The following is a Key Note Address given for the 2010 Science Meets Parliament in the Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra.

Minister Kim Carr, Minister Lindsay Tanner, Dr. Cathy Foley – President FASTS, members of Parliament, distinguished scientists, ladies and gentlemen. Good evening.

What a difference a year makes. Last year at this dinner, our chief scientist shared her thoughts on the science behind climate change. Dr Sackett urged our politicians to take the bold steps necessary to avoid the adverse consequences to our planet of climate change. The media was on message and the community including both sides of politics were generally in heated agreement with the science and the global threat of climate change. The assembled science community was proud of the leadership role and the advocacy, through evidence based research that science had played in this national and global policy formation.

During the ensuing 12 months we have reached a different and unanticipated place. Through the collective effort of both industries at risk from the proposed changes and individuals philosophically opposed to the scale of government intervention required to effect carbon emission management systems, the debate has taken a very different turn.

Today, the introduction of a global carbon emission control system is now uncertain. This was always a possibility. The rather unpleasant surprise is that this debate has not only derailed the community’s attitude to the science of climate change, it has become almost an attack on fundamental professionalism of science, particularly the application of evidence based science processes and the peer review process. For the science community this public attack on the professionalism of all scientists is unprecedented. The politicians in the room would consider an attack on their professionalism as par for the course. Even more galling is the speed at which it has unfolded. One could even go as far as to suggest that the climate change sceptics have given new momentum and rather loud public voice to science sceptics.

So how is it that we have managed to potentially stuff up the communication strategy on the most important issue facing our planet? Do we just lament the vast resources of the fossil fuel energy industry, the small government neo -libertarians or do we turn to ourselves and acknowledge the outcome was highly predictable based on our past performance on the communications strategy of key science based issues; The climate change debate is the just the humdinger of our time.

Unlike previous similar communications issues such as GM foods, fluoride in water, nuclear energy etc almost all our scientists are engaged in the climate change debate. You cannot avoid the climate. I suspect our scientists must be concerned our planet’s epitaph could well read “they got the science right but stuffed up the communication”.

And this is the objective of my speech this evening – to analyse the communication experience of the climate change debate and to make sure we do capture the benefits and opportunities to science and science communication from the apparent success of the climate change sceptics.

I am sure many of you will be wondering what it is about my qualifications or experiences that have lead me to this discourse tonight. I am a businessman and began my career at Macquarie Bank in the same year FASTS was founded, 1985. I regret that the only science subject I studied past year 9 was maths. This science subject did help me in my career, specifically when I was CEO of Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd. to grow the Crown Casino business, where I applied my studies in maths to optimize the expected return from the spending by high rollers. Using that science we grew Crown’s high roller business into one of the world’s largest. I think my year 12 maths teacher, Mr Batiste, would have been quite proud.

It is much simpler. I stand here because of a different gamble; a bet I made over a good bottle of SA red with Baroness Susan Greenfield in August 2004. I met her over dinner at the Centre for Independent studies annual think tank. She explained to me what she was doing in Adelaide and we discussed at length her rationale for establishing the UK Science Media Centre. I lost the particular bet that involved a trip to see her speak in Adelaide but found myself wheeled into a meeting with the Premier Mike Rann who suggested that according to the Baroness, I had agreed to champion and chair the Australian Science Media Centre.

And so with the support of most of the Australian media industry including News corp, Fairfax, ABC, APN (the CEO, Brendan Hopkins is here tonight), many leading science organizations including CSIRO, and the SA state government, the Aussmc was established in 2005. Our board includes many of Australia’s principal media gate keepers i.e. head of daily news; from channel 10, Jim Carroll who is here tonight, Garry Linnell and Mel Mansell from News corp., leading science communicators such as Robyn Williams and Rob Morrison and the CEO’s of Orica, Resmed, chief scientists and/ or ministers from Victoria, NSW, Queensland and of course Premier Mike Rann. We have over 500 registered journalists, 2300 expert scientists on our panel and an audience reach as measured by Media Monitors (also one of our foundation supporters) of 18 million per month.

