THE AUSTRALIAN government鈥檚 main advisory body on science and technology is
under the microscope.
A panel chaired by Rupert Myers_former professor of metallurgy and erstwhile
vice-chancellor of the University of NSW_is looking at the performance of the
Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC. It is 15 years since ASTEC
was set up, so a review is appropriate.
Responding to a call for submissions, the Institution of Engineers, Australia
attacked ASTEC for neglecting practical technology and commercial issues.
While this criticism may be legitimate, it is a bit harsh to blame ASTEC.
Australia鈥檚 efforts in science and technology are skewed towards science
because the private sector has put too few resources into technological
innovation.
Advertisement
Advisory bodies, cabinet ministers, academic policy analysts and even the
Institution of Engineers itself have urged Australian corporations to do more.
All have been unsuccessful. But that is no more the fault of ASTEC, than the
ministers, policy analysts or the Institution.
The Institution also criticises ASTEC for Australia鈥檚 failure to offer
televised courses in pure and applied science. When I was working at the Open
University in the UK, there was an inquiry into the possibility of repeating
that successful initiative in Australia. But the bean counters claimed it
would not be cost-effective, so Australia did not get its Open University.
Instead, distance education units were set up across the country and
replicated the expensive job of producing teaching materials for distant
learners. It was inevitable that few of these put their efforts into science
or technology. Many people or groups could be blamed for this, but ASTEC would
not be near the top of the list.
Understandably Greg Tegart, ASTEC鈥檚 secretary, was not very impressed
with the public criticism. A metallurgist and former head of BHP鈥檚 research
laboratories in Melbourne, he can hardly be accused of not understanding the
real world of industry.
There are legitimate questions to be raised about the effectiveness of ASTEC
over the years, and about its revised role since the formation of the Prime
Minister鈥檚 Science Council and the advent of the Office of Chief 快猫短视频.
But the call by the engineers for ASTEC to be supplemented by yet another
body, specialising in issues of engineering and technology, is unlikely to be
greeted with universal acclaim.
NOW IT IS official. The long-awaited Australian government White Paper on
science and technology is being submerged into the Budget process.
Ross Free, the Minister for Science and Technology, is putting a brave face on
this decision. His official line is that 鈥渢ying the White Paper to the 1992-93
Budget further consolidates the position of science and technology in the
mainstream of Government economic thinking鈥�.
The minister also 鈥渃autioned against unrealistic expectations鈥� and talked
ominously about giving taxpayers value for money. I can detect no confidence
that tangible benefits for science and technology will emerge from being
immersed in the mainstream of 鈥渆conomic thinking鈥�, even among those who don鈥檛
see that expression as an oxymoron.
THE USE of the spell checker continues to provide an endless source of
diversion.
A student, perhaps worried about the sustainability of mining, referred in a
recent essay to Australia鈥檚 economic reliance on 鈥渕inimal deposits鈥�. And I was
not surprised, given present academic industrial unrest, to see a NZ
university advertise a post in 鈥淥ptional Communications鈥�.
But this week鈥檚 best effort was a Freudian slip by the Australian Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In a reprint of the speech by environment
minister Ros Kelly to the Earth Summit in Rio, she was quoted as saying 鈥渨e
work together without state and local governments to achieve environmental
辞产箩别肠迟颈惫别蝉鈥�!