In this episode I had the opportunity to discuss the genesis and history of Science Meets Parliament (SMP) with Science and Technology Australia running of the 25th SMP in February 2025.
Drs Cathy Foley, Jeremy Brownlie and Ken Baldwin, joined me to explore the origins of the event, how the event has evolved and why it remains a centrepiece to informing parliamentarians of the central role STEM plays in society and the economy.
Ken reflected on the need to focus on science for one or two days, to “flood the parliament with scientists” with a mandate to inform parliamentarians – it wasn’t about lobbying. As it happened, the idea was “pushing on an open door” with early bipartisan support. It was noted that it was in fact STA’s predecessor, the Forum of Australian Science and technoIlogical Societies that initiated the SMP concept and talked of the challenges of coordination in bringing a new event onto the calendar.
Cathy noted that scientists have unique knowledge, and the event offered members and scientists a forum through which to learn more how they think and the issues they are seeking to address. Cathy reflected on her own experiences at SMP and the life changing exposure that it creates for scientists creating a new dialogue as equals with parliamentarians, offering information on what science can offer. In turn, this brings science to front of mind for politicians, akin to the idea of bringing innovation to the centre of policy making explored at the most recent National Innovation Policy Forum.
Jeremy noted that science and government are both complex systems and that the issues of the day change, highlighting the need for broad science engagement to reflect the breadth of challenges and opportunities being met by parliament. This forum allowed for new ideas to be shared where there is a receptivity to new concepts that could be shared thoughtfully. He noted that parliamentarians are tuned to authenticity, which is an enduring strength of SMP.
We wrapped our conversation reflecting on the challenges that modern media has brought on communicating science and the importance of direct conversations, trust and rigorous science being the cornerstones of social license between the science community and parliament.
Transcript
CB: Hello everyone, and welcome to Tech Transfer Talk. My name is Cameron Begley, Managing Director of Spiegare, and we have a rather special episode of Tech Transfer Talk. Today, we’re taking the opportunity to reflect on 25 years of Science Meets Parliament with three very learned people who have been very involved in the journey of Science Meets Parliament over the past quarter of a century. Joining us today are Cathy Foley, who recently completed her term as Australia’s Chief Scientist and newly appointed CSIRO board member. Cathy, welcome.
CF: Thanks, Cameron.
CB: Ken Baldwin, who is Professor Emeritus at ANU. Ken, welcome.
KB: Pleased to be with everyone today.
[00.00.56]
CB: And Jeremy Brownlee, molecular geneticist and director of industry partnerships at Griffith University.
JB: Hi, Cameron. Great to be here.
CB: Thanks very much, guys. And a real treat to have all three of you here, because we’re going to go on a bit of a journey, I hope, around the origins and trajectory of Science Meets Parliament, which has become a bit of an institution, I think, on the Australian science calendar that unfolds here every year. And I guess as someone who only joined the fray much more recently in terms of Science Meets Parliament, why even have science meets Parliament? And Ken, I might throw the ball to you first, as I think you may have been in the fray at that time.
KB: That’s right Cameron. And indeed, back in the late 90s, there was, if you like, a great opportunity to engage science with the parliamentary process more broadly. And we looked around the world to see what was going on in other countries. And sure, there were opportunities for obviously lobbyists to meet with politicians and all this sort of thing. We were looking for something different. We wanted to actually engage the parliamentarians with the science itself through the visiting scientists. So, there are two real points of difference that created Science Meets Parliament. The first was we wanted to make sure that Parliament had its entire attention focused on science for at least a day or two days. And so, we decided that we would flood the Parliament with scientists, rather than just have a few lobbyists come up to the Hill. And that made a huge difference, because it meant that every parliamentarian talked to their neighbour, and their neighbour had met with the scientists. And so there was this enormous synergy that developed. And the second thing was that this was never meant to be a lobbying exercise, unlike similar arrangements in other countries. This was always about science communication and enthusing parliamentarians with a great science that goes on in Australia, for which they are the public providers in many cases, and to make sure that the good news stories around science were transmitted to the parliamentarians, who would then go on to make good decisions based on the scientific evidence and experience that they had achieved through Science meets Parliament. So those are the two key points of difference. And that’s really how things all started.
CB: Yeah. Fantastic. Ken. And Cathy, you were there in these early moments of Science Meets Parliament, too, I understand. Ken’s recollections: do they resonate with you, and could you see other rationales for Science meets Parliament emerging when it did?
