a high order, and of high quality, so that Australia’s place in ‘world affairs’ is secure.  It will be secure if we have something to say, and it will be because the world wants to hear what we have to say – because of what we do.  And to paraphrase Simon McKeon because we do something more than look after ourselves. (The Age, 19 June 2011).

It does mean that we have to be serious.  We can’t be unaccountable and we can’t just drift.  We have to be considered and purposeful. And our work has to be of up there with the best.  Our decisions and our policies must be made consciously on the basis of good evidence.  

It is a simple fact that quality science can’t be done at low cost, and mediocre science is no more acceptable than a ‘begging bowl’ would be. We need to make hard decisions about what we can and cannot do – since we can’t do everything or support just anything. That means making one of the hardest decisions of all – selective investment. 

I want the Office of the Chief Scientist to play a substantial part in providing the evidence that not just underpins the hard decisions, but encourages them to be made. 

In Australia we have the capacity to do what has to be done – and steps have been taken.  But we need to use our present wealth and invest it wisely, with foresight and for the long-term.

Being a quarry is not a wise or sustainable path for any nation to take.

Way back in 1990, one John Dawkins said: ‘More than ever before, the reservoir of talent in our people will have to eclipse our great natural resources as the determinant of our success.  We will have to use our intelligence and our wit to cement the processes of change and to secure and improve our place in the world.  This involves working better and smarter, scuttling mediocrity for quality and distinction.  We cannot enter the next century rollicking on the sheep’s back or creaking and swaying in some coal truck.’[1]’

True then, true (or even truer) now.  Even if it is the trucks creaking along full of our present day assets that provide us with much of the wherewithal we need to invest wisely in our future, sustainable assets.

If we are to get there, it means continuing to invest in our intelligence and our wit: in Research and Development, amongst other things, and supporting innovation.

It means working with industry to develop and use new technologies.

It also means supporting ‘blue sky’ science where the benefits are less immediately obvious but are nonetheless critical because it provides much of the essential knowledge used for application-derived benefits.

The spinoffs are often unusual and unconnected to the original purpose but they can deliver massively.

• Think of Wi Fi technology – it is undoubtedly one of the most practical scientific discoveries ever – but it began with a group of radio astronomers listening to faint radio whispers from exploding black holes!

I’d also argue that whatever we do as scientists has to be acceptable to the community as a whole – and that means that science is conducted with, and in the context of, work in the humanities, arts and social sciences.  These disciplines offer much to help us understand and change our world, and without them the full benefits from science as we know it could be lost.

Make no mistake; the successful and prosperous nations of the future will be those whose communities embrace science in its context and in all its forms. 

I am not saying science has all the answers.

Science is not always perfect and interpretations of observations are not always unanimously agreed.  Except in some fields of the more theoretical kind, science won’t often ‘prove’ things. There will be uncertainty.  But good science will increase probability through the weight of evidence from ‘possible’ to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and through its processes: ideas, critique, observation or experimentation, critique, publication in peer-reviewed literature for exposure to the world of peers; robust critique and debate of the results and their meaning, more experimentation or more observation, or replication or modification, critique … and the cycle repeats.

Scientific consensus ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – based on the weight of evidence, the collective judgment and the  position of the majority of the relevant expert scientists – provides the best guidance we have for decisions that are informed and rational.

This all makes science too important to be left at the periphery of the decision making process.

It needs to be front and centre.

I am pleased to say that steps have been taken. Earlier this year, before I started in this job, the APS200 project was launched.  It will start later this year and investigate the Place of Science in policy development in the Public Service.  

Part of my responsibility is to ensure that the science is available; that scientific evidence is put in front of the politicians and policy writers in the public service.  It may be from my office, or it may be because we know who to call to get it there – advice fully, frankly and directly available. 

Quite rightly, politicians will take into account a wide range of considerations from a multiplicity of sources – and make their judgements and decisions accordingly.

My goal is to ensure they have no excuses for not having the relevant scientific advice in front of them.

Ultimately, what they do with that advice is their business. But if politicians consistently ignore scientific evidence they will be doing themselves and the nation a great disservice.

And ultimately they will have to answer to their constituents.

And this is why it is so important that science is also made accessible to the broader community.

The best way for science to have influence is for there to be a level of science literacy at all levels in the community.

This is the philosophy underpinning the national strategy for the coordinated science engagement and communication strategy – Inspiring Australia. 

Inspiring Australia is important because it promotes science to all Australians.

If the community understands, appreciates and values science – this will inevitably be reflected in our political process and the decisions that are made.

And if as a nation we are to make bold, visionary and difficult decisions we need a scientifically literate community.  One that understands that there will be uncertainty, but one that knows to give appropriate weight to the consensus and to the critic.  One that knows the critic is not always right – if not always wrong.  Galileo was right, for example, when he put science against dogma – observation against opinion – not the other way around.

Science properly conducted will always have room for alternative explanations deduced from properly conducted science.  Progress is made when outcomes or observations from that science are debated and when they confirm or they change what we think.  It is how science works, and it is how science advances our understanding – changing the consensus based on what science has revealed.

