The Office of the Chief Scientist today releases the Health of Australian Science report and it’s an intriguing read.
The report was compiled to help the office and the public understand the current state of Australian science. A large team of authors, led by Dr Michael Hughes, has done an admirable job of bringing together information from a variety of sources to form a coherent picture of much that is happening in science nationwide.
Understandably, there’s a considerable emphasis on the situation in our schools and universities.
There is much to digest – the report is over 200 pages long – and I recommend a thorough read as soon as you get the chance. I’ve gone through and picked out some of the salient points here, focusing, in particular, on the report’s findings about science education.
Research
The report bears good news about the success of Australian scientists in publishing, in both quantity and quality. Australian scientists produce more than 3% of the world’s scientific publications, despite Australia only making up 0.3% of the world’s population. Australian research also accounted for 4% of overall citations.
Strong international collaborations are maintained with Europe and the US, but Asia is increasingly a focus. In fields such as mathematics, engineering and chemistry, China is now the nation’s dominant partner.
Funding and R&D
In 2008-09 gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) was 2.2% of GDP at A$24.6bn. This puts Australia 14th among OECD countries (see graph below).
Of the A$24.6bn of GERD, business contributed 66% of the total, with other contributions from higher education, Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It’s interesting to note that countries recognised for their innovation, such as Sweden and Finland, have three times the R&D personnel in industry and commerce than does Australia.
While research funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Research Council (ARC) doubled between 2002 and 2010, success rates for funding applicants decreased from 32% to 23% for the ARC and remained constant for the NHMRC.
As is noted in the report, this has an effect on postdoctoral and early-career researchers – researchers that are subject to increasingly strong competition for grants.
‘Basic’ vs ‘applied’ research
To quote from the report:
“Basic research adds to the bank of intellectual capital on which society draws in order to progress and transform. Applied research develops this intellectual capital into new technologies and innovative processes that directly improve the health, productivity and prosperity of Australia.”
The proportion of higher education funding allocated to basic research has decreased steadily from 1992-2009. At the same time, funding for applied and experimental research has increased, keeping higher education’s contribution to research funding relatively constant.
While it’s unclear what the optimal ratio of basic to applied and experimental research is, the report’s authors have expressed concern about the future of basic research in Australia if this trend continues.
Universities
It’s a matter of concern that some areas of study that may be vital to Australian interests are experiencing diminishing university enrolments. These include agriculture, mathematics, physics and chemistry.
While enrolments in health-related courses increased by 73% from 2002 to 2010, enrolments in agriculture declined by 31%. Only 13% of university teaching of students continuing past first-year courses is in mathematics, with 10% in chemistry and 2.5% in physics.
Also concerning is the constant attrition rate of undergraduates after their commencement year, with 30-50% of students failing to complete or return to study in science.
The report suggests that the current model of funding areas as a function of student popularity (the most popular course get funded the most; the least popular get the least) may not be the best model to address the nation’s long-term needs.
Sure, international students may help fill shortfalls in enrolments, but there are problems if the sector becomes overly reliant on this solution.
It is noteworthy that there seems to be a peak in the relative numbers of level-E researchers (the highest ranking i.e. professors) associated with the older demographics. This would seem to indicate that a large percentage of these researchers may retire in the near future, without sufficient replacement numbers at lower levels to take leadership roles.
There is also a continuing and significant gender imbalance in senior academic levels. Apart from the clear loss of talent this produces, it also exacerbates the effect of decreasing enrolments in the enabling sciences. Increasing the number of women in these and other positions would go some way to addressing a shortfall in undergraduate intake.
Secondary Schools
Secondary science students maintain a high performance on tests of scientific literacy, but literacy rates are in decline. Also in decline are enrolments in the traditional science subjects: biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics.
The report has identified a number of potential causes and areas of concern in terms of science enrolments in secondary schools, including:
- Expanded curriculum choices (more choice, fewer choosing science)
- Skewed science-teacher demographics (17% of science teachers are between 51-55 and 36% are over 50)
- A pedagogical approach which emphasises content rather than scientific thinking
- Less than half of teachers in years 7-10 having relevant science qualifications
This last point is particularly disturbing as nearly half of students taking senior science said they first became interested in the subject in junior secondary school. The most common reason given for not taking science was that students either did not like it or found it boring (68%).
