Bishop Hill Oz chief scientist: I'm a lobbyist
May 9, 2011 Bureaucrats If anyone was under any illusions about the true role of government chief scientists, this interview with the new occupant of that role in the Australian civil service should dispel them.
Science advocate
Chubb says that he will be a proactive lobbyist for science, helping the government and the public to appreciate the role of science in coping with the major challenges facing society. Doing this, he says, should help to insulate science from budget cuts. "If we can get science and its value to the community sufficiently high up the priority list," he says, "the job should be half-made each year before you go into bat for specifics."
Commendable honesty, but why on earth should scientists have their own lobbyists on the inside of government? This reminds me of the recent scandals here in the UK, where healthcare trusts were revealed to be paying for union reps out of the public purse. Paying for union reps and paying for lobbyists does not seem materially different to me. Either way, these recipients of all this public largesse are not working for the benefit of the people but for themselves and their pals.
I wonder if Sir John Beddington also sees himself as a union rep for the scientific community who just happens to be paid out of public coffers?
Reader Comments (9)
Chubb is not being a 'science advocate' here, but a 'science budget advocate'. Penny Sackett was all AGW, but probably had some self-respect in not simply bending over when the government demanded, which our Chubb will now correct, with his schmooze quotient.
Once your starting point is like this, these kinds of fishes rot from the head.
Only after the PR side of science has manufactured some “major challenges”. That is, I suppose, assuming that, for example, the provision of clean water and nutritious food, and the elimination of endemic diseases are no longer challenges which interest Chubb and co.
Well, it would seem he is open to other ideas on climate, which would be refreshing.
Then again, the present government would not like that, especially when they are trying to do a hard sell on the carbon tax.
It must have been a personality thing with Sackett, because her ideas would support their tax ... strange.
Perhaps he will also help the government and the public appreciate the role of science when it is hijacked for political lobbying purposes? Silence or even active collusion when gross and irresponsible claims of acute crises are being made is not becoming of any profession. For we the public do notice the sotte voce calls for 'more research' simultaneous with the louder declarations of great assurance that the end, for something or other, is nigh unless 'the government acts soon'.
Chubb: "Chubb says that he will be a proactive lobbyist for science, helping the government and the public to appreciate the role of science in coping with the major challenges facing society."
As long as he is for "science" in general, then this is fine. The reality is that governments are lobbied from all directions, so I can't see that there is any problem -- indeed I see it as a good thing -- if there is someone promoting actual science. So far -- emphasis on so for -- there is no sign that he is going to lobby for any particular policy: e.g. in response to AGW, in contrast to Sackett.
As a Canberra resident whose sons are both ANU graduates (thus with a continuing interest in observing that University of which Chubb was until recently the Vice-Chancellor), it's clear that Chubb is perhaps first and foremost a media-seeking missile. He seems never to be able to resist performing for any camera or microphone that is pointed in his direction. His major forté seems to have been fund-raising and selling university places to foreign students. I can't see how he is likely to change into anything else.
Shub's comment above is spot on.
But, of course, it isn't just Beddington who is a "Scientific Advisor". There are rakes of the BarStewards.
And don't forget Lord "Adair" Turner who heads up the Climate Change Committee entirely made up of True Believers who have had the stipulated full frontal lobotomy.
This goes back to Thatcher who appointed Houghton & Tickell.
These are perhaps the most incompetent and guilty bunch in the whole scam.
As long as he is for "science" in general, then this is fine. The reality is that governments are lobbied from all directions, so I can't see that there is any problem -- indeed I see it as a good thing -- if there is someone promoting actual science. His major forté seems to have been fund-raising and selling university places to foreign students. I can't see how he is likely to change into anything else.
---------------------
sweety
yeah sure, but have to consider all the points of view when you are talking about science, is like if you try it to analize 4rx only for one angle, is a total waste of time and effort, you need to see and know all the cons and pros from differents opinions.