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

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.

At the initial invitation from the German government, Professor Chubb will depart on Thursday, 27 October for engagements across the UK and Europe.

As well as launching the Australian – German Science Circle, which is a program designed to promote mutual understanding of each country’s research landscape as well as provide a platform to explore the science linkages between our two countries, he will also meet the leaders of several international research agencies.

The visit also gives Professor Chubb the opportunity to promote Australia’s credentials as possible host of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope.

“Geographically, Australia offers the ideal environment for a radio telescope as large and sensitive as this. We, along with our partners New Zealand, have an extensive optic-fibre network already in place, impressive existing astronomy infrastructure and strong government backing,” Professor Chubb said.

“The international community stands to benefit most from this bid and I am fully committed to supporting Australia’s candidacy to host the SKA.”

Following his time in Europe, the Chief Scientist will present at various conferences in Washington DC, including ‘Neuroscience Downunder’ before visiting Ottawa to present a keynote address at the Canadian Science Policy Conference.

“As a global advocate for Australian science and innovation, I anticipate these meetings will prove highly beneficial to Australia. Opportunities like this will develop new, and strengthen existing, partnerships with leading global science policy makers crucial to Australia cementing its place on the global scientific stage,” Professor Chubb said.

“The importance of international collaboration for the Australian science community cannot be overstated.”

Although our population accounts for only 0.3% of the world’s, Australia currently contributes over 3% of the world’s scientific output.

“We are punching above our weight and performing incredibly well, but this figure also means that 96 odd percent of the world’s research is being done elsewhere and the time has passed that we can expect to share and gain from that knowledge without actively engaging with those communities,” Professor Chubb said.

The Chief Scientist will return to Australia late November.

Currently a Professor at the Australian National University, Professor Schmidt shares the prize with two others “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe through observations of distant supernovae.”

It is the 12^th Nobel Prize for an Australian, and the first in physics since 1915, an honour that did not escape Professor Schmidt.

“Im kind of weak in the knees… almost speechless at this point. I’m still trying to get my head around it,” he told ABC Radio.

Professor Schmidt shares the Nobel with collaborator and friend Adam Riess of the United States, and physicist Saul Perlmutter.

Their combined work studying exploding stars (supernovae) and the mysterious dark matter led to the discovery that the universe is expanding into a further disconnected state at an accelerating rate. This will probably lead to the end of the universe in ice, a finding nothing short of groundbreaking for physicists worldwide.

“Adam and I were working very closely at the time, trying to figure out this crazy result… it seemed too crazy to be right. We were a little scared,” Professor Schmidt reminisced of their work.

Albert Einstein famously proposed the theory that the universe was accelerating at an increasing rate in 1917, but doubted his findings, labelling it his “biggest blunder”.

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, spoke highly of his former colleague, noting the hardships the ANU team went through following the 2003 fires that destroyed ANU’s Mount Stromlo Observatory.

“It is an incredible achievement and an honour for Brian, as well as for Australians. As a country we should be very proud that such significant and pioneering research is being conducted on our home soil,” Professor Chubb said.

He hopes the Prize will inspire Australians to appreciate science and the sense of wonder it can ignite.

“Science is a remarkable process that explains almost everything about our world – from the tiniest cellular changes that can cause cancer, to the unfolding details of our universe and its future.”

In an interview with The Australian, Professor Schmidt attributed part of his success to the opportunities that were made available to him by moving to Canberra from the United States 17 years ago

“Being in Australia was probably absolutely essential for being part of this,” he said.

“I came here at the age of 27 and was (given the resources) to run an international team. And you know that’s a uniquely Australian thing.”

To read or listen to an interview with Professor Schmidt recorded shortly after the announcement click here.

Photo courtesy of Belinda Pratten and the Australian National University.

Download a PDF of the speech here.

Image by Katrina Ferguson, MNHS, Monash University.

Acknowledgements

Professor Bryan Williams

Ladies and gentlemen

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. 

I do have a particular attachment to this institution – and to this Institute since it emerged from my first point of association with Monash, although it was born well after my first departure from Monash. 