Too often the scientific discussion gets mixed up with the political debate – or with the political response to the scientific evidence.

But for it all to work, we need the right science and the right science education – the right profile of disciplines.  

I want to take up this issue.  One of my first tasks will be to carry out a thorough check of Australia’s science sector, its profile and its sustainability.

In particular we need to see how well we are preparing to meet the expected needs of the future. 

At present the profile of Australian science, so much of which is in the universities, is heavily influenced by what undergraduate students choose to study.  When universities respond to demand, as they must, Australia risks losing capability in, say, physics – losing staff, infrastructure and graduates – if fewer and fewer undergraduates study physics.  

At some stage we need to make a judgement about what is going to be important and what will be needed.  And knowing what is being done elsewhere in the world will be an important aid to judgement.

Then we need to decide how to invest in order to develop the science profile of the country in a strategic way – and not leave so much of it to student study patterns offset by some cross-subsidy.

As we contemplate the profile of science, we need to be attentive to academic and industry needs.

Increased linkages between researchers and industry, higher levels of R&D and the successful commercialisation of good ideas are all essential if we are to translate our scientific excellence into national prosperity.

Just as science needs to be accessible to politicians and the community – it also needs to be available to – and to contribute to – the business sector.

Science and innovation are the building blocks of a resilient and dynamic economy that boasts high wage, high skill and sustainable jobs.

We need to get this right – because if we want science to contribute to our lives in 5, 10 or 20 years we need to start producing the scientists.  Or developing a highly targeted and attractive immigration program!  Or both.

Finally, I want to reiterate just how important it is that we engage our young people in science

If we want to be a scientifically literate nation – we simply must inculcate the coming generations with an enthusiasm for the wonder, beauty and endless potential of science.

Science is awe inspiring – we need to stir the imagination of our youth so they pursue a career in science or, at the very least, grow into informed decisions makers who have some understanding of science and how it works.

Some of us in the room will remember the heady days of space travel and television as defining scientific images of our time.

The time has come to rekindle this type of excitement.

And there is no shortage of inspiration – the SKA and the Giant Magellan Telescopes, the Large Hadron Collider, the promise of commercial space flights, sustaining our environment and curing diseases are all big projects that stir the imagination and reinforce the importance of science to us all.

As part of raising an appreciation of science we need to make sure the coming generations are equipped to handle and make the most of the seemingly endless potential and applications of science in their lives. 

We need science teachers and we need to support them through their careers.  We need students.  It won’t work without either. And to get them we will need to be careful, strategic and willing to invest.

To tackle and overcome the challenges of our time – we need science.

As Chief Scientist I will speak up and be an advocate for science.  I know that some of my best work won’t be visible – I have never known a government to respond well to constant megaphone advocacy from people in positions like mine.  But I’ll be around.

I haven’t taken the role on because I am hoping that people might start calling me ‘Chief’.

And I am not here because I can’t find anyone to play golf with, though the science of the game continues to elude me.

I am here on behalf of science.

I am here to help ensure the immense potential of science to create a better and more prosperous Australia is fully realised.

And for what it’s worth:

• The Swans were at $2.45 to win the flag – a couple of weeks ago and $24 after last weekend.  
• Somebody was evicted from MasterChef last night.
• And Liz Hurley is now officially divorced, further fuelling speculation about her future with Mr Warne.

With the exception perhaps of the Swans, these things don’t matter.

Science does.

Thank you.”

[1] The Hon JS Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training Can Australia become the clever country? Australia Day Address, Fremantle,1990

Professor Chubb was formally appointed to his new role by Innovation Minister Kim Carr at Parliament House in Canberra today.

Professor Chubb has had a distinguished career in higher education and research and recently retired after a decade as vice-chancellor of the Australian National University.

A neuroscientist by training, he has co-authored some 70 full papers and co-edited one book all related to his research. He later took on leadership roles in university administration and sector advocacy bodies.

Professor Chubb will work closely with the Gillard Government to provide highest quality advice on science and technology issues that impact on Australia and the world.

The Prime Minister said as a past advocate in the university sector Professor Chubb would effectively engage with industry, researchers and the wider community as part of important scientific debates

Senator Carr said a lifetime of work in the research community was recently recognised in Canberra when Professor Chubb was named the ACT’s Australian of the Year for his contribution to higher education.

“He also understands that government needs frank and objective advice and communities need strong advocates. Professor Chubb is an outstanding leader. I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to working with him.”

Professor Chubb began his three year term on 23 May 2011.

Download a biography here in PDF format or RTF format or listen to an interview conducted this morning for ABC Radio.

The review provides an overview of the activities of the Chief Scientist and her Office during the last financial year – covering achievements in providing independent advice, science diplomacy, inspiring students and engaging with stakeholders.

We believe that publishing this review provides an opportunity for members of the Australian community, Government, science agencies and the international community to learn more about the role of the Chief Scientist and the wide body of work being carried out by her Office  in the promotion of Australian science.