Now the Aussmc deals only with the media industry – it does not deal directly with the public. It was for this reason we established the Royal Institution of Australia. With the significant assistance from the Government of South Australia, the Federal Government through Minister Carr’s department, Santos and the Myer family and foundation we bought the old Adelaide stock exchange and converted it into the Australian Science Exchange. This enterprise was officially opened in October. Our inaugural CEO, Professor Gavin Brown is with also with us tonight. The Aussmc is now co-located inside the Science Exchange.

The support these two ventures enjoy from the Australian business, government and media sector is as a result of their significant concerns about science communication. I know Minister Tanner shares these concerns based on his recent op-ed piece in the Age.

For example, when science in our daily news goes from a page 8 issue to front page there have been many examples of serious distortion around the message. The distortion of the facts and therefore the implications have led to long term adverse public policy issues at a large cost to our society.

Another such concern is that we live in a society that creates legislation that determines how or when we can use and develop the benefits of discoveries in science. These legislative decisions are being made by politicians, of whom very few have a science background and are influenced by a population that lacks the core knowledge to participate in the debate, leaving a vacuum open to be exploited by organized interest groups. The climate change debate is a classic example.

Then there is the decline in the number of Australians taking up a career in science. We live in the time of science. We are a knowledge society and unless we have a large body of human capital trained in and engaged in science and engineering our economic and social well-being is at risk.

So I am a science industry outsider that has spent five years engaged in observing and working on the development of institutions designed to help alleviate these three problems.

Now, let’s return to my topic for this evening, how do we ensure there is a long term benefit to science and science communication from the communications successes of the climate change deniers and sceptics.

Now this is going to require some time and concentration, so having regard to the OH&S risk of sitting for too long, at about the 15 minute interval we will take an ad break and do some stretching exercises.

The question needs to be put, is there something structural about the science industry and science communication as compared to business, politics or sport that has created science’s communications dilemma? If so how do we alter the structure?

Now I do not underestimate the financial resources deployed by any organization whose economic well being is likely to be impacted by government mandated change, but the science industry has been derailed on debates and not by the major industry, such as the GM debate.

My overall thesis is that there are three distinct structural issues that science faces in its communications challenge. They are long standing and deep seated. These made the science of climate change particularly vulnerable to attack due to the special issues in the climate change debate and the manner in which the science around climate change was organised.

The structural issues are

1. Science has different timelines and incentives which materially inhibits science’s propensity to engage in mass communication compared with politics or business.

2. The core structure of the science industry biases it to internal promotion and therefore inter-industry communication rather than with society at large, unlike business or politics.

3. Science as a media genre has specific structural features that inhibit its dissemination through mass media compared with business or politics.

Now to the first structural issue that science confronts.

The differing timelines and incentives in science compared with politics or business.

A scientist, particularly a research scientist is unable to achieve a goal without money, effectively grant money. Grant money is the by product of long term specialization in a particular area and a highly competitive inter-industry process. This process primarily involves persuasion using a much specialised communication strategy specific to the science industry. Those scientists who learn best to operate in an environment of long lead times and intense inter-industry rivalry survive. We need these scientist who are prepared to go the long haul and add to our nation’s knowledge.

Politics is medium term, usually at least three years and is a highly competitive engagement between politicians and the citizenry who are the voters.

Business is generally shorter term. It relies generally on consumers for revenue and engages extensively with industry in the pursuit of financial capital. There is extreme inter-industry rivalry but profits rather than persuasion are the primary determinant of success.

So it is the science industry alone whose timelines are long and is the industry where advancement is most dependent on successful inter-industry rivalry dominated by a very specialized form of persuasion.

The second structural impediment is that the core structure of the science industry biases the information it produces to self promotion and that self promotion is predominantly internal. This process ensures the best science bubbles up.

Now when I say this to our scientists, I do not mean there is anything negative about self promotion. After all I am an ex-banker and this room is full of politicians so self promotion is not a negative value in this great hall. My comments are focussed on the structural bias and focus of that self promotion.

If we were to take a helicopter view of the science industry, or to think of it as Science Inc, may I ask you to consider the sort of organizational structure you would draw?

I suggest Science Inc has five key departments or business units. These are the Accreditation business unit, the guild business unit, the Research business unit, the education business unit and then production.