CF: Well, it was at a time when Australian scientists were really still emerging in their understanding of how their work fits in the broader community. I think for a long time, and we’re not there yet, the average Australian researcher and scientist sees their work as something which is discovering new information, whether it’s doing research that leads to publication. And for a long time, there wasn’t an expectation that it should be something that’s translated to have impact in any way and affect change. And, this was, I think, the beginning of a number of different programs that have happened since then, not just from the research community itself, but also government programs too, that have really allowed the research community to realise that they’ve got something, a knowledge that no one else has, and people are really keen to know about it. What we found was a real hunger, a real bipartisan interest, regardless of where people sat on the political spectrum. They were really interested to talk to researchers to try and understand, you know, ‘What do they do? How they could ask questions with topics that were absolutely relevant of the day.’ And I guess, we’ll talk a bit later about over the 25 years, there’s been different priorities of what’s been ‘hot to trot’ for the broader community, especially for parliamentarians, and what they want to know a little bit more about. And also, I think there’s been a bit of a development of understanding mutually from the scientists about how Parliament operates and getting an exposé of that, because most people have no idea they might go to a function in the Great Hall, but don’t actually go beyond the, you know, the closed doors of Parliament and even seeing how it operates day-to-day and even meeting a parliamentarian is often something which is a rare event. But the other way it works too, is parliamentarians actually understanding the scientific process. What does it mean between something that’s peer reviewed or not? Why is it that they work on the things that they do work on and also get, I guess, picked up by the enthusiasm and the passion that comes through from all the attendees. And I think that is one of the things that all parliamentarians take away is the extraordinary passion, the enthusiasm and commitment that Australian scientists and researchers have in general.
CB: No, fantastic Cathy, and all sounds like a terrific idea. But, Jeremy, we’ve got to get this thing off the road to how do you actually get science to meet Parliament. So, I think the why is compelling, Cathy and Ken. I mean, it makes enormous sense. And we’ll talk about the benefits that have arisen. But how do you actually get this thing off the ground, which was ostensibly a blank slate at this point? It was a whole new concept of engagement, really.
JB: Yeah. Look. Certainly, from the science side of things, there’s always been a strong curiosity about the broad systems, how they work. In general, I think science is inherently curious about systems anyway. But certainly, the sector in the mid to late 80s and moving forward realised that it needed to engage better with decision makers and get them excited and enthused about the work that they’re looking at, and the types of solutions that science and technology might be able to provide to, to communities. And really, it was that part where coming as a solution with solutions and ideas was sort of the open door that we were pushing into that the parliamentarians obviously engaged with their communities and with their electorates. They’re seeing either very immediate problems that were coming through. So, for example, droughts is not something that’s unusual in the Australian context. And so, it’s not surprising during those types of events or periods that the Parliament and the parliamentarians and decision makers are very keen and interested to hear from people that are spending long periods of time, deep thinking time, around how we might respond to to those events and what are some of the solutions we might be able to provide back to, to the broader society? And so, it was bringing these two parts where we’ve got the knowledge creators and then the decision makers coming together. And really, once you’ve got two sets of people that are very excited to talk about their research, you know, most scientists and researchers are very keen to talk about their passion and their interests. And then with parliamentarians who are themselves, you know, very good at connecting with communities, connecting different parts of the community across the different sectors. And so, there was that real curiosity. And I think, also too, both tribes, if you like, are highly motivated groups of people that they’re working very long hours for the greater good, as it were. And I think there’s that shared passion and shared set of values broadly, that they’re connecting through.
CB: Yeah. Now, Jeremy, thanks. You referred to the idea of pushing against an open door, which I quite like that turn of phrase. Ken, who was on the other side of that door? So, you managed to push it open? I hope someone was there to receive you and get things underway.
KB: Yes, there certainly were. And I think I’d add to Jeremy’s point, which is that scientists and parliamentarians are both ideas people. The scientists had lots of ideas about the natural world; parliamentarians have lots of ideas about society and how to govern it. And so, there’s this natural meeting of minds that creates sparks and synergies of these ideas. So, that’s why it was an open door. We were coming with good ideas from science to help parliamentarians make good decisions about their ideas on society. So, we had a terrific reception at the beginning. From the government side of things, Senator Nick Minchin was the minister responsible at the time. There were other people behind the scenes, people like Gary Nairn from the House of Representatives. They were very keen to see this happen. On the Labor side, Martyn Evans, there are other people locally again, like Bob McMullan. So, these people welcomed us, you know, said ‘How can we make this work?’ And we basically joined forces to ensure that it all happened. And it happened in a significant way. As I say, it’s not just a bunch of people going up to Parliament House and meeting with a few politicians. It basically is designed to essentially inundate Parliament for a day or two and create these synergies that enable the ideas to flow.
