sydney

Reichtel: saw marine science prioritized. Credit: AIMS

Australia's chief scientist, John Stocker, who was asked by the government in February to carry out a review of the organization of Australian science, has recommended a largely uncontroversial streamlining of advisory mechanisms.

But in his report, published this week, Stocker argues against identifying “any gaps or overlaps”, as he had been asked to do by the government. Gaps in research are “unavoidable” in a country the size of Australia, he says, while overlaps are “necessary and desirable”.

The country's largest research agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), had been pushing to absorb the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and possibly the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO). AIMS is responsible for research in tropical waters, especially around the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs off northwest Australia.

But Stocker comes down strongly in favour of diversity and plurality in publicly supported research, rejecting any concentration of research institutions within the portfolio of the Science and Technology Minister, Peter McGauran, who commissioned the review.

Stocker supports the efforts of the smaller agencies to retain their specialized identities, and their claims that amalgamation would bring added costs and demands to hand over some of their resources. But he recommends that the three bodies should work out a common strategic plan.

Senior staff at AIMS are relieved that Stocker's proposals appear to reduce the threat to their independence. Russell Reichelt, director of AIMS, says he is “gratified” that marine science, which Stocker says is underfunded, is seen as a “high priority area”.

Helen Garnett, executive director of ANSTO, argued in a statement that “the current pluralist system will continue to deliver best benefit”. But CSIRO's chief executive, Malcolm McIntosh, repeated his organization's view that “it may be desirable for Australia to have fewer, larger and better-equipped institutions”.

Stocker's report implicitly criticizes the cost-cutting strategy pursued by the Coalition government since last year's election. He says that incentives are necessary to boost business research and development, a view backed by numerous submissions. “My personal view is that it was not a good idea to reduce the tax break for industry from 150 to 125 per cent.”

The main message of his report is that Australia urgently needs to develop policies for science and industry and to identify priorities if it is not to be left behind in the global technological market. He suggests that the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council, currently little more than a discussion group, should be given the authority to launch initiatives and to have their implementation overseen by a cabinet committee.

While declining to comment on whether the science minister should become a full member of the cabinet, Stocker argues that the minister's profile would be raised through membership of such a committee.

The impact of Stocker's proposals will depend on the reaction of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and on whether the cabinet is prepared to allow McGauran to take on a more powerful role. McGauran issued a statement saying that he needs to consult other ministers before the government issues a response.