It's more a reflection on the fact that our governments have successively cut CSIRO's funding again and again despite their demonstrated return on investment and notable achievements.
Really? It seems pretty steady although it has ticked down slightly as a percentage of gdp since 2012. And looking at spending as a percentage of gdp is a bit misleading, as funding may increase but not at the same pace as gdp growth. I think a more meaningful measure would be real dollars.
CSIRO funding over time
2012-2013 733.8
2013-2014 778.2
2014-2015 745.3
2015-2016 750.3
Do you think that high extra 28mm to attain that high water mark of 2013-2014 funding would have made the big impact?
Maybe 2017-2018 are dramatically lower and if they are, please provide a source.
Thanks for pointing that out and correcting me. I'd not followed it personally since the Abbott prime-minstership and didn't realise that Turnbull had actually reversed the inital plan to cut $115m over 5 years. The first year of that was the ~30m reduction in 2014-15 that your data shows. I hope the 2016-17 figure continues that trend.
Again, thanks for fact-checking me. I appreciate the correction!
Indeed. The most recent governments' hostility toward scientific research has been hugely damaging to the research community in Australia. The CSIRO were once an amazing asset to the world, now with their funding slashed dramatically there are many brilliant teams without the resources to develop their ideas. So disappointing and frustrating to watch. :-(
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Curtin, Hawke, and Gillard all left the faiths they were raised in, and the first two Prime Ministers were Spiritualist (no dogma, not really zealots) and Unitarian (no supernatural belief) respectively. Australia is not a country in which accusations of zealotry can be fairly levelled.
If you'll allow me to ignore the non-sequiter about Abbott, it's worth pointing out that while he did cut CSIRO funding, as much to my disappointment as it was to yours, it wasn't really unprecedented, with funding experiencing lows that were similar under Hawke and Howard.[0]
We ought to fund public research better in this country. We can afford it. But we don't have to use silly name-calling to get there.
As a scientist in training this is hugely demoralizing. The CSIRO is an amazing institution — with an excellent sense of humour on social media. We should be proud as punch about CSIRO's achievements, and ensure that they are enabled to continue their laudable work.
The thing about for profit companies is that they rarely advance the world significantly.
Almost everything you enjoy in modern life was build first by public funding. The water in your tap, the electricity in your walls, the roads and bridges you drive on, hell, even the Internet was made by the army and TOR was made by the navy.
What had for profit organizations really given us?
I mean, they have obviously given us a lot, the Internet would be pretty dull without for profit organisations, but they often aren’t good at making new things.
There is a reason you’re still using the email protocol, it’s next to impossible to make a standard when for profit organizations take over, and it’s really the same with mosquito mass murder.
This is great for Australia, but if an African country wants to do the same thing they either have to start from scratch or pay.
It's only a problem if their goals include efficiently getting the most research value out of taxpayer investment, while retaining highly-skilled public employees in a long-lived, scientifically-oriented organization.
Historically, a high percentage of major advances in basic science arose in publically-funded org's. The vision tends to be more long-term, the results less utilitarian.
I've been known to draw public funds, so I'm not disputing your angle, but it's worth noting that historical period is quite brief in the whole history of science.
I could make a strong case that the majority of major advances in basic science were made during the "gentleman academic" era.
Publicly-funded research institutions start to become prominent around the Great War, and their relevance is increasingly challenged (see: the replication crisis).
Basic research is more important than the means by which it is funded.
True that the gentleman academics did find much of the more obvious stuff (not to denigrate). I was thinking more after 1850 or so (more like modern times). (Not prepared to parse how much the European finds were in public schools. Good topic!)
OTOH, I'll stick by my claim that 'basic research' done by privates -- (Bell notwithstanding ... e.g. Jansky was looking to solve a -private- problem, not discover radioastronomy) and especially nowadays -- is much likelier to have a particular pecuniary bias. So, not so 'basic'. Unlike, say, NASA.
Do you imply that, whatever the means to fund basic research, the availbaility of the results is the same (my mental model, albeit simple, is that if research paid by tax payers' money, then results are freely available to tax payers)
It depends how on the deal is structured. Public money flows to private hands to fund research. If the research pans out, does any of the profit flow back to the public? Typically not.
This argument implies the public controls gov. organizations/departments which is in most cases not true (unless there's some scandal to attract attention).
