Denis Jensen as a scientist MP who is pro nuclear and alive to the global warming scam is a bit of hero among many at Catallaxy.
He has delivered an address critical of the government’s cuts to science spending and he absence of a politician called the Minister for Science.
On one hand, we are setting up a huge medical research fund to massively increase medical research. How is this coherent policy when we have significant cuts to CSIRO, DSTO, ANSTO, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Marine Science? One of the advisers even suggested that a physicist working at CSIRO who lost their job could get one in medical research. I know some people think that physicist and physician sound similar but… There are a lot of questions with this policy.
Is this funding to medical research going to be general, or specifically targeted at cancer, Alzheimer’s and the like? How are we going to source those researchers? They don’t grow on trees, and the training required is long and arduous, and very long lead times are required. What is this saying to those who want to become mathematicians, physicists or chemists, hard sciences that are already in crisis?
I am not saying that the likes of CSIRO, ANSTO etc should not be subject to review and restructure. However, it is foolish to have such a policy disincentive, while at the same time massively incentivising medical research. This is not just about people’s careers, important as that is (and also for the taxpayers, who have a huge interest in the money that they have spent to train this cohort of scientists).
He has already gathered plaudits from the spenders of the world.
Clearly the medical research fund is a disgrace – and will never be stocked, nor should it be.
However, the scientific establishment has played a highly political game in Australia. In a recent piece in The Australian, I included the following words,
“The government’s own published estimate of aggregate climate change expenditure is that it falls from $5.75bn this year to $500m two years hence. This includes spending by the Clean Energy Finance Corp. But it excludes some spending, such as that of the CSIRO, which, when it saw its interest was in being active on climate matters, claimed that about 50 per cent of its budget was being spent in these directions. CSIRO can count itself lucky to have escaped with a mere $33m haircut, less than 5 per cent of its direct budget.”
Quite frankly CSIRO (and the Met) has been bolstering its research priorities and salting existing areas of research to chase the abundant funding on fashionable greenhouse issues. The scientific establishment, as a thousand posts on this blog attest, has prostituted itself in chasing funds and ensured that its leading lights are the true believers who are rewarded with promotions. Having Dennis Jensen providing them succour must be a bitter pill since they openly despise his views (or did so until September of last year).
Bob Carter made the point that “Science itself is far too important for the future of the nation for it to be left to politicians who make a virtue of not understanding it, to news editors whose prime interest is in circulation figures, or to environmentalists who purposely misrepresent it.” And yet the establishment has blatantly conspired with these miscreants. A single minister responsible might be an answer but for every Dennis Jensen there are loons like Barry Jones and tireless political propagandists like Kim Carr and Chris Bowen.