Month: February 2018

We know the universe is vast, but how do we measure the distances between things? Dave Scrimshaw.

Let’s talk numbers for a moment.

The moon is approximately 384,000 kilometres away, and the sun is approximately 150 million kilometres away. The mean distance between Earth and the sun is known as the “astronomical unit” (AU). Neptune, the most distant planet, then, is 30 AU from the sun.

The nearest stars to Earth are 1,000 times more distant, roughly 4.3 light-years away (one light-year being the distance that light travels in 365.25 days – just under 10 trillion kilometres).

The Milky Way galaxy consists of some 300 billion stars in a spiral-shaped disk roughly 100,000 light-years across.

The Andromeda Galaxy, which can be seen with many home telescopes, is 2.54 million light years away. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

At present, the most distant observed galaxy is some 13.2 billion light-years away, formed not long after the Big Bang, 13.75 billion years ago (plus or minus 0.011 billion years).

The scope of the universe was illustrated by the astrophysicist Geraint Lewis in a recent Conversation article.

He noted that, if the entire Milky Way galaxy was represented by a small coin one centimetre across, the Andromeda Galaxy would be another small coin 25 centimetres away.

Going by this scale, the observable universe would extend for 5 kilometres in every direction, encompassing some 300 billion galaxies.

But how can scientists possibly calculate these enormous distances with any confidence?

Parallax

One technique is known as parallax. If you cover one eye and note the position of a nearby object, compared with more distant objects, the nearby object “moves” when you view it with the other eye. This is parallax (see below).

Booyabazooka

The same principle is used in astronomy. As Earth travels around the sun, relatively close stars are observed to move slightly, with respect to other fixed stars that are more distant.

Distance measurements can be made in this way for stars up to about 1,000 light-years away.

Standard candles

For more distant objects such as galaxies, astronomers rely on “standard candles” – bright objects that are known to have a fixed absolute luminosity (brightness).

Since light flux falls off as the square of the distance, by measuring the actual brightness observed on Earth astronomers can calculate the distance.

One type of standard candle, which has been used since the 1920s, is Cepheid variable stars.

Distances determined using this scheme are believed accurate to within about 7% for more nearby galaxies, and 15-20% for the most distant galaxies.

Type Ia supernovas

In recent years scientists have used Type Ia supernovae. These occur in a binary star system when a white dwarf star starts to attract matter from a larger red dwarf star.

As the white dwarf gains more and more matter, it eventually undergoes a runaway nuclear explosion that may briefly outshine an entire galaxy.

Because this process can occur only within a very narrow range of total mass, the absolute luminosity of Type Ia supernovas is very predictable. The uncertainty in these measurements is typically 5%.

In August, worldwide attention was focused on a Type Ia supernova that exploded in the Pinwheel Galaxy (known as M101), a beautiful spiral galaxy located just above the handle of the Big Dipper in the Northern Hemisphere. This is the closest supernova to the earth since the 1987 supernova, which was visible in the Southern Hemisphere.

These and other techniques for astronomical measurements, collectively known as the “cosmic distance ladder”, are described in an excellent Wikipedia article. Such multiple schemes lend an additional measure of reliability to these measurements.

In short, distances to astronomical objects have been measured with a high degree of reliability, using calculations that mostly employ only high-school mathematics.

Thus the overall conclusion of a universe consisting of billions of galaxies, most of them many millions or even billions of light-years away, is now considered beyond reasonable doubt.

Right tools for the job

The kind of distances we’re dealing with above do cause consternation for some since, as we peer millions of light-years into space, we are also peering millions of years into the past.

Some creationists, for instance, have theorised that, in about 4,000 BCE, a Creator placed quadrillions of photons in space en route to Earth, with patterns suggestive of supernova explosions and other events millions of years ago.

Needless to say, most observers reject this notion. Kenneth Miller of Brown University commented, “Their [Creationists’] version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality.”

There are plenty of things in the universe to marvel at, and plenty of tools to help us understand them. That should be enough to keep us engaged for now.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Jonathan Borwein (Jon)*

Australia faces many big challenges – in the economy, health, energy, water, climate change, infrastructure, sustainable agriculture and the preservation of our precious biodiversity.