CB: I love this idea of inundation or flooding the zone that you’ve used a couple of times there, Ken, which I think is entirely appropriate, and it has a real current context, I think, too. So, we’ve got Parliament aligned. Did someone manage to get Science and Technology Australia aligned?
CF: Back then, it was called Forum of Australian Scientific and Technological Society…
CB: …was its predecessor. Thank you. Yes.
CF: And, the thing is, that’s the collection or the federation of all the different professional societies in science. And that meant that there was a vehicle to access and contact all the researchers across all the different disciplines. And it wasn’t just the people who are academicians in the academies, but it went through because at that stage, I was a very junior research scientist, and it meant that I was involved with the Australian Institute of Physics, and there was a request for people to put their hand up to come along and be part of this. And I thought it sounded amazing and went along. And it was for me and for pretty much anyone who has been part of our Science Meets program over the quarter century, it sounds like such a long time that it’s life changing because it gives, it gave me, and I think you would say for all attendees, the exposure to the government processes, the people who are making the decisions, a chance to talk with them in a way which is very Australian. I think when we engage with our parliamentarians, it is usually on a very equal platform, and it’s one where, of course, there’s respect because they are elected officials for our country. But it still created that dialogue, which I think was new. It was also one where parliamentarians are used to people knocking on their doors and being lobbied and asking for something. But we weren’t doing that. We were talking about science with the idea of building relationships and creating a stronger understanding of the opportunities that science has to offer, and some actual information. So, it was an open door. It was, you know, a lot of organising behind the scenes. It was a continuous improvement over 25 years, so that it’s now a lean, mean machine. And Science and Technology have got government funding for it now, because it’s seen as so important from successive governments of all persuasions. And it’s one where it’s seen as a really critical part of the Australian culture now. And I think we’ve got to a point where when you hear the words ‘Science Meets’ or ‘something meets’, it’s now got an Australian knowledge that it’s bringing groups together to coordinate and collaborate and to engage in ways they hadn’t in the past. And it’s been a very successful, I guess, cultural tool for us as well.
CB: Certainly, as part of the science landscape in Australia. And certainly, building those connections are fantastic but I wanted to touch back, Jeremy. You touched on drought, which I was one of probably many issues, and it struck me that, I suspect different issues are front of mind for parliamentarians at different times, and there would be both the opportunity and the challenge, perhaps, of bringing the right science into the room, to the right people at the right time. That notion of contemporaneous problems and science, of course, being able to provide insights into what those solutions might be.
JB: So, certainly every year there seems to be a new topic or concern or something that Parliament is curious about. And not surprisingly, the emerging topics for the upcoming Science Meets Parliament is feedback from the Parliament really wanting to understand artificial intelligence, how it’s being developed, what are the guardrails, but also how it’s being applied more broadly in different parts of the sector. And one of the amazing things with Science and Technology Australia is that there’s over 200,000 scientists and researchers and technologists, people in industry and universities and government science agencies, that are part of STA through the formal memberships. And so, it’s through that very broad membership network that we’re then able to really put forward some of Australia’s leading researchers, both from an early career research point of view, mid-career and very senior researchers that are working in these different areas. But invariably, we’ll also have other researchers that aren’t working on the topic of today. But through those conversations, there is that meeting of the minds, as Ken said, and that deep curiosity and passion. So, it’s not just built around a single issue, it’s not built around a single area, but because of that broad network, we’re able to then really put forward some of the best minds in front of the parliamentarians and have a very authentic conversation. That’s, as Cathy noted, it’s not lobbying, it’s sort of a real soft diplomacy approach. It’s sharing our enthusiasm about the research and sharing the value of that research, often through public funded money, back to the Parliament saying, ‘This is the investment you’ve made.; these are the solutions; these are the discoveries that we’re making.’