There is a significant focus in the report on the need to seriously consider the structure and pedagogical approach to science curricula. The report’s authors identify a “tension” between the attractors of teaching science to produce scientifically literate citizens and satisfying the needs of preparing students for university.
It is more than a little surprising that these aims are not better aligned. It also notes that a content-driven curriculum serves to promote and entrench traditional “chalk and talk” modes of teaching and an overly constrained assessment model.
In summary: we do well in research productivity and in international collaboration, achieving and maintaining an enviable reputation worldwide. There are, however, concerns with regard to student enrolment in science at all levels, even with an expanding education sector.
The need for qualified science teachers, particularly in physics, is severe.
Considering a career change?
Further reading:
Seán McNally
Market and Social Researcher
When I initially discussed by desire to do a science degree I was warned by teachers and parents that science is what smart people do to become poor.
A potentially way may be to encourage students to think of their natural science degrees as a broader degree than just its content. This may mean also teaching science students about management, economics, public policy or social science.
David Geelan
logged in via Facebook
Great report, Peter. Certainly plenty of work to be done by science educators...
One side note is that while the percentage of senior high school students doing science has indeed been falling, overall numbers have been rising, because the percentage of the whole age cohort completing Year 12 has been rising. It's a small consolation, and it does bring up some interesting issues about capability of the broader pool of students to succeed in the sciences, but better teaching and better options could definitely improve on this.
I agree that better teaching of science - by people with science backgrounds - in junior secondary/middle school is absolutely crucial: lots of evidence that kids love science (to the extent that they do it at all) in primary and we lose them as adolescents. Having teachers who are passionate and knowledgable about science - and about technology, the nature of science and socioscientific issues - could make a huge difference.
shuningbian
logged in via Twitter
There is something very wrong with parents and teachers telling students doing science is what smart people do to get poor.
It is wrong in many accounts, of which two I will outline here. First is that people with science degrees aren't poor. They are simply not as rich as people of similar intellect who pursued a business or law degree.
Second is that the idea people should choose those degrees as to maximise their earning, instead of their happiness and self-actualisation.
Research shows…
Read moreSeán McNally
Market and Social Researcher
Shuninbian you line of argument is fine as long as you can get a job in your field. Also retrenchment or having spent five years and finding yourself unable to get into your field is not going to be at the end of the logarithmic scale.
Follow your bliss by all means, but if we want people to choose science then we need to give students a reason. It is also not a simple case of rejecting what gives you fullfillment vs. crass commerce. I, and I suspect many younger people, when making their choices also enjoyed other areas of interest. As Peter points out in his article, science competes with a greater range of areas of interest than it did in the past. As much as I love science, and have a crioeer in social science, science does not have a monopoly on self-actualisation.
shuningbian
logged in via Twitter
Hi Sean,
My line of argument is fine even if you don't get a job in your field. As long as you can get a job, my argument stands. People with BSc can be found doing all kinds of jobs, some of them in science, some of them not.
Regarding self-actualisation, perhaps there was a miscommunication. I never said science was the only road to self-actualisation. I said there is more to getting a degree than as a stepping stone to a job.
On encouraging students to do science, my reply was in the context of teachers and parents discouraging student already interested in science from pursuing a science degree, on the basis that doing so would mean they will be poor. My arguments were against discouraging students from pursuing a science education and only that. It was not meant to be a list of reasons with which we can encourage people to do science.
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
"First is that people with science degrees aren't poor. They are simply not as rich as people of similar intellect who pursued a business or law degree."
That's not an argument that will encourage a high-achieving 17 year old to study science instead of business or law.
My experience is getting dated, having finished high school in 1992, but there were really only two things that my peers looked at when selecting university courses.
First was the entry cut-off score (a course with a higher…
Read moreDavid Thompson
Research Officer In Men's Health at University of Western Sydney
Right now, the cool kids are in technology or finance. They are the ones perceived to be makin' ze dollars, and that's what we're conditioned to believe is our major purpose in life.
If we could persuade kids that none of those accomplishments would be possible without science, then we're part of the way there. The current state of any product or industry comes on the back of millions of hours of research across all sorts of fields.
