The Australian Academy of Science welcomes the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report and thanks the panel, including the chair Professor Mary O’Kane, for their diligent work.

The ambition inherent in this report is vast. The future it charts is one where we move from a mass university system to a universal tertiary education system—just as we have a universal school education system and are charting a path towards universal childcare.

To tackle our shared challenges, we need to consider innovative solutions that move beyond past debates and that challenge the status quo. The Academy is pleased that the panel and the Minister for Education are open to rethinking the current funding system, which can discourage universities from offering STEM undergraduate courses.

While the report recognises the inherent instability in our broken system for funding university research, the proposed directions are limited. Proposals for increased investment in the Australian Research Council, renewing NCRIS, and increasing PhD stipend rates are useful.

However, they do not address the fundamentals—the inherent instability of asking universities to rely on international and domestic student fee revenue to fund Australia’s research base.

Australia desperately needs a holistic review of the fundamentals that underpin the science and research system. Universities are a critically important part of Australia’s research ecosystem, but only a part.

In an era where the Australian Government’s investment in science, research and innovation is the lowest on record at 0.49% of GDP, these recommendations will fail to shift the dial or even offer a pathway to reverse this concerning decline.

Australian science needs real policy reform to ensure that we maintain and grow essential national capabilities to address the challenges of a perilous world—from pandemic preparedness to natural climate-induced disasters, to managing geopolitical instability.

Reform is needed that charts a clearer vision for the role that universities play in the Australian and global knowledge system and how university research can boost productivity growth.

Acknowledging that there is ongoing work within the government to modernise policy settings for the science system, Australia still lacks a whole-of-government and society plan to improve Australia’s record-low level of research and development investment.

The Academy continues to call for an independent review of the entire science and research system and looks forward to working with the government and the Universities Accord panel to create a modern research enterprise able to support and advance science in Australia and, in doing so, support our economy and wellbeing.

Space-derived activities and services underpin much of Australia’s economic, environmental and national security yet are predominantly delivered by foreign entities.

Supporting Australian space activities has several benefits: it mitigates sovereign risk; it aligns with advanced manufacturing strategies; it supports science and ultimately will help diversify Australia’s narrow economic base.

Australia’s future in space depends on a commitment to the underpinning science. Without science, we limit our options, becoming an importer of the knowledge and technology we need for our own wellbeing.

While acknowledging the Australian Government’s ongoing commitment to the future of the Australian Space Agency, the Australian Academy of Science is disappointed with the decision to cancel the National Space Mission for Earth Observation (NSMEO).

The Australian space science community identified an ongoing Earth observation satellite program as a national priority in Australia in Space: a decadal plan for Australian space science 2021–2030. 

With its focus on Earth observation and climate science, the NSMEO would have benefited multiple Australian research areas that contribute to understanding the impact of climate change on Australia, and generated data that assist with natural disaster mitigation, weather forecasting, and water resource management.

The NSMEO would have required developing sovereign Australian capability, with flow-on benefits to other areas of Australian space science.

A government commitment to a national space program will contribute to—and benefit from—Australian industry and science.

The following is a transcript of a press conference given by the President, Professor Chennupati Jagadish AC PresAA FREng FTSE and Chief Executive, Anna-Maria Arabia of the Australian Academy of Science, in response to the pardon of Kathleen Folbigg announced earlier today.

Professor Chennupati Jagadish: So, the Australian Academy of Science has been the independent scientific advisor to Kathleen Folbigg’s case since 2019. Today we warmly welcome the announcement of the Attorney-General’s unconditional pardon by the governor of New South Wales of Kathleen Folbigg. And we are relieved that science has been heard, and we particularly would like to take this opportunity to thank our Academy Fellow Professor Carola Vinuesa FRS FAA, who has really brought to the attention of the Academy this particular case and her science and has shown much integrity, ensuring that science has been heard by the justice system. And it's a great day for science today because of the fact that the justice system has taken into consideration the scientific evidence in determining the pardon of Kathleen Folbigg.