CB: The interesting thing is if they’re not working on the problems today, my hope, Jeremy, is they’re working on the problems of tomorrow. So, those relationships that get formed with the parliamentarians and even amongst the cohort that arrive, if not solving today’s challenge, it will be addressing or seizing tomorrow’s opportunity. So, it makes for a nice crucible of things to happen. But I imagine, Ken, when it all started, that it wasn’t the glorious vista of two days of meetings, training, meals, and networking. I suspect it may have been something a touch more rudimentary in its first offering. How did SMP number one unfold?
JB: Well, it was kind of an experiment, being such a large-scale meeting with 200 or so scientists. And, I think it has now grown to more like 250, suddenly descending upon Parliament House to meet the great majority of senators in the House of Representative members. It was a bit of an experiment to try and establish how this could work, because no one had ever done it before. So, essentially what we did was we spread the meetings over two days, and we tried to match up as many scientists with their local member of Parliament or one of the senators in their state, in order to provide some direct relevance to the interests that those parliamentarians might have. And, if we couldn’t achieve that, we tried to match people up according to their research interests. And, you know, maybe if it was in a technology area, you’d try and match it up with somebody who’s responsible for industry or some, some arrangement like that. And once you’d gone through all those different permutations, you found that cross fertilised, if you like, a whole lot of different areas and different localities in a way that meant that everyone got to meet somebody of direct interest to what they were doing. And so, that we did over a two-day period. We didn’t have any other bells and whistles on it at that stage. Science Meets Parliament dinner came later. Then came the National Press Club address, which was often a great opportunity to get science in front of the media and other side meetings as well. And there’d be occasional seminars about important topics and this sort of thing as well. But that all came later. The first year was really about making sure there was a connection between scientists and MPs. We then built on that in subsequent years once the relationship had been established.
CB: Yeah. No. Fantastic. And those connections, I expect, Cathy, the awareness of science, some friendships and relationships start to emerge from all these points of connection, and perhaps not causally, but arguably coincidentally, as I have it, a group emerge called the Parliamentary Friends of Science, which started to form up, not necessarily as a consequence of but alongside, shall we say.
CF: Yeah, there’s a program within the Australian Parliament where two parliamentarians, usually from opposite sides of the chamber, come together and get enough signatures to say that they can start a parliamentary friends group in a whole range of different areas. It’s a really common way to create camaraderie, and also, almost like a program within the parliamentarians of having input from a broader community. This is Karen Andrews and the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles. Back when they were at that stage 12 years ago, they were probably backbenchers. I don’t even think they actually had a position at that stage. One would have been in government and the other was in government because they’re on the different sides of the House. But they both were friends, had a passion for science, and were able to use one of the Science meets Parliament years as a way to kick off their event. And they had it as one looking at the stars, going up onto the roof of Parliament House when you were able to go on top of Parliament House, and look at the stars. Apparently, it was led by Brian Schmidt with his radio telescopes, and it was one where it really has gone down in the annals of history, actually, because as Mrs Andrews has just indicated, she’s not standing for re-election. There was some beautiful farewells for her at the end of last year, and a lot of reminiscing about that at the last couple of Parliamentary Friends of Science events, which have really been something which have been enduring, and another vehicle of, I guess, spin outs or things which the whole concept of bringing science into Parliament has happened as a consequence of, I guess, this whole effort.
CB: Yeah, I know I sense in amongst all of this that, with the persistence of both Science Meets Parliament and the Parliamentary Friends of Science, which creates its own momentum I assume, coming back to a point you might have touched on earlier, Jeremy, it starts to bring science to be front of mind for politicians. So, it creates a presence for science. Something that’s been said recently at the National Innovation Policy Forum, which a few of us participate in, is that innovation, in its broader sense, needs to move to the centre of policymaking. Well, I draw the parallel here, if I might, that this brings science to the centre of policymaking, because it gives it a presence in the minds of the parliamentarians.
JB: Yeah, that’s right. And it also creates opportunities for individual researchers to build those partnerships and relationships, not just with the parliamentarians but their advisors or they are then connected to senior decision makers within the public service and start to provide ongoing advice in some instances. So, it is an opportunity for the science to come in, to really enthuse the Parliament about the different types of work that they’re looking at and the different types of problems they’re looking at. But, it really is the start of a conversation. It’s not the only part of the conversation that occurs between the Parliament and the broader research community.