The Accreditation Unit decides who are the best scientists and whose scientific works are to be trusted. Who are the best scientists is played in Australia by the Australian academies of Science and of Technical Science and Engineering, in the UK it is the Royal Society; whose scientific work is to be trusted is played by the peer reviewers appointed by the editorial panels of the leading journals.

The second unit of Science Inc is the Guilds. These are found in the form of FASTS our hosts for this evening, the society for chemical engineers, aeronautical engineers, etc. They all look after the interests of their members. You could call them unions as they deal with the interest of sciences employees but I refer to them as a Guild rather than a union because they play a very important role in ensuring the quality of our scientists and engaging with government in the debate about funding for science research.

The next Unit of Science Inc is the Research Unit. The largest of these of course is the CSIRO but here are many of which we are enormously proud. We then have the Education unit made up substantially of the universities and finally there is the production unit such as Orica, DuPont, Biota etc.

The funding for four of these five Departments of science comes from the successful act of promoting ones own interests and promoting these internally using persuasion and consensus rather the process used in the market i.e. the discovery of value added commonly known as price and profit.

In the case of the Accreditation Unit and the Guilds, funding comes from self promotion amongst its members and government. In the case of the Research Unit including the Universities, funding comes from self promoting of its projects to funding agencies – primarily government. In the case of the Education Unit most universities lose money on every undergraduate place they offer in science and engineering and so whist they know the important role they play in teaching they have not been quite sure sometimes what they were promoting, although a key role within Science Inc has been to use the Education Unit as the machine necessary to bubble up the best 10% for a career in the Research Unit and use those students as a source of low cost labour for the benefit of the Research Unit.

This organizational structure of Science Inc has evolved as a function of history, the need to have trust in the quality of a scientist and their work, historical funding sources, and the long timeline between research and discovery; but what it drives as an incentive to communicate is first and foremost to promote ones own interest and to do this internally into Science Inc.

The Accreditation Unit, the Guilds, the Research Units do play important roles in the dissemination of science information, but this is a secondary role.

It is possible to even suggest the focus on internal self promotion has created a culture that is possibly hostile to engaging in public comment. It might be considered to be a waste of resources or time. I would like to ask the scientists in the room when you last emailed a fellow scientist congratulating them for their comments in the press. It is more common to hear of emails deriding a fellow scientist for commenting in the press. How often do you see a younger scientist as a spokesperson for a leading scientist, something common to industries, engaged in public communication? Is it possible the culture of internal self promotion reminds our leading scientists of what is the point of taking the risk on a spokesperson?

The structure of Sscience Inc can be contrasted with, say, the financial services industry where a research analyst will make money from potential investors by writing an analysis of a company’s financial outlook or a consumer magazine will generate subscriptions and advertising revenue by undertaking critical commentary on products and services. This very public and well funded communication devise does not really exist in Science Inc. This allows a greater bias to internal self promotion and essentially relieves science Inc from the process of scrutiny that forces leadership time and significant money to be spent on communicating externally in the world of business and politics.

A further particular challenge for the Accreditation and Guilds Unit is whilst their members are scientists; their members have very robust views on a range of topics outside their field of expertise. The need to have a wide group of members combined effectively limits the ability of the leadership of the member based Accreditation and Guild Units to make public comments on the science in the media, at least in media timelines.

This problem of the constraint on the leadership of the Accreditation Units and the Guilds to make public comment manifests itself also in the Research unit. There has been a joke in some corners of the Science media that the most often quoted scientist from the CSIRO is a FORMER scientist of the CSIRO!

Under Minister Carr’s leadership major research institutions have been involved in a process of signing onto to a charter of independence that permits scientists who are employees to comment in the media without the need for approval from the organizations communications hierarchy. That still leaves CSIRO with a brand management problem when a CSIRO employee comments on areas of science in which they are not experts.

The third structural challenge is Science as a media genre, which when compared with sport, business or politics, has several underlying characteristics that inhibit its ability to compete in the mass media market.

To begin with, science is not a complete story. – It often does not have a beginning, middle and an end. The story on Bird Flu is an example. When did it start? How will it finish?

Secondly, in Science the process of debate is structurally different; it does not seek to prove something is not true, eg, mobile phones do not cause tumours of the brain.