Anna-Maria Arabia: I too am absolutely relieved that Kathleen Folbigg has been pardoned. It's been an absolute privilege for the Australian Academy of Science to have acted as an independent scientific advisor to this inquiry. We know that science is moving at a rapid pace, and we need to find mechanisms for a more science-sensitive legal system to be created. The DPP at the second inquiry into the case of Kathleen Folbigg noted how critical it was to have scientific evidence come from reliable and independent sources, such as the experts the Australian Academy of Science was able to convene. The Attorney-General Michael Daley this morning said that we must find mechanisms to ensure that cases can be reviewed, particularly when there is new evidence that comes to light. I could not agree more. The question must now be asked, how do we create a more science-sensitive legal system bringing to bear new complex and emerging science routinely every day, not just in exceptional cases. The Australian Academy of Science very much looks forward to working with Attorney-General Daley to look at ways that this can be developed and implemented. In fact, this case has enormous implications for the justice system of every Australian State and Territory.

Journalist: So were you calling for an overhaul or a review of Australia's legal system and how it can properly incorporate scientific evidence for trials?

Anna-Maria Arabia: We are calling for law reforms such that the legal system can be more science-sensitive. We need new and emerging science to be able to inform decision making. Science needs to inform decisions wherever they are made, including in the justice system. So, we do need ways – particularly when all of the appeals mechanisms have been exhausted, as was the case with Kathleen Folbigg – for that science to be heard. But also in other cases where we do need independent experts to come forward and quite independently put their scientific evidence to inform decision-making. Science is complex. We don't need scientists put into a boxing ring up against each other. We need a way in which science can be heard fairly, transparently, and independently by the justice system.

Journalist: Do you have any ideas on how that would work or any suggestions to, to kind of kick-start conversation about how you go about doing that?

Anna-Maria Arabia: In terms of creating a system where new science can be heard after all of the appeals mechanisms have been exhausted, other countries have adopted a criminal case review commission. It's been a very successful model in like-minded countries like the UK, Canada, New Zealand. There is an opportunity for Australia to implement such a system or something similar.

Journalist: And how concerned are you that there are similar cases of people being wrongfully accused of killing their children when at the time the science wasn't understood or we weren't aware of genetic factors at play?

Anna-Maria Arabia: There are myriad cases where there have been pleas for pardons and other such things based on new evidence coming to light. There are too many for anyone to look at in an ad-hoc way. This is why something like a criminal case review commission could look at those cases independently and determine whether a new process is required, whether that's an inquiry, or another court process of some variety. So, we do need a system where those cases can be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they need to be opened again.

Journalist: And are there any specific cases that you are aware of that you believe need to be reviewed?

Anna-Maria Arabia: There are no cases that I'm aware of at this time that would be analogous to this one. I haven't looked at all of the cases though.

Journalist: Something you touched on, this might be a bit out-of-left field. Is there a broader tension here between how scientists decide what they think is true and how the justice system decides what it thinks is true? Do you think this case strikes up?

Anna-Maria Arabia: Scientists go about advancing knowledge and they do so using a time-honoured process called the peer review system. Through that, knowledge emerges and is published and made available to everyone. There is great integrity in that process that allows evidence to be shared with everyone. The justice system can take that evidence and hear from expert witnesses as they are called to the justice system. We do not always have a system where the most qualified or the most expert person is made available to that system. That's a real opportunity for law reform. The independent selection of scientific experts so they can bring to bear their knowledge in an unfettered way would be an enormous advancement for our nation.

Journalist: So you would be calling for a better system to be put in place to make sure that the right people are being put forward for the legal systems. That kind of thing?

