20161209_105330

Photos from the field: East Gippsland, Victoria

I recently began a brand new project with the University of Melbourne. The beginning of a new project is filled with equal parts excitement and trepidation—excitement at the novelty, the blank canvas, the potential, and trepidation at not wanting to put a foot wrong in critical early decisions that will affect the outcome of a career-defining opportunity.

Here the photos from a first foray into East Gippsland, surveying sites for bird-pollinated Prostanthera walteri.

img_2600

Mt. Elizabeth

 

img_2604

img_2610

Snowy River National Park

img_2659

Prostanthera walteri

img_2543

Prostanthera hirtula

img_2613

McKillops Bridge

img_2614

The Snowy River

img_2616

The Snowy River

img_2623

Prostanthera walteri

img_2638

img_2626

Snowy River National Park

img_2645

Gippsland waratah – Telopea oreades

prostcomp1

Floral diversity in Prostanthera

 

As you were, Australian researchers.

Waking up to look at this before a coffee and a shower was enough to put me into fight or flight mode this morning.

With hackles raised I read on and found a sciency corner of Australian Twitter users in a flap about Abbott’s 20% ARC cuts. #AbbottsRazor #ARCcuts etc etc

While the wording of these Tweets is strictly true, they are also completely misrepresenting the politics of these ARC funding estimates.

The numbers are below. The top row is the current budget handed down by Labour in 2013. The middle row is the Abbott Government amendment. The bottom row is the difference. Numbers represented in thousands (000’s).

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

TOTAL

May budget

$883,959

$879,983

$834,587

$788,710

$3,387,239

Amendment

$883,959

$853,110

$783,253

$716,205

$3,236,527

Difference

$0

$26,873

$51,334

$72,505

$150,712

YES. ARC funding will dive by 19% in the next 4 years. But this is a dive courtesy of the Labour Government’s May 2013 budget.

YES. Abbott is cutting funding further, but this amounts to 4% cut in total ARC spending over the next 4 years. The majority of the sliding investment trend came from the initial budget trajectory set out in May.

The time to make a flap about budget cuts was in May. And some of us had a good whinge then. The truth of this latest news is that it is a continuation of the prevailing “death by a thousand cuts” trend, as another shaving is whittled off our future investment in research and innovation.

But the big lesson here is to hold fire when it comes to social media. A forgiving person might acknowledge that this shows that scientists are only human, prone to the occasional passionate, emotional, reactionary outbursts. A harder judge might question whether researchers who don’t think critically and do a bit of their own “research”, deserve any ARC funding at all.

Thanks Alice Hutchings, for engaging your brain. And Tom Stayner for the title.

Postscript

Jeremy Shearman from the Genome Institute in Thailand has produced this graphic showing the effect of amendments on ARC funding over the last few years. The trend is one of providing more upfront dollars with increasingly steep sliding scales of less funding later.

ARC funding amendment history