meep or anyone else - What reasons do you think made Tony A decide not to have a seperate Ministry of Science for the first time in 82years?

---

@am*3 wrote:

It was the OP that queried your post originally, not me. I could see what she meant.

 

Who is Harry Porter?  don't answer that.

---

it does kinda look like a  tiny t...

Look who's in charge of Social Services.

another roman catholic?

---

@am*3 wrote:

meep or anyone else - What reasons do you think made Tony A decide not to have a seperate Ministry of Science for the first time in 82years?

---

without knowing all the details, what goes where, its a little difficult to answer.  (i don't suppose you would accept Tony Abbott's explanation?)

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

meep or anyone else - What reasons do you think made Tony A decide not to have a seperate Ministry of Science for the first time in 82years?

---

without knowing all the details, what goes where, its a little difficult to answer.  (i don't suppose you would accept Tony Abbott's explanation?)

---

Why is his explanation suitable/right?. 82 years of a Science Ministry and he decides we don't need a seperate one anymore.

Has he replaced the Science Ministry with anything?

Is it possible that his actions are financially driven, at least for the short term?

It could be that he is focusing on other areas in the short term and directing funding towards those areas in most need of attention with the intention of reintroducing a Science specific ministry when it becomes a priority or more funds are available.

Perhaps, its not that he doesn't consider Science to be a priority or important at the moment, just that in his informed opinion that that sector is operating efficiently and the money can be redirected to areas that are either under performing or in need of strict supervision for the short term.

If his goals and objectives are to decrease debt, he might have to make some hard decisions that whilst inconvenient short term may be more beneficial over all long term.

His explanation?

His explanation is that it will be part of Ministry of Industry. Effectively that reduces science to a manufacturing activity or one that supplies goods and services. It also means that the portfolio is at the whim of industry insiders and lobbyists.

But our most profound scientific discoveries occur before they get to industry stage.

So that means there is no foicus on research (except within the industry portfolio which has ethical implications) and there is no focus on creating new knowledge (excpet within the industry portfolio which again has ethical implications).

That's all we need - someone who thinks short term.

It's a bit like saying, education is really important but we don't need education reform right now because it costs too much money to educate our kids so we will wait until we can afford to do it.

Oh, I forget, that IS what he is saying about education...

OK...so....will the nuclear science and technology, the australian research council, the institute of marine science, the csiro - will they stay under Industry?