Some of you here will know that I was probably the most junior employee in the very new Medical School in the very early days of the wind-swept, red-clay cloaked, probably ‘red’, wet and wind-swept Monash.  Indeed, I remember getting trucked off to the Alfred from a distant oval using a four wheel drive not (or not only) because even then I was too heavy to carry, but because only a four wheel drive could get through the mud. 

Twenty four years or so later I was the second most senior employee when I was appointed to be what was interestingly termed the ‘Senior’ Deputy Vice-Chancellor – something close to a Provost.  Between the two I kept in contact with many of the people here who served as friends and as mentors. 

My first important mentor was Lawrie Austin in Biochemistry.  His interest in me and his commitment to me is something that I have never forgotten; just as I have never under-estimated his impact.

I therefore owe this institution and some of its people a great deal.  I have learnt an enormous amount here – both how to do things and how not to do things. 

So it is a pleasure for me to be here today to participate in this celebration of achievement and of commitment to a great cause – the 20^th anniversary of an Institute that contributes so substantially to the health of human-kind. 

I congratulate the past and present staff of the MIMR on its success over the past 20 years.  And I congratulate Monash University for the foresight shown 20 years ago when it established an Institute that has made its mark on our world so well.   I wasn’t here at the time so I don’t know.  But I’ll bet it wasn’t easy.

In a reasonably short time, this Institute has been responsible for some of the most significant scientific achievements in our country’s history. From a scan of international headlines, you can see the MIMR name attached to groundbreaking (don’t journalists love that word) stories on the birth of the world’s first cloned cow ‘Brandy’, to the creation of the human prostate tissue from embryonic stem cells for the first time – allowing researchers to monitor the tissue as it progresses from a healthy to a diseased state; a finding that will continue to provide a solid foundation for prostate research globally[1].

On reading the history of the MIMR, it is impressive to see the rapid rate of progress that has been achieved – from focusing primarily on fertility and infant health in its first years, to where it now describes itself as having ‘scientific expertise in cancer research, maternal, fetal, neonatal and paediatric research, gene function and disease, inflammation, reproductive technologies, male reproductive health, stem cells, women’s health and pain medicine.’

And it doesn’t stop with scientific expertise; the Institute has the charter to translate its scientific expertise to the clinic.  Basic research translated into better health care is critical to a world that will face unprecedented challenges from unpredictable sources in the future.

The translation of research into health care has an important spin-off for medical research because it is a factor in the high public regard for medical research and medical researchers.  There are of course, some instances where it is under attack. Inoculations, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning for example, invoke strong emotions and opinions in the community and parliament in Australia, and in other countries.   

But overall, medical research is widely supported. As evidence, you can look to public opinion polls or perhaps even to the lack of concerted threats and intimidation presently reported by medical researchers.  

This hasn’t always been the case. One only needs to look back to WWII and some of the so-called medical experiments done then, the nuclear tests in or on bikini atoll, or the Tuskegee syphilis study to see that trust in, and respect for medical research depends on what is done, how – and the ethical standards applied to the work.  

But right now, in this culture of scepticism even cynicism, medical research flies high. Perhaps this is because medical research offers better health; it has the most obvious potential to improve lives in a very personal way – and we all have an interest in that.

But a study conducted by the Australian Society for Medical Research found that more than a third of Australian families have been affected by medical conditions that could not be adequately treated[2]. This number may not be substantially different from, say, a decade ago, but the difference is in the attitude – people no longer accept serious illness as ‘a part of life’. Eighty per cent of people agreed with the statement that “it is unacceptable that Australians are suffering from conditions that would be curable with more investment in medical and health research.”[3]

To Australians then, medical research is important. And if we are to deliver on the expectations that follow, we must recognise that it can’t all be done here; we are part of a global system, a global effort. 

We contribute to, and draw from, the global stock of knowledge.  And we certainly play our part as a global contributor.  We are a world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average, even though we spend much less per capita than say the US or the UK[4].