To meet these, we need creative scientists and engineers drawn from many disciplines, and a technologically skilled workforce.

The many world-changing advances and achievements of Australian research and development (R&D) are encouraging. Indeed, the Australian Academy of Science, of which I’m president, believes our country’s scientific potential has never been greater.

But our ability to improve this performance in the future, or even maintain it, is not assured.

Four things threaten our ongoing R&D performance and, as a consequence, our economic security and prosperity, and I’ll address each of these in turn.

1) The level of investment in R&D

Over the past decade, successive Australian governments have recognised the need to properly invest in research and innovation.

Total investment by the current government has increased by almost 43% and is projected to amount to $9.4 billion dollars over the current financial year. This is very commendable.

It’s heartening to see Australia’s business sector is also increasing its investment – although admittedly this boost is coming off a low base compared to many other OECD nations. (Australia ranks 14th for business expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP).

But to remain competitive internationally we need even greater investment.

Australia spends around 2.2% of its GDP (around AU$900 per person per year) on research and development.

Iceland, the next best-ranked country, devotes 2.6% cent of GDP. Top of the list is Israel, with 4.6%, followed by Finland and Sweden, each of which spend 3.6%.

We have around 92,000 full-time equivalent researchers which, again, is only middle order. According to the OECD, in 2008 the proportion of R&D personnel in our total labour force puts Australia 16th, well short of Canada, which ranks ninth.

China has more than 1.6 million people working on research and development, a number that’s increasing rapidly. (China is ranked 33rd, with 2.5 R&D personnel per thousand in the workforce, from a total population of 1.3 billion)

Worryingly, Australia sits well within the bottom half of OECD countries (ranked 20th of 30) when it comes to the number of university graduates emerging with a science or engineering degree per capita.

These are sobering statistics.

The Australian Academy of Science therefore calls on the government to create a Sovereign Fund for Science, to secure the future prosperity of the nation.

The goal should be to increase Australia’s research and development expenditure to at least 3% of GDP by 2020.

2) International collaboration

By its very nature, science is a collaborative enterprise. It transcends generations, individual scientific disciplines and, increasingly, national boundaries. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, we see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Australia produces only 2% of the world’s knowledge. To gain access to the other 98%, we must ensure our scientists are well-connected internationally.

Getting involved with major international projects at inception allows Australia to stay abreast of new scientific developments, to have a say in their direction, to take the knowledge further, and to apply it.

International collaborations also attract scientists from overseas to spend time in Australia, bringing us new skills and knowledge. Importantly, many return and become part of our scientific workforce.

Work arising from such collaborations often attracts great attention and gets cited more frequently. Take the recently announced kangaroo genome sequence, which garnered international media attention.

This work was done by a consortium of more than 100 researchers from Australia, the US, the UK, Germany and Japan, headed by my friend and Academy colleague Professor Marilyn Renfree. The “kangaroo” was in fact the Tammar wallaby.

Its genome is yielding many unexpected insights that may have significance for humans as well as for wallabies – for example the genes that make antibiotics in the mother’s milk to protect the tiny newborns from harmful bacteria.

There are many such examples.

We hope to bring international astronomers to Australia by winning the bid to build a giant collection of radio telescopes in the Western Australian desert. Known as the Square Kilometre Array, or SKA, this international project – which could go to either South Africa or Australia – will give astronomers huge insights into the formation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies after the Big Bang.

Barriers that have impeded the use of Australian research grants for international collaborations are being dismantled.

Today many grants and fellowships provided by the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council and CSIRO support projects that include international partners.

Many of these linkages were initially catalysed by the federal government’s International Science Linkages (or ISL) program.

With funding of about $10 million per year, the ISL program has supported bilateral and multilateral relations with many other countries.

Regrettably, the ten-year program ended in June this year as funding was not renewed in the 2011-2012 Budget.

Put simply, it would be a grave blow if our ability to compete on the international stage were to be diminished.

I strongly urge the Federal Government to fund in its next Budget a new program to provide strategic support for Australia’s International Science Linkages.

3) Science capability in the workforce

We are a lucky nation: we have access to immense mineral wealth. But resources are finite. Even the minerals sector acknowledges that we cannot ride the current boom indefinitely.