Anna-Maria Arabia: The second inquiry into Kathleen Folbigg showed how important it was to get the most qualified and expert scientists before the Commissioner and Counsel Assisting and all the parties of the inquiry. That was important so that the inquiry could hear most comprehensively from world experts. We had experts from Australia, but also from around the world to bring the most up-to-date knowledge for that inquiry to consider. This was a remarkable moment in our history where science was comprehensively put by the most qualified experts in the world. It has been critical to having science heard in this case.

The above transcript has been lightly edited for reasons of coherence and accuracy, but all efforts have been made to retain the integrity of the original interview.

More information

Watch the video about the role of science in the case of Ms Folbigg.

The Australian Academy of Science welcomes today’s finding by former Chief Justice of NSW Tom Bathurst AC KC of reasonable doubt regarding the convictions of Kathleen Folbigg.

Commissioner Bathurst’s findings have enabled the NSW Attorney General Michael Daley to recommend to the NSW Governor that Kathleen Folbigg be unconditionally pardoned.

The Australian Academy of Science, which acted as an independent scientific adviser to the Second Folbigg Inquiry, applauds the NSW justice system for having so comprehensively heard science.

Academy President Professor Chennupati Jagadish said, “I am relieved that an unconditional pardon to Kathleen Folbigg has been granted and that science has been heard.”

The representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) at the Inquiry noted the importance of ensuring that new scientific evidence received by the Inquiry was obtained from independent and reliable sources.

The NSW Attorney General also noted that it is appropriate that NSW have the mechanisms to re-consider these matters in the light of new evidence.

The question must now be asked: how do we create a system where complex and emerging science can inform the justice system more readily?

Academy Chief Executive Anna-Maria Arabia said the Academy looks forward to working with the NSW Attorney General to develop and implement a more science-sensitive legal system so that a miscarriage of justice of this magnitude never be repeated.

“This case has implications for the justice systems of every Australian state and territory,” Ms Arabia said.

“There is a critical role for independent scientific advice in the justice system, particularly where there is complex and emerging science.”

Ms Folbigg was convicted in 2003 of the murder of three of her children, infliction of grievous bodily harm on one child and the manslaughter of her first born.

The Second Inquiry into Ms Folbigg’s convictions is believed to be one of the first times worldwide that a learned academy has acted as an independent scientific adviser during a public inquiry into an individual’s criminal convictions.

The Academy would like to acknowledge the contributions of many of the scientific experts from across the world who were called to give evidence at the Inquiry.

In particular, we would like to acknowledge Academy Fellow Professor Carola Vinuesa FAA FRS. Her research with 26 co-authors, in a leading international medical journal, led to the establishment of this Second Inquiry.

More information

Read a transcript of a press conference given by Professor Jagadish and Ms Arabia in response to the pardon of Kathleen Folbigg.

The Australian Academy of Science welcomes the Albanese Government’s ongoing support for science and research in the 2023–24 Federal Budget.

This is a ‘business as usual’ budget for science, continuing to invest in Australian universities, science agencies, national research infrastructure, training scientists, supporting business research and development (R&D) and the broader science system.

Australian Academy of Science President Professor Chennupati Jagadish said despite this spending, Australia’s overall investment in science remains lamentable. 

“Figures released in late April show that the Australian Government’s investment in science, research and innovation is the lowest on record at 0.49% of GDP,” Professor Jagadish said. 

“Reversing the downward trend of government investment in R&D is not the work of any single budget.

“It will take a decade or more of commitment and effort from government, industry and the higher education sector to boost total investment in R&D. Work must start today.”

Professor Jagadish said the Academy was disappointed to see that the Australian Government’s flagship initiative to invest in international collaboration, the Global Science and Technology Diplomacy Fund, has been earmarked for reductions over the forward estimates.

Acknowledging that there is ongoing work within the government to modernise policy settings for the science system, Australia still lacks a whole of government and society plan to improve Australia’s dwindling level of research and development investment. 

The Academy has recommended two key actions with which we can get started—formalising policy to get a national target to lift R&D from 1.79% to 3% and an independent review of the entire science and research system.