In Science, scientists agree or disagree with one another through a discussion of a fact or with the interpretation of evidence. Evidence based science does not use values and persuasion has little relevance in the evidentiary process. Truth is proven through the detailed review of the evidentiary process to create those facts. Scientists will comment on the evidence. It is therefore inherently technical and focussed on the quality of the evidence not the topic.

Thirdly, the content of science is generally not “alluring”. It is generally not bad news. If it is it gets into the news easily. It is usually not of a gossip nature and therefore the information does not benefit from the knowledge exchange of bringing someone down. The content of the famous emails are rather rare.

Fourthly, science is often highly specialised so that only a few people can relate to or contextualise the information. The problem of specialisation is further compounded if those Scientists that can convert facts into knowledge do not engage in public media information exchange either because they believe there are no incentives and/or no urgency. Without a context in which facts are exchanged then no knowledge is created.

Finally science information does not have a “balance” of opinion since it is based on facts and evidence. In the case of political and business information the “balance” of opinion is a critical part of the validation process. “What is the consensus earnings forecast?” is a common question. This process creating balance and consensus of itself draws out a sense of “urgency” or timeliness on interested parties as without their contribution the balance might be skewed.

Accordingly with a science topic, yet another comment can look repetitive and be overlooked, or a supporting statement which is in agreement can look repetitive whereas a dissenting view can generate excessive interest.

These inhibitors of evidence based science as a mass media genre have the effect of increasing the cost of creating mass media content from science as compared to sport or business. This perception amongst news editors of increased cost with uncertain reward naturally reduces the amount of science content that will be carried.

The Aussmc is designed to address this structural problem of science as a media genre particularly through its online briefings and its background briefing process. This increases the immediate evidence based science on a topic at no cost to the general news editor and causes a process of knowledge creation for general news journalists.

So I suggest there are three core structural issues confronting science. Its long time lines, a structural bias to self promotion which is predominantly internal and an information genre that is not well suited to mass communication.

So let me turn to the matter of the climate change debate. I hope you will bear with me as I quickly break it down into its key components and then demonstrate the vulnerability of the science industry.

Oh and just for the record, I am an investor in and chair a Carbon fund in china, Peony Capital. In fact using the carbon trading system we funded the conversion from coal fired to gas fired of the main generator to be used to supply electricity at the forthcoming Shanghai expo. So if you visit Expo 2010 and turn on the lights, think of Peony Capital!

The science of the climate change debate involves three strands; diagnosis, prognosis and recommended treatment. First an evidenced based diagnosis to prove that human activity has increased carbon in the atmosphere and that the current levels have caused climate change. Second the prognosis, i.e. How much additional climate change will likely occur based on the expected additional emissions from humans and third the required treatment i.e. what is the level of annual emission we need to get back to fix the problem. A higher or lower cap requires a higher or lower price for carbon.

There is one more part to the whole climate change debate and that is having decided on the treatment how does that treatment get dished out. Science was not involved in determining how the treatment is to be dished out. This was the domain of the economists and other policy makers.

The business end of the climate change debate is that by creating the cap on emissions, a resource fundamentally essential to production in most industries, the ability to emit carbon for free is to be given a price and brought into the cost of production. The impact of this is as great as if you could imagine a world where oil had been priced at zero for the past 200 years and is suddenly priced at $80 per barrel. Who gets to own the oil, who is forced to buy oil and what the price is going to be impacts fundamentally the viability of major businesses and industries.

The politics in the argument is straight forward. There are no physical barriers to emitting into the air. Therefore creating a barrier requires government to legislate first to create a cap on total emissions and then for government to decide how and at what price it will be distributed to producers. The challenge is first to convince the voting public to cop the legislation, as the effect of bringing the cost of air into the cost of production will cause consumer prices to rise and likely lead to job dislocation, and then to manage the barney between carbon intensive versus carbon light industries of the manner in which the emissions quotas will be priced and distributed.

