Flashing around images of smiling labcoats is all very well, but what about concrete policies?
The official event might be Saturday, but the Australian Federal Election 2013 is pretty much over save the slightly burnt sausages and giant nanna-sized lamingtons we buy while lining up to vote. So, how did science fair in this great sausage sizzle of democracy?
Science got off to a gangbuster start this year, with both the Labor and Liberal parties flashing images of smiling happy lab coat wearers in their first campaign advertisements. The ALP's A New Way spoke about the jobs of the future and showed a yellow lab coat wearer, a blue lab coat wearer and a white lab coat wearer. It felt positive. The Liberal Party's A New Hope (yes) showed two different white lab coat wearing women backing themselves to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It felt positive too.
Ok so two ads isn't a billion dollars of beam lines at the synchrotron or a commitment to expand research funding to 2% of the budget or an unequivocal bipartisan statement recognising the seriously deep shit our climate is in, but it's a start. After all, both major parties placed science right up there with the other great symbols of Australia: men and women in factories making things, school kids laughing and possibly even learning something, mums doing spectacular parenting things, hard working young blokes in the bush and a soulful old guy with a dog. By that count science gets a big thumbs up from the major parties.
But how'd science go through the rest of the campaign? Let's move from the beautiful symbolic support we got to actual semi-concrete policy support.
The ALP announced Australian Innovation Partnerships, in which research would be 'leveraged' by networking with industry. One example is the Biopharmaceutical Innovation Partnership which will receive government funding of up to $6 million (over the next few years) to boost the productivity and commercialisation of new biopharmaceutical technologies. Similar innovation partnerships were announced in other areas. The ALP also announced the Medical Research Innovation Fund, which will do a similar thing but with more money, $125 million (over the next few years). Sounds great! Not much on the other sciences that I could find but no one votes based on astrophysics funding except astrophysicists and even they probably have other priorities as well.
The Liberal Party pledged to protect future medical and health research, while boosting dementia research, with $200 million (over the next few years) for Australian scientists working to prevent or cure dementia. And $42 million for an Institute of Tropical Medicine. Again, sounds great! (And again nothing on the other sciences).
Both parties announced a few other things but you're not here to read a list. (If you are, Science Technology Australia have provided a much more exhaustive and useful listing of policy initiatives here). And so sadly, though there were certainly a few science related announceables, we didn't get to see a debate between the two potential science ministers, Kim Carr and Sophie Mirabella. I would have liked to have seen this.
So, from the actual semi-concrete policy support the scientific sector got, it's worth turning to commitments to listen to scientific advice. On this, Science Technology Australia asked the major parties the very important question of 'Will you commit to back an evidence-based, pro-science approach to policy formulation and political debate of scientific issues?'. (The elephant in the room in this question is, of course, the rather non-scientific approach to climate change adopted by the Liberal party when they were last in government. (They spent a lot of time rejecting the scientific evidence)). Happily, all parties said that policy should be evidence-based. They also added that motherhood is a wonderful thing. The trick, of course, will be how the rubber will hit the road when the election is over. On this point it is worth noting that on perhaps the most significant science based issue of climate change, the Liberal Party's policy has seen significant equivocation recently - even the poorly received Direct Action policy may be scaled back if it is more expensive to achieve abatement than expected.
The chances are high that Australia will wake up on Sunday morning with a new government. This will certainly bring about new budgetary pressures, new priorities in the research funding landscape, and a new dialogue between our scientists and our political process. We in the scientific community would be right to be wary of what this new discussion will bring: many in the Coalition have either rejected credible scientific evidence on issues such as climate change, or had a nod and a wink to those who do. As Giles Parkinson argued recently, Tony Abbott owes his elevation to leader of his party to climate sceptics who rejected a 2009 deal on emissions trading legislation; any election victory 'will owe much to a conga line of supporters who openly ridicule the science'. Fuzzy commitments to maintain 'the maximum level of funding' for science do not look like core promises.
Yet we in the scientific and research community would also be wrong to begin this new term of government - despite Tony Abbott's wishes - seeing it as a rebirth of the Howard government. We would be wrong to assess the actions of this new government against the deeds or words of the past. Abbott has clearly dabbled with climate scepticism in the past, and hostility to science and scientific advice has been near reflexive amongst some on his side of his politics. Giving new governments the benefit of the doubt - judging them on their actual actions in relation to science funding and the use of evidence in policy making - will make the relationship between the science sector and the government more productive in the long term.
Will J Grant is a researcher and lecturer at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, The Australian National University. This post is part of a short series on science policy in Australia on the run up to their election. Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.
