by STEPHEN MATCHETT
Anthony Albanese may not understand science, but he knows what he likes.
The Prime Minister announced his awards the other night – his speech was enough for pure basic researchers to reach for the booze under the lab bench.
“Our scientific community is at the forefront of Australia’s industrial transformation.
Paving the way for new jobs and opportunities here at home in Australia. And turning Australian ingenuity into economic success,” Mr Albanese said.
It’s hard to see where pure basic research fits in that. The ANZ Standard Research Classification defines it as, “experimental and theoretical work undertaken to acquire new knowledge without looking for long term benefits other than the advancement of knowledge.”
Like the work of the Science Prize winner, Matthew Bailes (Swinburne U). He was “recognised for his world-first discovery of fast radio bursts … his work is helping to determine how much normal matter exists in the universe.” Not work which will be ready for market any lightyear soon.
The other winners were likely more to Mr Albanese’s sense of science, working in medicine, green energy and quantum computing, which the government appears to assume will be “an everyday technology.”
None of which will cheer up scientists who want to work on projects that will not be announceable by the next election.
Just as there was not much in the National Science Statement, in August, which read like an industry policy, being subtitled, “a future made in Australia.” The accompanying imperatives, were mainly more of the same, including, “science at the centre of Australian industry” and a “skilled workforce to underpin the translation of science into new industry.” The only acknowledgement that science takes time was a “science system prepared for future challenges.”
But one of the challenges now, is that national spending on pure basic research is going backwards, not adjusted for inflation, in actual dollars. According to May figures from the Bureau of Statistics, spending was down $10m (0.4%), to $2.445bn from 2020 to 2022. In comparison, applied research, characterised as research and development, increased 17% to $7.82bn.
Another is that the next research funding change will follow from Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic’s long awaited, but still not started, research and development review. Unless the terms of reference include research without the ampersand it is hard to see more money for work that pursues knowledge for its own sake.
The future for long-term funding for research without a forseeable objective looks short, very short.