The budget makes worthwhile investments in recognition of the value that science brings to the nation—economically, socially, and culturally—including:

• $4.5 billion in science and research through universities in 2023–24 and $3.3 billion to support research and development in industry
• more than $3.5 billion in the science agencies like CSIRO, including welcome ongoing funding for the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Questacon: Australia’s National Science and Technology Centre
• funding to establish Environment Protection Australia, Environment Information Australia, review the Murray Darling Basin Plan and reform our failing environmental laws
• other necessary investments in science advice through the National Science and Technology Council, supporting the National Reconstruction Fund, Quantum science and responsible artificial intelligence.

The Academy looks forward to working with government to create a modern research enterprise able to support and advance science in Australia and to support our economy.

Federal Budget 2023-24 science and research snapshot

The Academy has developed an interactive data report that provides a snapshot of the Australian Government’s science and research expenditure estimated in the Federal Budget. 

Explore the data

The Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences (the Academies) welcome the findings of the House of Representative’s Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport’s inquiry into long COVID and repeated infections.

The report recognises the need for research and evidence to address the challenge of long COVID in Australia, which was recommended in the submissions to the inquiry and subsequent roundtable.

In particular, recommendations for an updated definition of long COVID, enhanced data collection and linkage, a nationally coordinated research program, and the development of co-designed evidence-based living guidelines are critically important to improve knowledge and options for managing long COVID in Australia. The Academies look forward to seeing its progress.

In November 2022, the Academies partnered on a joint submission to the inquiry and subsequently convened an expert roundtable discussion in February 2023, which was chaired by Professor Tania Sorrell AM FAHMS, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

The Academies’ written submission addressed the inquiry’s terms of reference related to research, innovation and evidence-based care, and was developed based on input from Fellows of both Academies and other experts.

The roundtable discussions provided further input on these important topics.

Professor Sorrell said the Committee’s report will be valuable in ensuring Australia is properly equipped to tackle the challenges presented by long COVID, including its treatment, prevention and care.

“We thank the Parliamentary Committee for a valuable, comprehensive report that outlines the issues, gaps, processes, planning and government support needed to put Australia at the forefront of evidence-based, person-centred health care and social support for individuals with long COVID,” Professor Sorrell said.

“This is crucial to ensure we are able to support patients and communities impacted by the condition.”

Australian Academy of Science President Professor Chennupati Jagadish AC PresAA FREng FTSE said the roundtable provided Parliamentary Committee members with direct access to those at the forefront of COVID research.

“The partnership of both Academies to convene the roundtable was a novel way to bring scientific evidence to a committee of this nature,” Professor Jagadish said.

“We hope this can be a blueprint for future inquiries,” he continued.

The definition of long COVID was an important point of discussion at the roundtable, as it is important to enable better diagnosis, patient access to care and support, data collection, health system planning and consistency across research studies.

The Academies are pleased to see the Committee’s recommendation that federal and state/territory governments work together to ensure the definition is based on the latest information, which is essential to remain useful and relevant for health professionals, patients and researchers. This process will require input from experts in research and the health sector.

Significantly, the Committee also highlighted the importance of improving indoor air quality and ventilation. This is an important discussion in reducing transmission of COVID-19 and it is hoped that the Committee’s recommendation to establish a multidisciplinary advisory body to oversee an assessment of its impact is considered.

Finally, the Academies strongly welcome the announcement of A$50 million from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) for research into long COVID as another positive step for the Government to enable researchers to fill knowledge gaps.

The war in Ukraine is having a devastating impact on the country's people, with nine million people displaced inside and five million displaced outside of the country. That includes many scientists, working on everything from medical research to the future of space exploration.

Thanks to $800,000 funding support from the not-for-profit Breakthrough Prize Foundation, the Australian Academy of Science is now extending a helping hand to Ukrainian scientists through The Ukraine-Australia Research Fund.