Further, the Minerals Council of Australia warns skills shortages and structural weaknesses in the Australian economy have been masked by the boom.

And so, when the end of the mining boom comes, where will Australia be?

There is broad consensus among minds more economically astute than mine that our future prosperity will depend upon:

• a skilled workforce
• innovation
• entrepreneurship
• high productivity
• the creation of the kind of knowledge-intensive goods and services that can only result from robust research and development.

Certain skills are already in short supply in Australia.

In fact, the No More Excuses report issued by the Industry Skills Council earlier this year points to an alarming deficit in even basic skills.

According to that report, “millions of Australians have insufficient language, literacy and numeracy skills to benefit fully from training or to participate effectively at work”.

A recent project looking at the maths skills of bricklaying apprentices at a regional TAFE showed:

• 75% could not do basic arithmetic.
• 80% could not calculate the area of a rectangle, or the pay owed for working four-and-a-half hours.

Such figures are particularly worrying at a time when the demand for higher-level skills is increasing.

It’s essential we act now to ease the bottleneck and put in place measures that will create the technologically competent workforce we need for the future.

We can, and should, be “the clever country”. But this will only happen if we place appropriate emphasis on properly educating our young people.

4) Science and maths education

Without a robust and inspiring science and maths education system, it’s impossible to create an internationally competitive workforce.

Myriad jobs – apart from the obvious research, engineering and technology careers – require a basic understanding of science and maths.

And, as a parent, a mentor of young scientists and a passionate advocate for quality education, I know that all children are natural born scientists.

“Why?”, “How?”, and “What happens if …?” are questions asked frequently by young children, whose natural spirit of inquiry is crucial to understanding the big, exciting world around them.

We need to harness this natural curiosity and nurture it with inspiring education.

Australian public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is just 4.2% – significantly below the OECD average of 5.4%.

A decade ago, a review of Australian science education, revealed many students were disappointed with their high school science.

Today, this disenchantment continues, as evidenced by the declining number of students choosing to study science in senior secondary school. Consider the following:

• In 1991, more than a third of Year 12 students chose to study biology. That now sits at less than a quarter.
• 23% of Year 12 students studied chemistry ten years ago, compared with 18% now.
• In the same period, physics has fallen from 21% to 14%.

While Australian students have been losing interest in science, their international peers have been taking it up with great enthusiasm.

The OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) examines the scientific literacy of teenagers in 57 different countries.

In 2000, the only nations that performed better than Australia were Korea and Japan. In 2009 – the most recent figures available – Australia ranked behind Shanghai, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Korea.

What happened? The Assessment indicated that the performance of other countries has improved while Australia’s has remained stationary.

Maths

Australia’s early secondary mathematical literacy scores have significantly declined over the last decade. Our Year 4 and Year 8 students ranked 14th internationally in the most recent Trends International Mathematics and Science Study, conducted in 2007.

The decline in Australia’s mathematical literacy is of grave concern because mathematics is an enabling science, without which it’s not possible to make use of other sciences – either in the lab or in the workforce.

A recent survey conducted by Science and Technology Australia and the Academy of Science showed Australians clearly value science – 80% of respondents acknowledged science education is absolutely essential or very important to the national economy.

But it also revealed some alarming holes in the basic science understanding of the average Australian.

• Three in ten believe humans were around at the time of dinosaurs.
• More than a fifth of our university graduates think that it takes just one day for the Earth to travel around the sun.
• Almost a third of Australians do not think evolution is currently occurring.
• About a quarter say human activity is not influencing the evolution of other species: a worrying statistic given the impact that human activity is having on the environment.

In other words, many of us do not understand even the most basic science.

How can we halt this slide in science and maths in our schools and attain an internationally enviable position?

Thankfully, our government is already investing significantly in school infrastructure and in rolling out a national high-speed internet network.

Last December, education ministers approved the content for new national curricula in English, history, maths and science. In coming months, they’ll be asked to sign off on the standards for these curricula. This is an important initiative, and the Academy of Science applauds it.

But we also need investment in teachers, and in inspiring curriculum programs.

