Where science is concerned, I must part company with some of our economists

Extract from The Guardian

To transform our nation, we need to facilitate innovation in science on a scale we’ve never achieved. That’s too important to be left to chance, or to ‘market signals’

• Ian Chubb
• theguardian.com, Monday 8 September 2014 16.51 AEST

‘We throw programme after policy into the mix, with no sense of how it all adds together.’ Photograph: Alamy

I have been accused of many things during my time in public life, but never of being an economist, or even somebody who thinks like one.
My recommendations for a stronger Australia were described in Guardian Australia by Ben Eltham as a “model of mainstream economics”. I “put economic growth at the very top of the agenda”. I am as coldly “instrumentalist” as one could wish.
Reading between the lines, the implication here is clear: I have lost sight of the things that really matter. If this were so, Eltham would be right to call me out. But I can’t say it any clearer than I did last month in Sydney, before an audience of 600 people:

"I want an Australia that is more than just what is left after the economic trimmings work their way through the community’s digestive system. I want an Australia in which our economy is organised to support our aspiration and not to limit it."

I am happy to agree that our children would welcome a budget in decent shape. I don’t think all our debts will be measured in dollar terms, however. There are other things our children should expect.
Breathable air, for one. Oceans to swim in. Food that’s good to eat. The chance to raise a family and grow old. I seem to recall saying that a few times, too.
Yes, a decent life includes the capacity to pay the bills. There is nothing wrong with wanting financial security. But I would be a very poor chief scientist indeed if I did not want us to be curious about the world.
I would be an idiot if I could not see science’s centrality to every challenge Australians face. So I hope my recommendations make it clear that a stronger Australia is the end we want, a competitive economy is an important one of the means we use to get there. The question is how we go about it.
On one point, it strikes me that we can all agree. Science builds industries, boosts productivity and drives human progress. It is critical to national growth.
The point is echoed time and time again by the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank. Here in Australia, it has been expressed by the senior leaders of the Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council and the National Farmers’ Federation, as well as the leaders of all major political parties.
So science is awesome. So far, so good. Then we come to where the debate really lies today: the role of government in building science capability. It is here that I part company with some – although by no means all – of the economic commentariat.
There is a view in this country that too much thinking about the sort of Australia we want gets in the way of the “market signals” – the invisible rays that persuade 15 year olds to study physics, or not, that attract graduates into science teaching, or not; and convince the market to wear the risk of bold new ideas, or not.
It adds up to the message that she’ll be right. And it would be an easy message for a chief scientist to sell – if it wasn’t contradicted by the evidence.
Yes, logic says Australian businesses have an incentive to innovate. Three in five of them still say they don’t, while just one in five say that they have introduced new or significantly improved goods or services. Yes, all the research demonstrates that industry and researchers benefit from working together. Our record on collaboration is now one of the poorest in the OECD.
Yes, it makes sense to study a science at senior levels. Australian schools show a decline in the rates of participation in “science” subjects to close to the lowest level in 20 years.
If we want to transform our economy – as we seem to agree we should – we will need to facilitate innovation on a scale we have never achieved. We will need to prepare a pipeline of science-trained people starting in early childhood and stretching to a lifetime of learning. We all need to change the way we think. The evidence would suggest we are failing.
Elsewhere, there are concerns, and something being done about them. Our lack of coordinated response puts us in a class of our own in the OECD. I might quote here from my recommendations:

"Nations at all levels of development are now focusing on the capabilities required for building new jobs and creating wealth. In partnership with business, they are acting now to secure the skills, investment and international alliances for the future."

At the core of almost every agenda is a focus on Stem: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It is the almost universal preoccupation now shaping economic plans."

We throw programme after policy into the mix, with no sense of how it all adds together to make a stronger Australia. We wouldn’t buy a truckload of bricks without knowing what we plan to build, but we’ve built our science that way for decades. Piecemeal. No worries after all, she’ll be right. But high performing countries don’t leave it to chance:

"By-and-large, governments have found that rather than seeking to mandate conditions, they can and do help to create environments in which business, researchers and educators are able to perform at their best—in a cooperative and coordinated way.

There is the lesson for us: top-performing stem economies are united not by their size or geography but by their capacity to organise then grasp their opportunities."

Our challenges may be unique but the core logic can surely translate. We need focus, alignment and scale – and we won’t get them without a plan. The linkages are just as critical as the measures.
I have now set down my recommendations. I’m sure economists and those who truly think like them will have their say.