The funding is being used to establish two different activities, each designed to offer practical support to enable the continuation of research and technology activities by Ukrainian scientists.

Short-term visits (Activity 1)– Ukrainian researchers will participate in short-term visits to Australia to engage in research at a host institution, or to participate in a conference and site visit program.

Facility access (Activity 2) – Ukrainian researchers can access leading infrastructure capabilities in Australia, such as supercomputing facilities, microscopy and microanalysis facilities, and telescopes. Ukrainian researchers will be able to send their samples to National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) facilities for analysis, with the results returned to the Ukrainian research institute.

Foreign Secretary of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Frances Separovic, said the research fund allows Ukrainians who are impacted to collaborate with Australia so that their research efforts can continue.

“It is paramount that the research workforce and capability required to help rebuild Ukraine is not depleted over the course of the war,” said Professor Separovic.

His Excellency Ambassador of Ukraine to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko said to rebuild Ukraine, the country will need the support of the world.

“I think the connections that will be built as a result of this program will help us better help Ukraine in the future,” said Ambassador Myroshnychenko.

The call for applications to the research fund is now open.

The Australian Academy of Science welcomes the release of the Australian Government’s Trusting Australia’s Ability: Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001.

Academy President Professor Chennupati Jagadish said the underlying theme of the review is that of trust with a strong emphasis on the critical role of the ARC in Australia’s research system.

“The role of the ARC, its leadership and the execution of its functions should reflect our aspirations for the research landscape, for research excellence and how they can best support our national ambitions,” Professor Jagadish said.

“The recommendations in the review provide a strong basis to support this purpose and the ongoing effectiveness of the ARC.

“The Academy welcomes the recommendation that the commitment to funding basic research should be incorporated into the ARC’s purpose under the Act.

“The Academy views this as important to safeguard fundamental research that grows our knowledge base.”

The Academy also endorses several other noteworthy recommendations to:

• restore the ARC Board and populate it with members with the right combination of skills and experience
• discontinue Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) and modernise ARC capacity and requirements for data collection and analysis
• streamline National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP) guidelines to reflect international best practice and reduce the administrative burden on academic and research organisations.

Professor Jagadish said the focus of ministerial discretion on the NCGP guidelines and funding available, rather than on individual grants, would place the recommendations and approvals in the hands of the people with the expertise to assess their merit.

“It is positive to see the recommendations to advance Indigenous Australians in research and recognition of the impact of the ARC on attracting and retaining research talent,” Professor Jagadish said.

“The recommendations in the review are so important and sensible that the Academy looks forward to their implementation as soon as practicable.”

The Academy thanks the review panel for its expert contribution and guidance.

A scientist whose work showing the massive amounts of carbon that could be captured by oceans and coastal ecosystems has been chosen to represent Australia in a lucrative global sustainability prize.

Professor Peter Macreadie, of Deakin University, was declared a National Champion for the inaugural Frontiers Planet Prize.

An initiative of the not-for-profit Frontiers Foundation, the prize recognises breakthroughs in sustainability science within the last two years that have measurable potential to help humanity remain within the boundaries of our planet’s ecosystem.

Professor Macreadie is one of three researchers nominated by the Australian Academy of Science for the prize.

Professor Macreadie is in the running for one of three International Championship prizes (each worth one million Swiss francs or ~A$1.6 million), which are awarded to the host institutions of each winning researcher.

The National and International Champions are chosen by a jury of 100 leading sustainability scientists.

Professor Macreadie’s research has demonstrated the enormous potential for ocean and coastal ecosystems to contribute to capture and store carbon—known as blue carbon—on a global scale. Conservation and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems can offset carbon emissions and help mitigate climate change.

The study for which he was nominated showed blue carbon ecosystems such as mangrove forests, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows store more than 30 billion tonnes of carbon across about 185 million hectares.