The official event might be Saturday, but the Australian Federal Election 2013 is pretty much over save the slightly burnt sausages and giant nanna-sized lamingtons we buy while lining up to vote. So, how did science fair in this great sausage sizzle of democracy?
Science got off to a gangbuster start this year, with both the Labor and Liberal parties flashing images of smiling happy lab coat wearers in their first campaign advertisements. The ALP's A New Way spoke about the jobs of the future and showed a yellow lab coat wearer, a blue lab coat wearer and a white lab coat wearer. It felt positive. The Liberal Party's A New Hope (yes) showed two different white lab coat wearing women backing themselves to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It felt positive too.
Ok so two ads isn't a billion dollars of beam lines at the synchrotron or a commitment to expand research funding to 2% of the budget or an unequivocal bipartisan statement recognising the seriously deep shit our climate is in, but it's a start. After all, both major parties placed science right up there with the other great symbols of Australia: men and women in factories making things, school kids laughing and possibly even learning something, mums doing spectacular parenting things, hard working young blokes in the bush and a soulful old guy with a dog. By that count science gets a big thumbs up from the major parties.
But how'd science go through the rest of the campaign? Let's move from the beautiful symbolic support we got to actual semi-concrete policy support.
The ALP announced Australian Innovation Partnerships, in which research would be 'leveraged' by networking with industry. One example is the Biopharmaceutical Innovation Partnership which will receive government funding of up to $6 million (over the next few years) to boost the productivity and commercialisation of new biopharmaceutical technologies. Similar innovation partnerships were announced in other areas. The ALP also announced the Medical Research Innovation Fund, which will do a similar thing but with more money, $125 million (over the next few years). Sounds great! Not much on the other sciences that I could find but no one votes based on astrophysics funding except astrophysicists and even they probably have other priorities as well.
The Liberal Party pledged to protect future medical and health research, while boosting dementia research, with $200 million (over the next few years) for Australian scientists working to prevent or cure dementia. And $42 million for an Institute of Tropical Medicine. Again, sounds great! (And again nothing on the other sciences).
Both parties announced a few other things but you're not here to read a list. (If you are, Science Technology Australia have provided a much more exhaustive and useful listing of policy initiatives here). And so sadly, though there were certainly a few science related announceables, we didn't get to see a debate between the two potential science ministers, Kim Carr and Sophie Mirabella. I would have liked to have seen this.
So, from the actual semi-concrete policy support the scientific sector got, it's worth turning to commitments to listen to scientific advice. On this, Science Technology Australia asked the major parties the very important question of 'Will you commit to back an evidence-based, pro-science approach to policy formulation and political debate of scientific issues?'. (The elephant in the room in this question is, of course, the rather non-scientific approach to climate change adopted by the Liberal party when they were last in government. (They spent a lot of time rejecting the scientific evidence)). Happily, all parties said that policy should be evidence-based. They also added that motherhood is a wonderful thing. The trick, of course, will be how the rubber will hit the road when the election is over. On this point it is worth noting that on perhaps the most significant science based issue of climate change, the Liberal Party's policy has seen significant equivocation recently - even the poorly received Direct Action policy may be scaled back if it is more expensive to achieve abatement than expected.
The chances are high that Australia will wake up on Sunday morning with a new government. This will certainly bring about new budgetary pressures, new priorities in the research funding landscape, and a new dialogue between our scientists and our political process. We in the scientific community would be right to be wary of what this new discussion will bring: many in the Coalition have either rejected credible scientific evidence on issues such as climate change, or had a nod and a wink to those who do. As Giles Parkinson argued recently, Tony Abbott owes his elevation to leader of his party to climate sceptics who rejected a 2009 deal on emissions trading legislation; any election victory 'will owe much to a conga line of supporters who openly ridicule the science'. Fuzzy commitments to maintain 'the maximum level of funding' for science do not look like core promises.
Yet we in the scientific and research community would also be wrong to begin this new term of government - despite Tony Abbott's wishes - seeing it as a rebirth of the Howard government. We would be wrong to assess the actions of this new government against the deeds or words of the past. Abbott has clearly dabbled with climate scepticism in the past, and hostility to science and scientific advice has been near reflexive amongst some on his side of his politics. Giving new governments the benefit of the doubt - judging them on their actual actions in relation to science funding and the use of evidence in policy making - will make the relationship between the science sector and the government more productive in the long term.
Will J Grant is a researcher and lecturer at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, The Australian National University. This post is part of a short series on science policy in Australia on the run up to their election. Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.