How far would Mark Zuckerberg have gone without science…
Read moreFred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
One solution to increasing the number of physics teachers is to search out and implement better models for tracking scientists who are already scientifically trained and in the workforce into a teaching career change.
At the moment it is prohibitively difficult to balance family and work life against an MSc program that is required for teacher registration.
A two year MSc or Grad Dip course in teaching and learning that requires months of unpaid practical experience in a school or college is simply not compatible with the working and family life of many rank and file scientists.
Perhaps a distnace learning structure where much of the "theory" can be undertaken online initially as a certificate study that then allows transitioning people to undertake an in-school apprenticeship and further study to completion of a grad dip, might allow more scientists to make the transition and still feed their families.
Mark Harrigan
Dr
Interesting suggestion Fred.
If we were serious about encouraging physics (or similar) trained people into the teaching profession at the secondary level we'd offer them a fast track method to get there. Most physics grads would be able to do reasonably at teaching maths as well.
To give such people exposure to teaching pedagogies a better method than academic course structure remote from the classroom might be in class apprenticeships on a modest salary for (say) six months at 4 days a week supplemented by basic academic instruction.
Assessment as to whether such "trainees" should graduate as teachers could be done by those who are actually in-class with them.
It might not produce "perfect" teachers but it would produce teachers who actually knew their physics and maths as opposed to the problem at the moment with many teachers in front of classes on these subject areas without the necessary strengths in the actual domain.
Comment removed by moderator.
Mark Harrigan
Dr
To the moderators: WHY on earth was Fred Pribabcs reply to my comment removed??
It was neither personal, nor insulting nor denigrating to any person or organisation.
Rather it threw further light on the topic and related Fred's personal experience on the very REAL barriers that exist for experienced science professionals to enter the teaching profession.
It is a measure of the (lack of) seriousness that this problem actually has when , despite protests from the 'system" to the contrary and the very real issues that the report on which this article was based raises - there is apparently NO ability to try any real innovative initiatives to address the concerns.
I am disappointed that the Conversation chose to censor Fred's comment. I have it on file in my email and I can find absolutely nothing in it of concern.
TC you have let down your usual excellent reputation. Shame
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
Hi Mark,
the moderators are not to blame!
The comment was removed at my request!
The moderators were patient and very helpful.
I felt that in the heat of the moment I had revealed personal stuff that, for various reasons, should remain private. My sincerest thanks for taking up the cudgels on my behalf.
My apologies to you and to the moderators for not commenting on this sooner.
Fred
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
Happy to chat further with you.
Fred.Pribac@internode.on.net
Mark Harrigan
Dr
Fred - thx for the clarification - my faith in the TC moderation is restored.
It's an important topic - I do hope you find a path that works as having experienced science professionals teachning seems important to me. Cheers
Yoshua Wakeham
Graduate
For what it's worth: I graduated six months ago from a Creative Arts degree, but I'm now strongly considering going back to study a BSc, preferably with a major in Physics, Maths or Computer Science.
The attraction to science is partly pragmatism – a Physics major might not guarantee a high-paying job, but it'd be a darn sight more useful in that respect than Creative Writing – and partly a newly discovered passion for the scientific enterprise. Although I always enjoyed and did well in maths, I was never attracted to science in high school. Where high school science failed, Carl Sagan's COSMOS succeeded. It's never too late to fall in love with science!
Furthermore – though it's probably just coincidence – a few of my friends and acquaintances have taken or are planning to take the same path, from Arts to Science.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I had a quick scan through the report and nowhere did it mention people who use science everyday as a part of their work.
Tradies such as electricians, mechanics, fitters, boilermakers, builders etc use science, and in particular they use physics as a part of their job.
I understand most of the authors of the report come from the education system, and not mentioning tradies in the report shows just how disconnected the education system has become from the rest of society.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
As an exercise in navel gazing, the chief scientist's report rates an 8 out of 10.
As a serious analysis of the issue, I will concede a 4 out of 10 lest I threaten his notion of self worth in today's politically correct world.
I could itemize at least 10 major issues confronting science teaching in Australia.
In NSW the Teachers' Federation is the major one. For years now all its policies seem dedicated to reducing the teaching profession to a well paid form of child minding.