It demonstrated that conserving these ecosystems could potentially avoid over 300 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year, and that restoring damaged or destroyed ecosystems could draw down a significant additional amount of CO₂.

The research was published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment in 2021.

Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science Professor Catherine Lovelock, who’s based at the University of Queensland, is a co-author on the paper.

As the founder and director of the Blue Carbon Lab at Deakin University, Professor Macreadie is currently working with his team to break down the obstacles to blue carbon markets becoming economically viable, effective tools for mitigating climate change.

Professor Macreadie said he was honoured to represent his team and their work as Australia’s National Champion.

“This prize would provide much needed recognition that blue carbon is a high-quality and globally significant natural climate solution,” Professor Macreadie said.

“Achieving the restoration scale required to deliver maximum climate change mitigation benefits from Blue Carbon Ecosystems needs strong governance, and support from governments, beneficiary industries, corporations and communities. This prize will greatly advance this cause.”

The winners of the International Championships will be announced at an award ceremony on 27 April at the Frontiers Forum in Montreux, Switzerland. 

The two Australian runner-up nominees are also conducting breakthrough research in sustainability science.

Professor Nerilie Abram from the Australian National University was nominated for her work highlighting the compounding ways human-induced climate change has increased the risks of fires that threaten forest ecosystems and human lives in Australia.

Professor Zaiping Guo of the University of Adelaide was nominated for her work on energy storage technologies, which are currently a roadblock to adopting clean energy solutions.

Her nominated paper details the creation of a new liquid, non-flammable electrolyte to improve the energy density and safety of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.

Learn more about the Frontiers Planet Prize.

The Australian Academy of Science has hosted the second of three expert roundtables to inform advice to government on the likely impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef and potential interventions under plausible climate futures.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water engaged the Academy in January to convene the roundtables and deliver a synthesis report to support the Reef 2050 Independent Expert Panel’s advice to government.

The second roundtable expanded on discussions from the first roundtable.

Thirty-one experts discussed the interventions and technologies that could sustain or improve the health and functioning of the Great Barrier Reef in the face of current and future climate impacts that may be anticipated in the medium-term future (2040–60) under both low and high emission scenarios.

The potential interactions, combined benefits and conflicts between these intervention strategies and technologies were explored, with focused discussion on understanding knowledge gaps and barriers for deployment of technologies and interventions at scale.

Diverse expertise from scientists, engineers, Traditional Owners, policy and regulatory experts was presented in the discussion, reinforcing the holistic approach that is required to understand and maintain the complex Great Barrier Reef ecosystem.

Topics including climate mitigation, greenhouse gas emission reductions and cost benefit assessments are not within the remit of these roundtables.

The final roundtable, to be held on 2 May, will build on the findings of roundtables one and two and integrate these with additional social and cultural context.

The final report to be delivered later this year will present the outcomes of the roundtable process to the Independent Expert Panel for its consideration. Following this, the report will be made publicly available as a resource for governments and the non-government sector.

See more information and the project terms of reference. 

Roundtable participants

Chairs

Ms Chrissy Grant
Dr Beth Fulton

Participants

Dr Vincent Backhaus
Dr Line Bay
Dr Roger Beeden
Professor David Bellwood
Dr Mary Bonin
Dr Kerryn Brent
Associate Professor Andrew Brooks
Dr Emma Camp
Dr Danielle Ceccarelli
Dr Scott Condie
Mr Jonathan Daly
Dr Aaron Davis
Professor Norm Duke
Professor Matthew Dunbabin
Dr Katharina Fabricius
Dr Mark Gibbs
Dr Daniel Harrison
Ms Nyssa Henry
Mr Bob Muir
Mr Chris Muriata
Dr Rachel Pears
Dr Suzanne Prober
Dr Megan Saunders
Dr Roger Shaw
Dr Nicki Shumway
Dr Andy Steven
Mr John Tapim
Dr Bruce Taylor
Ms Liz Wren