If you ask me, it is pretty obvious that that there would be significant resistance to the science from businesses so adversely impacted by the introduction of a price for carbon emission. It is also obvious that the neo-libertarians and believers in small government, other thinkers and philosophers would be outraged at the idea that an essential commodity which was previously free would be introduced into the world market economy by an act of government and that government would be given responsibility for pricing and distributing that essential commodity. Chicken Little calling out “The sky is falling in” is not a compelling reason to override this fundamental belief. That is why to this group the argument that even if you don’t believe in climate change, that “it’s a good insurance policy” does not cut the mustard.

And yet my sense is that the scientific community didn’t see what was coming and were so ill suited and ill prepared, that for the climate change deniers or opponents it has been like lambs to the slaughter. I think that slaughter is pretty obvious when framed against the three structural problems confronting Science and its communication paradigm.

The scientific research underpinning human induced climate change has been around for a long time. The IPCC first report was in 1988. There have been several reports. Its leadership is part time.

As the climate change argument required a diagnosis, a prognosis and a suggested treatment, the IPCC broke its reports into three major volumes. For the purposes of simplicity let me suggest the diagnosis is broadly contained in Volume One and the work was undertaken by the most credentialed scientists in their field using only first rate peer reviewed material. The prognosis is broadly contained in volume Two and the treatment or mitigants are in volume three.

The science in volume two and three is very sound but more problematic, especially to use the evidence based process, and involved a wider group of science disciplines and scientists from many parts of the world including the developing world where much of the evidence could be found. It was volume two and three that framed likely global emission caps and therefore the critical issue of the likely price for carbon emission. None of the three volumes deals with the other critical issue for industry of who gets the Carbon quotas.

Using my analogy of what would happen if oil had been free for 200 years, the scientists who had made the diagnosis, the prognosis and the necessary treatment were not involved in the theory of how to dish out the treatment i.e. who now gets the oil?. The missing Volume Four is the domain of the economists and politicians.

The IPCC is a “huge but tiny” organisation. Its former chairman Bob Watson who was part time was appointed by President Bill Clinton. I am not across the details of its initial scramble for funds but I suspect this was a major challenge. Once the IPCC secretariat was set up and funds started to flow for research work to be submitted to the IPCC for consideration the intense inter-industry rivalry within Science Inc to get the new funds flow to do the research would have kicked in. (The research was not funded by the IPCC but by individual governments and other supporters of such research). The benefit to those whose work was included in the IPCC report was obvious in their pursuit of funding for other projects i.e. self promotion as a major motivator would have been apparent as the years unfolded. The time lines were long. I suspect in the request for funding for the IPCC secretariat, public communication was not high on the agenda and I guess none of the scientists in the climate change space were applying for a grant for public communication strategy. After all it is not rational to request for funding to communicate something you have not yet proven and also why waste precious resources on communication – it is better spent on the science. The IPCC probably did not have an in house PR machine in sight.

The IPCC second and third volume was a series of possible forecasts of possible outcomes from the expected activity and different levels of treatment. The science is very sound but has the similar challenge as when an economist seeks to prove what will happen to a country’s budget deficit at different levels of government spending or taxation over a 30 year cycle. Accordingly the range of scientists and scientific skills involved in volume two and three was even broader, I expect creating more funds flow and it involved both peer reviewed and non peer reviewed material.

I am not sure if any thought was given to the decision to brand the second and third volumes also as IPCC. This has had significant long term public communications implications. The branding decision probably was happily ignored from a Science Inc perspective as the IPCC brand was important for generating funds flow into the climate change research process, so why clutter the brands. To have one’s material published in any volume of the IPCC report is valuable. Again, there is nothing wrong with this and is common in many industries. I am simply noting the benefit is greater in Science Inc of this behaviour given the structure of Science Inc.

The evidence of Climate change as set out in volume one is clear. But our nation and the world needed advocacy in several areas. The first is to convince the populace to vote for legislation that would hit their hip pocket. The second was to settle on the likely price for carbon i.e. the caps and the third was to decide how best to distribute the medicine – the carbon quotas i.e. who gets the Oil.