Australian expenditure on medical research is estimated to be 1.1% of the global expenditure but the proportion of world health returns attributable to Australian research is 3.0%[5]. I’ve said it before of Australian science, but in medical research in particular, we are proudly punching well above out weight.

But nothing is certain.  Earlier this year, there was talk of proposed cuts of $400m to the NHMRC; thankfully this never came about.  Partly, some believe, because the public display by medical researchers led to a response from the public that persuaded those who might have been thinking of cutting to think again.

Maybe we can understand that public response using a survey conducted by Research Australia.  It showed that 91% of Australians support the federal government spending more money on medical research. Maybe in Australia there might be as much danger for the cutter as for the ‘cuttee’!

As an interesting comparison of Australian’s interests, only 6% supported more money to sport programs to help champion athletes win Olympic medals[6].  But mind you, if we don’t perform at the Olympics, there might be another story.

It is also encouraging to note that in the same study 89% of Australians would be willing to pay $1 more for each prescription medicine if they knew that all the money would be spent on additional health and medical research.[7]

There are doubtless many reasons.  One may be that it is understood and accepted that many contemporary medical researchers not only work to the ‘higher’ purpose of improving health outcomes, but also because the researchers submit to, and overwhelmingly comply with, ethical standards of a high order.  They seem to be admired and trusted.  This is not something universally experienced by scientists in other areas or disciplines.  Those who sow doubt have managed to change public attitudes towards scientists quite substantially. As I said, nothing is certain; a position has to be earned.  And all scientists need to be familiar with the types of campaign presently getting traction.

But I think, broadly, the public accepts (even if there are always likely to be exceptions) that medical researchers are motivated not just by a search to understand the very nature of things but also seek to  improve the human lot. The public is aware because medical researchers do not shy from the public debate, whether it be about the ethics or the outcome. 

In a society where some science and some scientists are being dragged through the mud – we must be grateful that at least medical research and institutions like this one, have the public on-side.

Medical research is fortunate to have the respect and support of the majority of the public right now, but it is still just as vulnerable as other areas of science currently under attack.  And we do have some scientists facing criminal charges right now for not predicting an earthquake. And there are some people taken seriously by some people who have commented that we should lock up climate scientists for “fraud” and “racketeering.”

The present respect, the esteem, for medical research cannot be taken for granted.  Medical research depends on the same process of peer review, the same basics of chemistry, physics and biology that, say, climate science does. And yet, one discipline is heralded as vital, life-saving, a miracle even, and another is plagued by accusations of fabrication, political interest, corruption, economic interests and plain ordinary greed.

We should remember that not too long ago, health research was struggling as the tobacco industry rallied against scientists, sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of research into the effects of tobacco smoke on our lungs, heart, throat and children: we will all have seen the very, very old person wheeled out from somewhere who smoked heavily and drank wine everyday for, what 80 years; living proof that, really, it wasn’t so risky. 

As I have said before, all science is bruised somewhere by the attacks on some science.  The tactic is simple: sow doubt, often.  Evidence is unimportant in this game: just be dismissive, relentless, and loud; and get personal because normal people will back away from a public fight. 

No area of science is immune from attacks like these. It means that nothing is certain and little will endure if we don’t set the scene, explain the process and engage seriously with the public.  It is their judgement and their open support that will ultimately deter the ‘cutters.’

Raising the profile of science, garnering respect for ethically conducted science of a high standard, and its communication, is the duty of care of everyone who works and studies in science.

This message needs to be instilled at the very beginning, in our schools.  

Unfortunately recent studies indicate that a very large fraction of Australian primary school teachers feel unqualified to teach science[8], and that a large fraction of Australian teachers of Year 7-10 General Science had not completed the generally-accepted standard of tertiary education in science[9]. It is hard to encourage people to defend science or not to be afraid of it when from a young age they have not been taught about it.

And the effects can be seen in workforces across Australia. In chemistry, maths, engineering… we face huge challenges for our future industries[10].

Medical research however, has a slightly more optimistic outlook, though still with much more to be done. By 2019, it is estimated that almost six and a half thousand members of the health and medical research workforce will have retired, 4000 of whom have PhDs[11].

