Where to Invest in Science ?

RE  A first for Q&A   ABCTV --a  panel of scientists

Result : a great and stimulating education session - real Q&A
Response : must have more of them !

The short version for the political process
Same as always ;

• PCM ( Physics , Chemistry and Maths )

Finally Q&A have done what they should have done years ago -
Proper respect for authority : Let scientists speak --instead of letting  non-scientists speak for them.
Corollary : Be suspicious of researchers responding to recent problems ,Side products of the above pure sciences ( PCM remain the essential building blocks  -  Doherty !)Accept that the  key to sound investment in science is NOT in picking winners or suddenly answering often intractable problems . Dohery's point about "duty of care" rather than "chasing the hare" must be observed . Real progress is slower than many want to know 

We have lots of shells....... but maybe no wheels

Qualification: Considering that way Q&A commonly confuses , it would have been great if the scientists on the panel got together before the Q&A session so they could make a more unified case for a way forward on what to do to sell science. we scientists can be longwinded when audience should get it SIMPLE.

Surprisingly none of thepanel mentioned  the fact that the amount of research money being dissipated in the name of science is now a huge problem . Its so bad that the anathema of "recent" as adjective to research reports  on media is NOT as as it should be---- a reason to suspect it .

After all ,All on panel KNOW good research is built in/from a big stable building . The results are not to the credit of a bright appendage but the stale old insitution .( even robot classes in high school)
The one thing they agreed on ( Physics, Chemistry Maths and Stable research/teaching  houses )  is he thing that Polys too must insist on .
Environmental research has been dissipated by polys giving them constant name changes and them stupidly trying to pick a better boundary than they do for theory and applied - Its parliaments problem.  
 People doing Stats on the latest theory of disadvantage and social science cause and effect need the discipline of tough maths and a history of study in the organisation .
My questions .
1, Why did we miss opportunity to hit hard and cleanly .Why didn't Chubb call for  a consensus on this before the meeting, he knows the problem but did not insist on the first element of a solution ( as much agreement about it as is human possible) Gong on the decades its taken to get such a productive and stimulating debate by real scientists this could be ( we hope not )  be a preliminary to a good conference of this the  rarest of opportunities in Monday nights entertainment.
2 The opportunity to promote the positives lost,The concept of vision well put by a few . An example : We have had for thirty years the chance to sell sound development and environment policy to the world - but its being eroded by a whole of careless bickering by a whole range of people who only know enough science to be dangerous . If that's YOU take scientists who know their stuff seriously and mind your own business and theirs!
Other questions
These subjects were always hard so what's changed since these people were inspired to do pure science?

1. Science talk has become so popular that people who don't actually practice try to do it . Doherty was very clear and correct on these basic principles which means basic science must be supported at the expense of many of the namers and gamers ( Biology , sports) . The experts were agreed - if we have the choice,  leave the science rewards and winner pickers  to someone else .
2. We should be proud of the narrow and prime  focus given to Physics  Chemistry and Maths in The 1970's and 1980's .(the people on stage were only a few of many AUSSIES  who have built well on PCM base insisted on before we let science go feral
3. No use blaming the polys altogether. IF scientists sang with the same tune today the politicians might follow . The tragedy is--- if the trumpet is not sounded clearly - neither the audience or the polys get the real message . KISS stupid 

Protocols ,Pretence and Patronizing

Some people hide behind their incompetence by talking about the means rather than the ends; The mission statement rather than the mistakes ;the mindgames rather than the real games.

Don't be one of them . Be a person who knows what you are talking about and speak directly to actions that you think are needed ( in your area of competence )- avoid saying "scientists say" it can be hiding, misleading and false authorship and protect what you say bybeing careful what you say ( we all talk too much . A response like "none of my business" can be the best thing to say !)

Modelling talk , for example, is Ok for scientists to do ,but often only creates suspicion when used by people as a point to convince  - resist non scientists who use science words carelessly - use your own words .
This "ends talk" makes a lot of common talk dangerous . By using it you can't be criticized for not being responsible because the method for achieving a  result is often reasonably disputable ( therefore legit but a possible timewaster) or established .
What people get crucified for ,  is unfortunately and unrighteously ( unless you are the emperor) for is doing things -- not saying things 
You don't think" Dangerous" ? ( well if I'm right you are at risk from tripping over ?) Explain to me why the wise people in our past recognized that the greatest evil ( the means) is done in the name of the best intention ( the ends)   The media and the public can't always see the connection between the words and the actions but thinking people can.

THE DUMBING DOWN AT DOHO Recent Climate change talks in Doho are like that . Talking mechanism and foolishly following around the fad talk about "markets and mechanisms" ( answers that are not always answers)- John Connor .The fad nature of their agendas and the danger in not being concerned about actions and implications  is there to be seen if you have eyes to see. The fad nature of their agenda is also in their promotion of new concerns :eg " increased weather disasters" ( this is just hype and distraction from " warming";  history and any good study of the facts will show this to be just another distraction from the main debate) CC is running the risk of being a lost cause cause it doesn't discipline the debate . Any action  is now at risk of being lost in a forest of distractions that non -scientists and careless overly theoretical thinkers  have created for themselves. cc is not a debate you have carelessly- gas exchange questions require great competence .There is no escaping this .Australain leaders do not respect science. They, like the people worship technology and technological fixes .

DAVID BRADBURY our assistant treasurer too is totally unconvincing.(Today on abcnews24) Worse .... he thinks he knows better than us .He wants to "wean us off....... " We are not children David ,and you and the government are not God . According to our forebears , The Devil 's favourite game is distraction and human's greatest weakness is his pride. The children seem to be in charge but which sort of children in charge is best ? Matthew 11:25    If only we all knew how little we know !