Al Gore was the global champion for the legislation. The pitch was to save the planet and overlook the immediate hip pocket effect. Domestically we had Prime Minister Rudd versus John Howard. The advocacy of the benefit to society’s wealth from introducing a price for carbon was championed by Lord Stern. The best way to distribute the carbon quotas and to use the market to create the right price was dominated by economists. The European Carbon trading system was proving a good indication of the price for carbon and a method for distributing the quotas. In Australia Ross Garnaut was commissioned to determine the best method to distribute the carbon quotas. In Australia Ross Garnaut wrote the missing Volume Four.

The IPCC report became a household word for a seminal work from the world’s leading scientists on the subject of climate change. I believe much of the Australian public believes the IPCC wrote all Four Volumes and probably sanctioned the current price for carbon!

The IPCC is to quote its own web site “a huge but tiny organisation” that acts effectively as a coordinating body to bubble up the best available science on climate change. The funding and coordinating mechanism is complex and has mushroomed in complexity as more scientific material was produced by scientists and presented for inclusion. Its complete focus is on the science of climate change.

Whilst I have no doubt the IPCC has delivered the best science, it is likely the structure of the three volumes and the organisational and funding structure of the IPCC that has made the science so vulnerable to attack.

The first line of attack was to bring out the scientists who are climate change sceptics to argue with the evidentiary process in the IPCC reports. The focus of their attack was on the Prognosis and Treatment i.e. volume two and three. Almost none of these so called expert scientists who are climate change deniers have had peer reviewed journal articles on the subject they spoke on. At the AusSMC we know this problem as we tried to ensure a line up of credible scientists for or against climate change, but time and time again we struggled to find peer reviewed climate change sceptics. We did however work to get the evidence based science back into the main stream media, holding many briefings.

The non-expert scientists who are climate change deniers actively campaigned against the IPCC report focussing on volume two and three. Their impact was lessened in the media by their lack of peer review. By focussing on the prognosis and treatment the climate change deniers built on the debate emerging in the business and political community about the right price and how to distribute the carbon quotas.

Most of the public do not know there are three volumes to the IPCC report. The concerted attack on the IPCC report volume two and three has impacted on the rock solid evidence based science of volume one. And the peer reviewed experts sought to get out their message but as a as I have discussed earlier tonight, as as mass media genre the evidence based science has its limitations. The message of the evidence base science of climate change was therefore heavily muted in the recent media. The climate change sceptics managed to embroil the whole IPCC report in the debate about how to distribute the quotas as if it was scientists who had written the missing chapter four. The missing chapter four completed the whole story.

For the climate sceptics there was still the need to attack the science in volume one but the problem was that those on the attack have almost no peer reviewed publications. The solution to this problem was to argue that the peer review process was broken, biased to mainstream thinking and not a proper determinate of who was an expert. I have attended several forums where peer review process to determine who is an expert was discussed at length. In Australia the difficult experiences of our own Nobel laureate Barry Marshall was frequently mentioned.

Then low and behold late last year a rocket launcher was handed to the climate change deniers. First, the disappearing Himalayan glacier issue. This was an issue with non peer review material in volume two; and then the leaked email chain. This suggested there had been a search for confirming evidence within one of the key pieces of research in the IPCC report undermining the whole evidentiary process on which the volume one was based. This added to the dents made on the credibility of the science in volume two and three.

The final straw in Australia was when our new leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, successfully wrested the leadership by attacking the whole system to distribute carbon quotas i.e. how to distribute the medicine. That this was so effective is no surprise if you go back to my analysis of science as a media genre. Science is not a complete story. In the case of the climate change debate, how the medicine gets dished out was necessary to complete the story. It seems that Tony Abbot worked out that if you could present the complete story and then attack the last piece, even though it was not written by scientists, you cast serious doubt on the whole story and the credibility of the science of climate change.

In other words I suggest he worked out that it could well appear at home in Bankstown or Dandenong that if the scientists did not get right even volume four, what did the IPCC get right? Even better he effectively used the public thirst for balance, even though the balance argument is not relevant in evidence based science. He filled this balance argument with material from various sources in the world of climate change science, much of it not subject to peer review – ie he exploited the fifth structural vacuum of science as a media genre I discussed earlier. He was entitled to do this. That this successful slight of hand seems to have added weight to the questioning of the professionalism of science was just collateral damage par for the course in the art of political war. You poor scientists, AHH, like lambs to the slaughter. You got skewered by something you did not even write!

