Obiter dicta by Professor Gavin Brown AO

Silence of the lambs

10 June 1999

One of the side effects of spending time in hospital is the taking of pleasure in the trivial pursuit of word games. So one prizes crossword clues - sacked employees (postmen); invents trivia questions - what do Manchester United, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the British government have in common? (Scottish managers); and asks old-fashioned riddles - spot the odd-man-out (Barry Jones).

For ten years, since the wimpish academic lobby failed to make him a successful Science Minister, Barry has decried the quality of public intellectual discourse in Australia and bemoaned the contribution of the universities. His trouble is a preference for colour over outcomes and for noise over effect. He is, it has been unkindly said, someone who can’t make an omelette without breaking wind.

It is therefore surprising to note the distressingly defensive reaction to the latest Jones article which appeared in Fairfax newspapers in both Melbourne and Sydney. Many have argued that Australian academics have no time to be intellectual leaders, that funding cuts and increases in on-the-job drudgery have made Barry’s analysis true, but that he was part author of the problem.

Even accepting both the accusation and the explanation, I have no sympathy for the contention that demonstrated fecklessness in academe is a recipe to convince government to restore our former glory. Indeed the positive response to the lobby for increased medical research funds was only possible because a case was mounted that investment would be repaid through outcomes.

None of this means that Barry Jones is wrong to question the depth of intellectual debate in Australia and most certainly the universities must be key players in that debate. Our expectations should however be grounded in realism. On a population count we can expect Australia to contribute something in the order of 2 per cent of the world’s creative endeavour. Size places no limit on the influence of outstanding individuals or on the impact of step-change groups. We will find only some fields and some people where, in the domain of the intellect, we can provide world leadership, but it is of prime importance that we do so.

That said, it is inevitable that much of the remaining work of Australian universities will be sifting, analysing and communicating ideas from elsewhere. At its best this is an exciting, vibrant and value-adding activity. We should encourage this form of creative scholarship and share the proceeds with the community.

I suspect that Barry Jones equates this with having the academics speak and write. Even more important may be to provide opportunity for journalists and other opinion formers to spend time in universities interacting with academic experts as questions arise and helping to formulate the questions that need to be asked as well as answered. The University of Sydney is working in several ways to achieve progress in this area.