Griffith University emeritus professor Ian Lowe has an opinion piece in the latest issue of Australasian Science on how the politicization of science by the Federal government is driving scientists overseas to continue their work or even to ‘censor’ results.
“I think the Howard Government does not want independent science and there’s been a strong message to scientists that they can talk about their work but not its policy implications,” Professor Lowe said in a comment piece in Australasian Science magazine.
“The concern is scientists are doing a pre-emptive crumble and staying away from areas that are likely to cause any embarrassment.
“Either that or they are resigning or going overseas.”
Professor Lowe cited, among other cases, the recent departure of two of Australia’s leading stem-cell researchers to the US because of restrictions on stem-cell research that have been backed by Prime Minister John Howard and Mr Abbott.
It is possible that if a conscience vote is allowed on stem cell research, the brain drain may be reversed. Otherwise is it too much to hope that this needless mimicking of the The Republican War on Science in Australia can be avoided?
Do you think the Republican War on Science has it in for mathematics as well then?
Hell yes. How about the Politically Incorrect Guide to Math?
Oh, and Christian Calculus.
This is one of the most bald-faced anti-Howard lies I have ever read.
The primary cause of the “Brain Drain” is Australia’s incredibly high tax levels on high income earners.
To try and blame Howard for it, despite him wanting to cut this tax (and being howled down by the left for suggesting it) is beyond ridiculous.
You should be ashamed of yourself and should delete this post, go sit in the corner and say “I’m a dickhead” 50 times as penance.
Yobbo, most scientists don’t really give two hoots about their salaries and tax levels provided they’ve enough for a middle class existence.
Otherwise they’d have become lawyers, doctors, or stock traders.
This applies in the United States as well as Australia – the salary levels go up but the relative earnings are still pretty much the same.
If money is involved in scientists going overseas, it’s because they get bigger research budgets, not for more money for themselves.
I don’t think so Yobbo. Hope you have satisfied your precious ego by playing the Big Man on LP comments.
Yobbo, the brain drain has nothing at all to do with taxation rates. The vast majority of Australian scientists aren’t high-income earners, something that the Howard government has shown no little inclination to change. What’s more, most are employed on short-term contracts and they are increasingly being told by the government (through CSIRO and through the minister’s ARC oversight) what is appropriate to study, as Shaun has demonstrated here.
The Howard government isn’t the only party responsible for the brain drain, but they are definitely helping it along.
What Mick and Robert said but lets have a look at a few things:
From 2000:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s125915.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s220853.htm
On how the brain drain affects teaching:
http://www.tip.csiro.au/general/opinion/index.htm
On Medicine:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/19/1045330661994.html
And it goes on. Note the reasons have little to do with taxes.
“Yobbo, most scientists don’t really give two hoots about their salaries and tax levels provided they’ve enough for a middle class existence.”
Yeah, scientists are unique in that they are all complete altruists who never give a thought to how much they earn. You are clearly deluded.
“Otherwise they’d have become lawyers, doctors, or stock traders.”
Except that the cutoff for studying law or medicine is much, much higher and so they probably never had a choice. 85.5% vs 99.5% is a fairly big difference.
It’s not only tax of course, gross wages are also higher elsewhere, and career paths more flexible and available, and exchange rates beneficial, but the attitude of people like Robert just goes to show how much you lefties have your head in the sand about this.
Keeping GM out of Australia isn’t helping either. Lots of good science jobs with Monsanto. Will you take the anti-GM movement to task next? My magic 8-ball says its unlikely, because John Howard isn’t part of it.
By all means keep on blaming Howard for everything though, it makes it easier for the rest of Australia to keep on ignoring you.
Yobbo, what do you think I do for a living?
Most of the research scientists I know were more than capable of getting into med or law, either directly as school leavers or through a transfer during their university degree.
Yobbo, I suggest you read Nick Gruen’s paper on tax policy for CEDA (a business thinktank) which found that there is little evidence generally to support either a brain drain or taxes having any impact on people going to work overseas.
The paper is linked to from this Troppo post:
http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/05/24/how-should-we-cut-personal-tax-to-maximise-economic-growth/
“Except that the cutoff for studying law or medicine is much, much higher and so they probably never had a choice. 85.5% vs 99.5% is a fairly big difference.”
It’s a credit average if you’ve started an undergrad degree.
“Yeah, scientists are unique in that they are all complete altruists who never give a thought to how much they earn. You are clearly deluded.”
Not unique at all, I know plenty of people personally who have made career choices that don’t earn them the most money possible.
One of the keys to understanding Righties is that they assume deep down that everyone is like them- selfish and amoral.
Yobbo the TERs are cut offs not what the individuals get. Most of good people in science degrees that go on to do PhDs and have the sort of science careers that could lead them overseas do have TERs in the sort of range that would get them into Law and Medicine. The lower ones tend to have left the field.
That’s beside the point really. If you are a science worker here who wants to earn more money your best options are to leave and work in finance or patent law. WIth finance experience you can then look to moving to Tokyo, Singapore, New York or London for really big bucks. The tax rates at the brackets the typical scientists earn aren’t really enough to justify moving country, although the higher salaries earned for science careers in the US might be.
However, I’m not sure though how much of this is a new “war on science” rather than typical government interference with what gets researched. Is it so different from the NSW (and other states) restrictions on, not just commercial use but even GMO trials?
I know a fair few of a particular group of expats- lawyers who work (as I did) in the UK. Nearly all of them recognised that fiscally they were better off in Oz, taking into account cost of living, though I’ve known a couple of stupendously compensated exceptions.
For most it was actually type of work- the sort of specialist experience you only get in a more internationalised market. Something that Australia’s recent antagonism towards multilateralism hasn’t helped.
Coming home, and I do speak from experience here, the biggest obstacle is people saying “Gee, I see you handled some good cross border deals in London, but we’ve got people who’ve never left Melbourne and work on Collins.”
Ability to do international and specialist work coupled with poor recognition on return to oz are the main factors keeping lawyers in London.
But coming back to pay, Yob may be half right. Isn’t it more likely to be the fact that leading US and European Unis can pay bucketloads to top researchers that provides any fiscal incentive?
“One of the keys to understanding Righties is that they assume deep down that everyone is like them- selfish and amoral”
No we just listen to the PS teaching unions and the like to gauge all this leftist altruism wafting about the ether.
Now back to the issue at hand. Yes banning cloning will have some impact on the science fraternity just like banning certain nuclear technology does. What’s your point Professor Mengele?
Let’s just accept that people work for varying mixes of bucks and status and in their absence hardly any would show up.
Yeah, it’s all about the money. Scientists are emigrating in droves because the pay is so much better in the US and Europe. And you know what, there’s NO TAXES over there. It’s amazing.
Damn’, forgot the sarcasm tags.
To be perfectly frank, European and US scientists do not come to Australia for *scientific* reasons. I came over for family reasons. The pay here is just as crap as it was in the UK and the tax burden seems similar. The standard of living and quality of life is better over here.
And oh God, I wish I was being paid so that I got taxed in the higher bracket, in either country. It’s not about the money.
People are leaving because the science is better abroad, you don’t get folk still giving seminars about and living off work they did 20 years ago (as much), and you don’t get the government saying, “Hey, Johnny Scientist – work on *this* and make us lots of money” anywhere near the extent you do here (and in the same breath, proscribing two large, important and exciting fields).
And the altruism thing – most of my colleagues would love to be paid more (i.e. concomitant with the amount of training we’ve all done), and would love a decent career structure (eh, I should dig up some links to show you how bad it is in the US, try googling for keywords nih postdoc salary career structure) and working hours that mean we can have a family life – but the fuckers in government know that we do this job because we’re bloody well addicted to it and have us over the proverbial barrel. Without lubricant.
Certainly, the quantum of research money, the intellectual stimulation of large research facilities, and perhaps even higher personal salaries exacerbate the brain-drain. But these factors have been relatively constant for decades.
I would suggest that the major grievance that lies behind Ian Lowe’s complaint (above) is the inordinately large influence that government policy has upon science in Australia.
Unlike the US and many European countries, in Australia government funding is the only game in town. Private patronage of research is puny compared with leading research cultures. This is an indictment of Australian benefactors and Australian entrepreneurs.
Now, under a relatively enlightened government regime, the dependence on public largesse is not a critical issue. Traditionally, governments have allowed Universities and the CSIRO some autonomy in setting their research agendas.
But along comes the Howard government, reacting to pressure groups and blowing their own political dog whistles. The result is further intrusion into scientific enquiry.
And for some, this intrusion is enough to send them overseas.
For others, they stay and complain, remembering how things were in the “good old days”.
Bottom line: the “good old days” really weren’t good enough. Where are the private and corporate benefactors with sufficient courage to deliver Australian science from the clutches of Howard’s control freaks?
Whilst it obviously depends on the country and profession, I was certainly better off working in the US a few years ago than being in Australia. The recent tax changes might have balanced things out a bit more. Friends in other parts of the US and UK have had similar experiences. I think one of the differences is that the ceiling on salaries is much higher than in Australia.
I’ve known other people who have moved to really low tax countries to save up money who plan to move back when they have kids of school age.
Agreed. One other aspect is just the problem of travel. Its much easier and cheaper to attend conferences in the US and even Europe if you live in the US. And even more day-to-day communication is easier – 2am or 4am conference calls aren’t that much fun.
A lot more privately funded research over there too.
So Mr Howard didn’t cut the tax because the left howled him down?? Yobbo, you’d better cut back on your medication.
The truth is that very few people show much of an inclination to even get into science in the first place. Why? Some of it is probably the result of the Howard govt, but other governments must bear some of the blame. Starting with Uni, science is not a popular choice because it is difficult. Real science, the essence of the scientific method is doubt, scepticism and the gathering of empirical evidence. Our culture today does not encourage this style of thinking. When I was lecturing in Communications the typical student had absolutely zilch curiosity about the world and how and why it is the way it is. They just wanted to know what they had to do in order to pass the unit and then head to manage the Coca Cola advedrtising and marketing section. Also, science, with its lab based requirements, is simply too time consuming for the typical student who is working 30 hours a week just to survive. What, do science and spend 8 hours per week in lectures, tutes and lab sessions when you could be doing two hours a week in some humanities subject? Can’t do science and keep my job at the Juice Bar, or operate the service station console on the graveyard shift. Further, what do science graduates do on graduation? An ordinary degree won’t make you a scientist. You have to contemplate the thought of those extra years doing the doctorate and post doctoral fellowships before you can think about a career as a scientist. And then what? Jobs are few and far between, mainly filled with old farts who did their best work forty years ago, but are still sitting on the few tenured positions still avaliable in the university system. Even when they become vacant, guess what? They will be replaced with part time and contract positions because – you guessed it – no-one wants to do science. If you are stupid enough to perservere and try to carve out a career as a scientist you will spend most of your time on administration and applying for research grants rather than the science that you love. The Liberals/Republicans didn’t have to wage a war on science – although it must be said they have not done much to try and promote science as a career choice. The as been going on under all types of governments over the past forty years or so… And this at a time when there is an incredible need for more and better science and a better and deeper understanding of science in the culture at large. Lety’s face it, if we (humans in general, Australians in particular) want to survive and flourish through the environmental and ecological crises that are threatening us, then we need to do it with science…
That’s my two cents worth…
Cheers…
She blinded me therewith…
Thanks for the mention of my book, The Republican War on Science, in this post. It so happens that just this week it is out in paperback, revised, extended, etc. If anyone is interested, there’s plenty more info including a newly released online excerpt at the http://www.waronscience.com site referenced above.
Thanks for stopping by Chris. I’ve been looking forward to the paperback release.
Hope the title did not confuse you given who we call Liberals downunder.