Well let me put it to you that although the debate in the wider community about the evidentiary process and the peer review process might feel a little uncomfortable we should embrace this interest and utilise it to promote a better understanding of science warts and all. Scientists do send emails pushing their barrow, sometimes the process goes a bit off the rails. All this humanises the world of science, almost makes it feel quite dramatic. This is a good outcome in terms of public engagement.

Within the funding process for science is the requirement to consider the public communication issue. The report “inspire Australia” is part of this process. Is it an overhead that should be born by the scientists doing the work, or should it be an additional cost properly born by the funding agencies? It is too easy for government to suggest this burden should be born by the science community from existing resources. The structure of Science Inc, as exemplified by the IPCC secretariat and its organizing structure is not suited to this and in Science Inc the culture is biased away from external communication.

In Australia we are currently debating funding for the promotion of science as well as toying with including public advocacy of science in the CRC grant process. I sense there is a bit of a blame-game on both sides of the debate. As a community we have made a fair old hash of the most important piece of science communication ever i.e. to save our planet, can I ask the politicians and scientists in this room to take very seriously this global case study rather than assuming a repeat performance.

The key thing is that this experience is not turned into some institutional lock-down and that this expertise is used as the role model for actually addressing the communication problem.

Our Nation needs a strong, growing scientific community that is encouraged to speak out particularly in their area of expertise. We also need a community that is engaged with science. The challenge to science and exposure of the science process brought about by the climate change debate will be a benefit to the science community as a whole if it is used as a rallying call. This call should require us to focus energy on changing, where possible, some of the three structural issues I have mentioned and supporting those institutions that are seeking to do so.

The rallying call also is to look into some of the embedded cultural habits of the science community. When you see a fellow scientist in the main stream media, send an email cheering them on. For those who are in big demand from media, consider appointing a spokesperson. When a scientist argues that any money spent on communicating the results of research is money taken from the research, tackle that hard. Our community is effectively being asked to make major policy decisions on key scientific decisions every day through our political leaders. The political process consumes huge resources; let’s look at how some of those resources can go into funding the strategy of communicating the science. Our leaders would prefer a community armed with the evidence based science rather than the alternative.

The climate change debate will move on but it will always be more difficult to convince the public. The questioning of the professionalism of the science community and the evidence based procedure will die down in due course. Rather than breathe a sigh of relief, let us use it as a call to action.

Minister Carr, I thank you for your kind words of support for the Aussmc and the Riaus and the Federal Government for its financial support. I wish our scientists well with your time in Canberra and thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts.

Thank you and good night.

It is rare for the interests of religion and science to be joined in a common cause, but the decisions of the middle management of ABC responsible for Radio National to axe nine programs from the 2009 schedule has catalysed a furious reaction from listeners.

They have valued highly the regular programs emanating from the small groups of specialist broadcasters who have weathered previous storms and creeping cuts of air-time, staffing and general support. The trigger for the protests was the announcement, “live” to air by Stephen Crittenden, that his weekly “Religion Report” was being dropped. Most of the letters to newspapers and the ABC have heavily criticised this particular move, but Crittenden also joined the other specialist programs, including science, as companions facing the axe.

Among them is the splendid and engaging “In Conversation”, half an hour of long interviews with scientists by Robyn Williams on Thursday nights. Australian society and the scientific community will be much the poorer for this loss of a humanising outlet that complements “The Science Show” on Saturdays. ABC management has simply lost the plot with this and accompanying decisions which warrant reversal, despite loss of face.

Management has been trying to deny the criticisms that they are “dumbing down” RN by diminishing the specialist programs, but they have form on this, not least in the science area. The Science Unit, formed in 1965, has survived over four decades but it is a shadow of its former highly innovative and productive self as programs and staff have been slashed to the bare bones. Management axed a technology program before demolishing “Earthbeat”, a program on environmental issues which like so many programs from the Unit led the Australian media with independent and authoritative reportage and contextual exposure of major emerging issues. Earthbeat’s demise three years ago inevitably saw its talented producer/presenter (Alexander de Blas) leave the ABC.

