ScienceAlert Homepage

In June 2006, Minister for Education, Science and Training Julie Bishop opened a “knowledge transfer and engagement forum” in Sydney where she heralded the release of a  report on the “definition and scope of knowledge transfer”[1].  The two types of knowledge transfer identified in the Report were:

The process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance material, human social and environmental wellbeing

 and

The process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business or government to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance the success of commercial enterprises.

In Europe for the past five years increasing attention has been given to the first type, particularly in relation to community engagement.  From handbooks for scientists on ‘dialogue’ (UK Research Councils, 2002) to forums on participatory processes (eg Dresden 2006), the involvement of European scientists and governments with this issue is ubiquitous.  Their realization that scientific research needs the support and engagement of the public has led to a new tone in public debate.  In Australia, however, this has not been discernible.

Minister Bishop went on to define her position:

“I believe that it is preferable to consider a middle course between these two alternatives.
In adopting a middle path, knowledge transfer would be the process of engaging with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible knowledge for quantifiable economic benefit for the community.” (My italics).

Thus the wider aspects of “enhancing human, social and environmental wellbeing” have been neatly excised from Australia’s official policy.  The Minister went on to cite improvements in health as of benefit – but this was to the economy (through a healthier workforce) and public health spending.  
    
These economic views are not driving the European initiatives.  Their focus on public participation has a much broader agenda.  In the UK, billions of pounds have been channelled to a variety of processes in the past five years.  For example, in December 2006 a new £8M initiative was launched by the UK higher education funding councils and Research Councils UK, in association with the Wellcome Trust. It “aims to promote excellence in public engagement and effect a culture change in UK universities towards engaging with the public”.

Although not limited to science, this initiative is designed to set up ‘beacons’ to “assist staff and students… [because] in research-intensive universities the need to publish and attract research funding can make it difficult for staff to take time to have a meaningful dialogue with the public. Engaging with the public can bring real benefits to universities and research institutes and the new Beacons Initiative aims to tackle these issues by valuing and recognising public engagement at all levels”.  The funding bodies stated that this would enable researchers to convey the importance of their work to “the health, wealth and culture of the nation”.  The Beacons would help to “encourage more people to become involved in debates about research, providing a wide range of views to inform our decision-making” [2].

There is no hint of this support for public engagement and more general communication of science on the Australian agenda.  The narrow focus on economic benefits has resulted in a lack of encouragement and leadership for organizations such as universities and CRCs to spend time and resources on engagement.  Indeed, the Minister, in response to a proposal from the Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee for a similar funding programme, was explicit in stating that “much of this activity is already integral to the core purpose of a university” for which it is “adequately funded” in the first place.

The European imperatives have stemmed from a climate of distrust arising from events of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which was not reflected in Australia.  We therefore have a complacent view of the role of the public in acceptance and take-up of research.  While there is much rhetoric about the lack of enthusiasm for science among high school and tertiary  students, the importance of public awareness and involvement in these issues is not well understood. 

Funding for public engagement, for ways of improving it and informing scientists about it is practically non-existent.  DEST has no identifiable area with responsibility for this important relationship between science and its stakeholders. WShile the Minister says “we need to make better connections between our science, research and higher education and our communities and industries so that we can ensure that Australia remains well placed to capture the maximum benefits from its investment for our economy and society” [3] it is impossible to see how this is being tackled, by whom, and with what results. Australia is not well placed in making these connections, and loses ground every day.

[1] Report: Knowledge Transfer and Australian Universities and Publicly Funded Agencies (PhillipsKPA)
[2] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/NEWS/HEFCE/2006/beacons.htm
[3] Address to the Sydney Institute, 19 July 2006

Sue Stocklmayer heads the Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University.