We currently have sufficient rates of medical research PhD completions to maintain our current workforce over the next ten years[12]. But if Australia is to have the most highly educated, best skilled and highly trained health and medical research sector in the world, which surely we should strive to achieve, the number of PhD qualified researchers would need to expand 2.5 fold to be on par with the European workforce[13].  

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

From 2000-2010, funding from the NHMRC quadrupled in size. However, funding is now on a plateau with no expected increases on the horizon[14].  

At the same time though, the size of grants has been increasing and is set to continue to increase. As a result of greater collaborations, more expensive equipment and more staff, the average size grant today is valued at $550,000 over three years. In 2000 the average grant size was around $260, 000[15].

But we have seen a huge increase in the number of applications. They have grown from around 1500 in 2000 to 3226 in 2010. In 2000 the success rate was around 30%; today it is about 23%[16].

It would be easy to blame the falling success rate on falling quality, but this is not the case. The number of grant applications that received scores high enough to be ‘worthy of funding’ but do not receive funding has been steadily increasing. In year 2000 it was 37% of applications; in 2009, it was 58%[17].

So we have the number of applications rising; the quality of applications improving, funding which has flat lined and grants that are getting bigger.  A tough combination.

And then there is the need to replace or grow the medical research workforce; the place of young people: the researchers we will need to carry the torch when some of the present flame carriers decide to do something else.

Let me ask: does our present system of scholarships, post-docs, grants, grants and more grants lead to jobs that are satisfying and secure?  Jobs like the ones we once got.  If the answer is yes, fine. 

If the answer is no, then we need to think deeply about whether a system, the core of which was invented long ago, can still meet the need.  While ensuring that excellent research and excellent researchers can be supported, can we find a way to ensure that appropriate numbers of new entrants can get a foothold, and a career, that is more than a succession of post-docs on somebody else’s grants.  I should add that this question does not assume that the universities have no role to play.  The relationship between universities, granting agencies and the allocation of research support may need to be re-worked.

Whether or not we change is not for me to decide.  But I do know that different times and a different context mean that we should be at least willing to examine the utility of present practice and examine how well it prepares us, and Australia, for the future.

Change is after all an inevitable part of life. In the laboratory we don’t simply do now what we did when I was young.  And we don’t do it the same way even if the scientific method itself stands well the test of time.

Outside the laboratory, however, attitudes to science also need to change. We need to change the number of students excited about science. We need to change the number pursuing science at school and then at university.  We need to change the trajectory and skill base of and increase the science-trained numbers in the Australian workforce. And that last point means that we need to ensure that we can tell highly talented young people that there are careers in science – careers that will mean that they won’t have to wait too long (a time that appears to be forever to some of them) to get their house or start their family.  Because we care; because we should – and because we need them.

I appreciate the leadership that medical research has shown in setting this standard for science and communication in Australia and abroad.

As I said at the beginning, I am truly pleased to be here today to participate in this celebration. I wish MIMR well and a sustained and productive future.  If somebody there can find out how to stop cells ageing and eliminate all the deficiencies that flow when they do, I’ll come back in 20 years to celebrate the next two decades.

I thank you now for your invitation to be here; and I’ll be happy to come back then and express my gratitude even more strongly.

[1] MIMR newsletter, Issue #51 – 20^th Anniversary special.

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

[3] ibid

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

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

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

[7] Ib id

[8] International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades (2009). 

[9] McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M. & Hong, J., 2008. Staff in Australia’s schools 2007. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

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

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

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

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

[14] National Health and Medical Research Council, Annual Report 2009-10, p.32

[15] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2011. CEO presentation 2011, slide 16. Available: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/about/senior_staff/articles/nhmrc_ceo_presentation_newcastle_uni_june_2011.pdf)

[16] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010, Working to build a healthy Australia presentation, CEO Warwick Anderson http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/about/senior_staff/articles/nhmrc_ceo_presentation_oct2010.pdf)

[17] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010. Research Funding Fact Book.