It is galling that Robyn Williams saw all this coming 12 years ago when he wrote a whole book defending the value of public broadcasting (“Normal Service Won’t Be Resumed, Allen & Unwin). At the time the ABC was suffering savage cuts from the first Budget of the Howard government. Williams argued his case from the springboard of specialist broadcasters. Support for Crittenden and his program has come from countless individuals as well as powerful representatives like the collective Catholic bishops. The scientific community of Australia was instrumental in persuading the then Commission of the ABC to establish science broadcasting as an ongoing speciality. Now it is up to them – individually and institutionally – to match the bishops with a determined defence of all current science programs, arguing for their extension not extinction.

If you are a scientist and wish to contribute to this Science Blog, please contact the AusSMC.
Comments received are moderated by the AusSMC and placement cannot be guaranteed.

The opinions expressed in this Science Blog are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Science Media Centre.

The event brought together the Australian Science Media Centre’s (AusSMC) Board and Science Advisory Panel to tackle issues such as funding and the ability of scientists to speak out, the challenges of getting the science voice heard in today’s media and the future directions of science in this country.

These powerful groups included the Chief Editors of the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age, The Adelaide Advertiser and The Bulletin, the Premier of SA, Mike Rann and eminent Australian scientists such as Sir Gustav Nossal and Professors Frank Fenner, Nancy Millis and QLD Chief Scientist, Peter Andrews.

The event was chaired by former CEO of PBL Peter Yates and ABC science broadcaster Robyn Williams and is sponsored by the South Australian Government and News Limited.

“This unique meeting of minds seeks to develop solutions to ensure that science can compete with sport, politics and economics for media attention,” said Peter Yates, CEO of Allco Equity and Chairman of the AusSMC Board.

The AusSMC is an initiative of former Adelaide Thinker in Residence, Baroness Susan Greenfield, head of the Royal Institution in the UK. Based on a similar centre in London, the centre is designed to provide news reporters with access to experts and information when science makes headline news.

“The AusSMC is establishing its own role within the Australian context and this meeting will help further shape the centre’s future,” said Mr Yates.

“In these turbulent times the Australian Science Media Centre could make all the difference,” said Robyn Williams who sits on the AusSMC Board.

Participants from the media:

• Mark Scott (Chief Editor, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age),
• Melvin Mansell, (Chief Editor, Adelaide Advertiser),
• Garry Linnell (Chief Editor, the Bulletin),
• Peter Yates (Chairman of the AusSMC Board, CEO of Allco Finance and former CEO of PBL)
• Robyn Williams (Presenter of the Science Show on ABC Radio).
• Assoc Prof Rob Morrison, Science Broadcaster and President, Royal Zoological Society of SA

From science and industry:

• Dr Tim Flannery, Director, SA Museum
• Russell Caplan, Chairman, Shell Australia Ltd
• James M Millar, Chief Executive Officer, Ernst & Young
• Professor John Yovich, Chair, Innovative Research Universities Australia / Vice Chancellor Murdoch University
• Professor Peter Andrews AO, Queensland Chief Scientist
• Professor Snow Barlow, Professor of Horticulture and Viticulture, School of Agricultural and Food Systems, University of Melbourne
• Professor Lyn Beazley, Professor of Zoology, School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia
• Professor Adrienne Clarke, AC, Laureate Professor, School of Botany, University of Melbourne
• Professor Derek Denton, Department of Physiology, University of Melbourne
• Emeritus Professor Frank Fenner AC, CMG, MBE, Visiting Fellow at John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University
• Professor Richard Head, Director, CSIRO Preventive Health Flagship Program
• Professor Robert Hill, Head of Science, SA Museum
• Emeritus Professor Nancy Millis, AC, MBE, University of Melbourne
• Sir Gustav Nossal, AC, CBE, Emeritus Professor, Department of Pathology, University of Melbourne
• Professor Michelle Simmons, Federation Fellow, School of Physics, University of New South Wales
• Professor Malcolm Walter, Director of Astrobiology, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Division of Environmental and Life Services, Macquarie University
• Professor Bob Williamson, AO, Senior Principal Research Fellow of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Professor of Medical Genetics, University of Melbourne
• Professor John Zillman, AO, President of Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Honorary Professorial Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne