Re: SSM Plebiscite
Reply #650 –
Yes, it's interesting Baggers. I'll get keelhauled for using inclusive language about scientists because as you point out they are not all the same. But I periodically work with them at perhaps the very same organisation as Mrs Baggers, and to say they are focus and single minded is a tad understated. This will get a laugh on here but I'm a freaking moderate compared to some of "them"!
But geez it's a good environment for "them", even the tea lady is required to conduct some form of study, you find receptionists with a PhD in industrial design or a office assistant with a degree in economics. Unfortunately as an institution it is continually under attack from the conservatives, I've just never understood why Australia continually goes through this cycle of tearing down institutions then re-building them. Abbott has a lot to answer for from his little stint in the big chair, he did decades of damaged, some of it might never be recovered. Maybe you can confirm but I have heard figures of up to 500 staff being made redundant at a certain SE location. Just an easy target.
For me it's a problem, as a small company we've poured millions into R&D over the last decade, and the people we worked with at those institutions keep leaving because of cuts. The Feds want industry and research to work together, they actively promote the idea and in some cases fund us dollar for dollar, then shoot the whole thing in the foot by having the researchers made redundant who often go OS. The public and media will finger this as scientists wasting money, but it's not the scientists fault it's the politicians, tens years is too long for a politician they can't wait.
I had a project a few years ago that the Feds and State knocked back for funding despite another major Fed Institution wanting to go ahead, they didn't give us a real reason then one day I'm in the CBD talking to a bureaucrat and they gave me the explanation. The money we asked for wasn't enough to get the politicians picture in the paper, if we'd asked for 10x as much they would have approved it! This year the Feds are rolling out joint funding with a foreign government and get this, they told applicants you must take at least $10M. For a small company that is untenable because the Tax Department will want a huge chunk of that at some stage in the near future and you have to pay that bill, the funding is really circular which most of the public don't get, the public think it's a hand out! It's all about profile not purpose for the politicians.
Another big problem we have is most of the IP heads OS, our Government won't support commercialisation of IP in Australia as required. They only offer partial support, and it's a huge problem because they basically bait a hook and the foreigners bite. Short term it's a win on the books but industries worth billions head offshore. I had a senator tell me it's because we are no good at making stuff, we did up the ore but China makes the steel, he didn't see the connection between their policy and our shortfall. OS much of this is Tax Free, recently after years of effort we had to drop an onshore commercialisation project because we couldn't get funding to scale the plant, then EU handed Poland 150% funding for a new facility and the whole thing left our shores under licence. It was very short sighted because Australia is one of the world's richest locations for the resource concerned, which will now be sent unprocessed no value added offshore and we will buy it back as required!
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 142950 times)
previous topic - next topic