CB: Yep. I think getting science front of mind, perhaps, is evidenced by the funding announcement that Cathy touched on earlier, where SMP’s actually secured three years of money through the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, which is terrific news, a program I confess I wasn’t aware of. Maybe that’s a reflection on me that there’s a program called the Inspiring Australia Science Engagement Program. I confess I didn’t know about that one, but I’m delighted that they have found money to support SMP. So, I guess in its way that’s a reflection of the importance not only of SMP, but the connection between science and the parliamentarians. Thanks for raising that earlier, Cathy. But there has also been, I guess, you know, maybe a phenomenon of the last decade that shooting messengers and calling out the science that doesn’t suit your worldview becomes a bit of a thing. And I guess, Ken, there’s a challenge to make sure that we keep those relationships functioning and keep the science. Not so much the science itself, but the relationships and the communication channels that deliver that science, making sure they stay open.
KB: Yes, that’s right. And having established this way of bringing scientists and parliamentarians together means that they understand each other much more clearly. They understand that, you know, by and large, both of them are working in the general interests of society, that they have the common good at heart, and that they’re looking for ideas to improve the general well-being of the nation. And meeting people face-to-face and understanding that, I think, is incredibly important. It’s much harder to shoot the messenger if you know them. So, I think that this is a really useful way of ensuring that the good decisions continue to be made in Parliament by continuing to bring not just older and experienced scientists to the pond, but younger, fresher, newer, more at the cutting edge, even scientists who then can enthuse parliamentarians with the next generation of scientific understanding. So, having that relationship built up over many years, you know, today’s backbencher is tomorrow’s deputy prime minister, which is just one example. And so, that means that young scientists can keep a relationship going with parliamentarians over a decade or more. And that, I think, is very useful. And it also means that parliamentarians can then go back to these people and say, ‘Look, I need to know something about this particular topic’ or ‘In my electorate, can you tell me who are the go to people for this particular piece of information?’ I think that relationship building is a really central part of the entire exercise.
CB: Absolutely. An excellent point. It’s much harder to shoot the messenger when you know them. So, yeah, very much so, Ken. I think, though, the other thing that I sense through the trajectory of SMP is that the voices of scientists, through a number of initiatives, have not only become broader, but also have come from a number of broader range of society. And, Cathy, from my limited experiences, there’s some terrific programs, particularly around First Nations and Diversity and Stem ambassadors. And, I guess, Cathy, you may have seen the early genesis of these and now, perhaps, can see the results of those programs starting to blossom more broadly through the science community.
CF: I think when I went through university, I’d be interested to know if Ken had the same experience, where our expectations were to do good science and then publish a paper and then move on. The idea of commercialising your work, of taking it to impact, to having it to a point where people can use it, whether it’s in a new product, a business, or a new policy development or public public good, was really more in the environmental sciences, I guess, in terms of seeing how we can eradicate rabbits or infectious diseases or all those sorts of things. But more broadly, most scientists did not see their role as being anything other than being in the lab. And, what I think we’ve seen with Science Meets Parliament is multiple generations of growth across the research sector to see that science is more than that, and that there’s the expectation for you to take your work a bit further down the road. It doesn’t mean you have to take it all the way. We don’t want every researcher to spin out a company. We often say jokingly that the expectation of the modern researcher is to discover something, breakthrough new, win a Nobel Prize and start a business. And there’s a little bit of that expectation, which is extraordinarily high. And a lot of researchers feel that deeply. I think what Science Meets Parliament has done is, sort of broadened that or contributed to the broadening of what it means to be a researcher. And it does bring in things like we need to embrace the full human potential. So, diversity and inclusion is important. We need to be aware of First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems. So, the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their involvement with Science Meets Parliament has been growing and growing to the point where they now lead aspects of this. And there’s a real push within Australia, both with the national science research priorities and the Prime Minister’s new science prize, an indigenous man on the National Science and Technology Council. These are really important parts of shifting our research sector, with the other programs coming along and joining in. And, you know, you can go on. There’s many other things which have come and set up that have really been put in place, so, it’s not just a ‘apply for grant, get it, do research, publish a paper, and move on’ or, you know, rinse and repeat, I guess. The thing is to actually say, ‘Well, can we actually spin off or have something that goes and and brings in other aspects of it?’ Because science should be just not in a silo. It’s actually something that needs to be embedded across all of our society and it needs to be front of mind. We have economists in every major decision that is made in the country, making sure that they’re putting their ruler over it. We should be getting to a point where there and where the idea of evidence-based policy is, embraces and aims to be used all the time, knowing that that is one of the many things that need to be taken into account. And so, having the sort of, the science ruler or the science and tech ruler taken over all policy development is happening more and more.
