VC’ S CORNER campusreview. com. au
Money grows on STEMs
When Malcolm Turnbull recently used the platform of the Prime Minister’ s Science Awards to pledge that STEM would be placed“ at the centre of our national agenda”, his comments reportedly elicited a standing ovation in the room.
“ If we are to be a more scientifically literate community, as we must be; if we are to be more aware of the challenges of the world around us and prepared to engage them and investigate them in an honest and rigorous way, then we need great teachers, not just at the universities, not just for doctoral students, but in primary schools and secondary schools,” Turnbull said.
As the immediate response in the room indicated, his comments were a welcome fillip for those in the STEM sector who have long advocated the need for a national strategy to secure the industry’ s future.
QUT vice-chancellor professor Peter Coaldrake recently gave Campus Review his own thoughts on why a robust STEM sector is vital for the nation’ s future. �
Innovation through science and technology is the key to our economic future, and universities need to be a part of much greater national efforts to thrive in these areas.
By Peter Coaldrake
In almost every developed country, and for many years, governments and industry have been calling for more science, technology, engineering and mathematics: more research, more skilled specialists, and greater levels of scientific literacy. The need to do more in these areas, combined under the acronym STEM, has long been recognised, given the economic transitions evident across the globe, and encapsulated in talk of the“ knowledge economy”. Governments in all countries worry about falling behind the pace of technological change and innovation, even in nations such as Germany and the United States which are seemingly cemented as leaders in these areas. In large part their fears are centred on the scale and vigour of the pursuit of STEM development by a number of Asian countries, and China in particular. The OECD has estimated that by 2030 China and India will account for more than 60 per cent of the STEM workforce in G20 countries. Australia’ s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, has been vigorously making the case that we cannot afford to be complacent in this global race for STEM development. It is certainly starkly evident that Australia cannot afford to rely as heavily as we have done in the past on resources and commodities for economic prosperity, and the Chief Scientist has compiled copious evidence to make the case that our best alternative is to diversify by expanding our use of STEM to invent and innovate.
It is perhaps surprising that Ian Chubb has had to be so persistent and vocal in his advocacy for STEM, given the fact that, in general terms, it has almost been seen as a“ motherhood” issue by governments over the years. Of course they support research, of course they want technological innovation and of course they want students to excel in science at school and tertiary level. But Professor Chubb is after something more concrete and less passive than our past approaches. We need a science policy that is more than a general increase to basic research, or to medical research, or based on vaguely worded priorities that are not backed by clear actions that can lead to improvement. We also need ways of
18