We hope you will find the Annual Review informative and engaging – we welcome your feedback so please do not hesitate to email us at projects@chiefscientist.gov.au

Download the review here.

The world is at a crossroads.

We must contain and then reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so that our farmers, graziers and fishermen have the best chance to feed the world, and our industries have the best opportunities for sustainable growth and new green markets.

So that we – along with the rest of Earth’s inhabitants – are best able to flourish in good health, and the world’s poorest have the best opportunity for hope.

The leading climate scientists from the world over warn that we have about five years to avoid the dangerous climate change that would be generated if average global temperatures increase by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Australia will be one of the most affected regions in the world if we exceed this ‘guardrail’ temperature.

For example, regional climate change projections indicate that we are likely to see an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires (predominately in south-eastern Australia), an increase in the severity of cyclones, decreased rainfall (except in the far north), increased incidence of drought, and an increase in extreme temperatures. 

To avoid hitting the guardrail, annual global emissions must reverse from increasing every year, as they do now, to decreasing every year.

The globe has warmed by nearly 0.8°C over pre-industrial levels. Global temperatures will increase by another 0.5°C as the Earth continues to react to the emissions that we have already emitted in the atmosphere, much of which lingers there for a century or more.

Taken together, this means that climate change corresponding to a 1.3°C temperature rise is now ‘locked in’. Our previous actions have already placed us more than half way to the 2°C guardrail, and yet rather than putting our foot on the brake, we have it on the accelerator.

The greenhouse effect

The sun continuously bathes the Earth with energy in the form of sunlight. Much of this energy is absorbed by the Earth, and then emitted as infrared radiation, or heat. Greenhouse gases prevent the Earth from discarding as much of this heat as it otherwise would back into space.

Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a much colder place, inhospitable to modern human existence. But by the same token, the additional greenhouse gases added to this store by humans is slowly increasing the average temperature of the Earth system.

Due to the quantity in which it is emitted by humans, its longevity in the atmosphere, and its effects in trapping heat, carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases currently causing changes in the Earth’s climate.

While the growth of human carbon dioxide emissions slowed in 2008, a slight reprieve attributed to the global financial crisis, they are still tracking above the worst-case scenario considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 2007 report.

In fact, atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are higher now than at any time since modern humans have evolved.

Too much energy

This growing store of greenhouse gases, is leading to extremes in our weather and changing the long-term climate. Summers are becoming hotter, and droughts are longer and drier. The oceans are becoming more acidic. Sea levels are rising as glaciers melt and the warmer water expands.

If we do not act now, the newest and best science indicates that the average global sea level in 2100 will be 75 to 190 centimetres above 1990 levels, and continue to rise thereafter.

In Australia, extreme fire danger days are already becoming more numerous in many parts of the country, and floods and cyclones more intense.

Research by the CSIRO indicates that the frequency of days with very high and extreme Forest Fire Danger Index ratings is likely to increase by 15 to 70 per cent by 2050 in southeast Australia.

With much of Earth’s biosphere already ‘feeling the heat’, the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is in grave danger both due to increased water temperatures, and increased acidification as the ocean absorbs some of the additional carbon we have placed in the atmosphere.

Changes have been observed in the breeding and migratory patterns of birds, fish and animals; and plant species have spread into latitudes that were previously too cold for them.

Reaching a limit

Why is limiting the average global temperature rise to 2°C so important?

The primary answer is it will be very difficult to adapt to and thrive in temperatures any higher.

As a single example, an increase of surface wind speed of 5 metres per second, made possible with a 1°C rise in ocean temperature, would double the frequency of Category 5 tropical cyclones.

In 2006 Cyclone Larry, a marginal Category 5 cyclone, devastated approximately 12,500 square kilometres around the far north Queensland town of Innisfail and destroyed the region’s banana industry.

Exceeding the 2°C guardrail will also reduce Earth’s limited ability to counteract some of the effects of climate change. If the temperature rise is 2.5°C or more, land ecosystems may emit carbon rather than absorb it, contributing to rather than acting as a buffer against climate change.

Already, the fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the ocean ’sink’ (a form of ‘free’ climate change mitigation) has decreased in last 50 years, for reasons that scientists are still studying.

Time is short

And why must we act quickly?

Calculations catalogued by the 2007 IPCC report tell us that if global temperature rise is to be kept between 2.0 and 2.4°C, then the ‘CO2 equivalent’ concentration, which is used as a combined measure of all Kyoto greenhouse gases, must not be allowed to exceed the range between 445 and 490 parts per million (ppm).

Current CO2 equivalent emissions are 455 ppm and rising.

To meet the 2°C guardrail target, we must halt increases in global CO2 equivalent emissions by about 2015, and then decrease them dramatically and steadily thereafter. 

Around the world, individuals, communities and nations are implementing effective strategies to do their part to effect this change. Australians have a leading part to play in demonstrating how this can be done even in a society known for having the highest carbon emissions per capita. But we need more shoulders at the wheel, because time is short and the clock is ticking – loudly.

This article can be found on the ABC Science website.