CB: To a very large extent, Cathy. It goes to getting science in the middle of that policy conversation.
CF: It’s not just science, but science plus everything else. Science alone is just new knowledge. But for us to have an impact, you do have to engage with the social sciences. You’ve got to have a way of, you know, understanding the policy, the ethics, the business model to make it, you know, if you’re going to commercialise something. It’s taking it outside a laboratory requires input from a whole lot of people, as does making good policy requires an input from all aspects of the community, including science and economics.
CB: And the point you make around social sciences is, again, something that bubbled to the surface at the same Innovation Policy Forum. Certainly, in my mind, when we talk about technology transfer or impact or dissemination, the social scientists are ultimately people that use these things. I think someone said to me recently, ‘The people who know how humans work are really important when it comes to impact.’ Perhaps it was you in your Ralph Slayter speech, Cathy?
CF: Not me.
CB: So, the human dimension is critical in getting science into the hands of those that can broadly use it. Jeremy, it struck me, as both Cathy and Ken have been talking as well, that it keeps coming back to this notion of connecting scientists to conversations. It keeps coming back to science, communicating with the environment, with the people, with the society around them.
JB: Yeah. And, certainly in the time since, you know, 2008 was the first Science Meets Parliament event that I attended. And during part of that professional development, we talked a lot about how to approach conversations with parliamentarians, but then we’ve also strayed into different areas, particularly as different social media platforms arose. So, I remember when Twitter first came, there was some time spent explaining to researchers, at that time, why people might want to engage in that public forum space and the need to do that and the way that you do that, is still the same, even though these platforms continually change. But it’s about talking about the why first, not how you do something or what you’ve discovered. But really, what is that big question that you’re, you know, you’re very curious about? Or what is the impact that you’re trying to create, or where’s the endpoint to the application or down the line, if not today, but perhaps into the future? And so, certainly a big part of the Science Meets Parliament process for the delegates is uplifting that communication process and communicating with decision makers is a very different audience. It’s different to any other audience that I’ve engaged with, you know. School kids or parents or university students or industry or other colleagues, yes, it’s different, but talking to a parliamentarian or to their advisors is a very different experience in a very subtle way. And I think part of it is because of the environment that they’re working in, that they’re having a lot of different conversations with very smart lobbyists and all sorts of other people that are coming in through that door. So, they’ve got a high, I guess their radars tuned in to where people aren’t being authentic. And I come back to the real strength of this whole experience is authenticity of the communication between the researchers and the parliamentarians. That’s when it really works quite well.
CB: Yeah, and having been involved with discussions with parliamentarians and advisors, it is interesting that we tend to frame them through what we see on ABC at 2:00 in a sitting week, which for those listening is sitting is Question Time in the House of Representatives, which is more a combat sport than perhaps a collaborative sport? I think it’s fair to say, and that’s probably not necessarily seeing these people for who they are. That’s almost seeing them on the stage that they have to perform on.
JB: Talking to delegates after they’ve gone in as a group of 3 or 4 people going in to meet with a parliamentarian, and perhaps it’s a parliamentarian that they’ve seen on the news a lot, for whatever reason. And there’s a level of anxiety. And then, when they come out of the meetings, usually there’s a real sense of surprise of how engaging that person was. And I think, but similarly for the parliamentarians, it’s learning that, you know, there is a stereotype around scientists as well, and where you’ve got that broad diversity of researchers coming in and that real depth of enthusiasm that are quite engaging people, that are really curious about the process that Parliament is engaging as well as their other colleagues. So, yeah, I come back to Ken’s point. It really is a meeting of minds through this process.
CB: So, where to now? We turn 25, Science Meets Parliament turns 25. Ken, what do you see in your crystal ball for the next maybe 5 or 10 years for Science Meets Parliament.
KB: Well, I think in a world that is changing rapidly, not just because of climate change, but it’s changing technologically; the interface between science, technology and society is changing as well. Things are becoming blurred between those boundaries. There’s probably an even greater role for Science Meets Parliament going forward. Simply because parliamentarians have to be across so many important areas of science and technology in order to be making good decisions about society. I can see a very strong future going forward. And I think coming back to the point Jeremy was just making about, you know, when you meet people, you know, it’s not an adversarial situation like Question Time, as you mentioned, Cameron. It’s much more a time when a parliamentarian can actually engage with people who are keen to provide them with greater understanding and knowledge. It’s a non-threatening type environment. So, people’s minds open up in that sort of situation. They are willing to accept new ideas, new information, and I think this is going to be really important in a society that is increasingly polarised in its views, not just around politics, but around many things for people to keep open minds. And so, Science meets Parliament is a way of opening minds, both for scientists to see how the decision making process works, but also for parliamentarians to see how things are changing, and that they may need to adapt their thinking in order to meet the challenges associated with that change.
CB: Ken, terrific. Cathy and Jeremy, would you like to add anything to, I think a pretty compelling vision for the future of Science Meets Parliament?
CF: Well, I think Science meets Parliament, weathered Covid really well and went online and was able to be effective. So, it shows that it’s an adaptive, responsive program that so far has been able to navigate multiple governments and also situations. I think it’s going to be really interesting to see the role that Science Meets Parliament will take as mis- and dis- information grows. And, as we’re seeing, I think, an extraordinary shift in the way the world is looking at things which were just bread and butter for us in the past. You know, things which are deep Australian values of, you know, equity, equality, fair go for everyone, doing the right thing, rule of law, being a privileged country with a lot of resources, a lot of land, in a place where everyone wants to come and live. It’s such a wonderful country, our multiculturalism as being part of it. And, if you look at all the things that are, you know, sort of bubbling along around the rest of the world, I think that there’s going to be an important role for events like Science Meets Parliament to really be steadfast in going back to basics and, you know, sort of saying that evidence-based information can only be of value for people who are making big decisions, and that can be a baseline they can go back to when everything else is looking pretty hard to figure out fact from fiction. And, I hope that over the years that we do get to a point where it’s seen as I know, the gold standard for where to go to, how to engage and be able to make sure that, as a person who’s been elected to represent people, that you can go somewhere or you can reach out to people you’ve met and be able to know that there is information that is trustable and that we can really build on that trust in researchers doing the right thing. And that researchers also lift their game as much as possible in terms of being 100%, not 99.99%, but 100% trustable, and that we do the best possible high-quality research that really adds value. And so, it’s a bit of a social licence that we have to, I think, do on both sides, almost like a social contract for both sides. I think we need to use Science Meets Parliament as a way to really progress and implement that.
CB: Yeah. No, I like that idea of a social contract, Cathy. Jeremy, any final thoughts there?
JB: Yeah. Look, the only other things I’d add is, every time there’s a new parliament that gets formed, there’s new members of parliament, there’s new senators that come in that, they themselves probably haven’t had much exposure or interactions with researchers and STEM professionals. Similarly, the STEM research community is one that’s a very dynamic one. We’re getting people from overseas coming here. We’re getting new graduates coming through every time. So, Science Meets Parliament will be a vehicle by which there will always be that continual need for bringing these two different groups together, that those two communities are constantly changing and evolving. So, we need, as we’ve heard before, about a period of time where we’ve got rapid change, that there’s mis- and dis-information, that there’s questions around experts and their role and the authenticity of information. I think having broader conversations and an opening of minds, as was noted before, is probably more critical now than ever. And the final point I’d make is, when you start to see things or other groups around the world starting to copy this template in their own parliaments, I think it’s a real measure of success, and where people are starting to to realise that they too need to bring their own research communities with their own parliaments. I had the fortune of joining the first one in Canada and seeing that roll out in their own way. It’s a very smaller, very focused Science Meets Parliament there. The Europeans have been running a broader version for some time. But certainly, when we have conversations about the scale and the length of time and the engagement, the consistent engagement we’ve seen from parliamentarians over 25 years, we’re really much the envy of the world.
CB: Yeah, it is a form of flattery, I guess, when one has their ideas copied. So, to that extent, it does show that we’re on to something good here. This has been a terrific conversation, Jeremy. Ken and Cathy, thank you so much. From my perspective, what makes it interesting is we talk about tech transfer on this podcast, as the name suggests, but so many of the themes of tech transfer have come through this conversation around relationships and communication and patience in building those relationships. So, to that extent, I feel like I’ve been on different but highly related ground today, so I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Thank you all so much for your time today, and I’ll look forward to seeing you all in Canberra at Science Meets Parliament 25. Thanks very much.