This is a responsibility for both the Commonwealth and the States, who must work together rather than reverting to the blame game.

Inspired (and inspiring) teachers will be the most important agents for improving educational outcomes.

We must place a much higher societal value on teachers and do everything we can to recruit some of our brightest and best into teaching.

We must support these educators with the best tools and resources available and provide them with stimulating opportunities for ongoing training.

I agree with the prime minister that we live in a crucial time for science in Australia and around the world.

In fact, I could not agree more.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Suzanne Cory, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)

Are we getting closer to solving one of life’s greatest mysteries?

During a lunch in the summer of 1950, physicists Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and Herbert York were chatting about a recent New Yorker cartoon depicting aliens abducting trash cans in flying saucers. Suddenly, Fermi blurted out, “Where is everybody?”

He reasoned: “Since there are likely many other technological civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy, and since in a few tens of thousands of years at most they could have explored or even colonised many distant planets, why don’t we see any evidence of even a single extraterrestrial civilisation?”

This has come to be known as Fermi’s Paradox.

Clearly the question of whether other civilisations exist is one of the most important questions of modern science. Any discovery of a distant civilisation – say by analysis of microwave data – would rank as among the most far-reaching of all scientific discoveries.

Drake equation

At a 1960 conference regarding extraterrestrial intelligence, Frank Drake (1930 —) sketched out what is now the Drake equation, estimating the number of civilisations in the Milky Way with which we could potentially communicate:

where

N = number of civilisations in our galaxy that can communicate.

R* = average rate of star formation per year in galaxy.

f_p = fraction of those stars that have planets.

n_e = average number of planets that can support life, per star that has planets.

f_l = fraction of the above that eventually develop life.

f_i = fraction of the above that eventually develop intelligent life.

f_c = fraction of civilisations that develop technology that signals existence into space.

L = length of time such civilisations release detectable signals into space.

The result? Drake estimated ten such civilisations were out there somewhere in the Milky Way.

This analysis, led to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, looking for radio transmissions in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum thought best suited for interstellar communication.

But after 50 years of searching, using increasingly powerful equipment, nothing has been found.

So where is everybody?

Proposed solutions to Fermi’s paradox

Numerous scientists have examined Fermi’s paradox and proposed solutions. The following is a list of some of the proposed solutions, and common rejoinders:

• Such civilisations are here, or are observing us, but are under orders not to disclose their existence.

Common rejoinder: This explanation (known as the “zookeeper’s theory”) is preferred by some scientists including, for instance, the late Carl Sagan. But it falls prey to the fact that it would take just one member of an extraterrestrial society to break the pact of silence – and this would seem inevitable.

• Such civilisations have been here and planted seeds of life, or perhaps left messages in DNA.

Common rejoinder: The notion that life began on Earth from bacterial spores or the like that originated elsewhere, known as the “panspermia theory”, only pushes the origin of life problem to some other star system – scientists see no evidence in DNA sequences of anything artificial.

• Such civilisations exist, but are too far away.

Common rejoinder: A sufficiently advanced civilisation could send probes to distant stars, which could scout out suitable planets, land and construct copies of themselves, using the latest software beamed from home.

So the entire Milky Way galaxy could be explored within, at most, a few million years.

• Such civilisations exist, but have lost interest in interstellar engagement.

Common rejoinder: As with the zookeeper theory, this would require each civilisation to forever lack interest in communication and transportation – and someone would most likely break the pact of silence.

• Such civilisations are calling, but we don’t recognise the signal.

Common rejoinder: This explanation doesn’t apply to signals sent with the direct purpose of communicating to nascent technological societies. Again, it is hard to see how a galactic society could enforce a global ban.

• Civilisations invariably self-destruct.

Common rejoinder: This contingency is already figured into the Drake equation (the L term, above). In any event, we have survived at least 100 years of technological adolescence, and have managed (until now) not to destroy ourselves in a nuclear or biological apocalypse.

Relatively soon we will colonise the moon and Mars, and our long-term survival will no longer rely on Earth.

• Earth is a unique planet in fostering long-lived ecosystems resulting in intelligent life.

Common rejoinder: Perhaps, but the latest studies, in particular the detections of extrasolar planets point in the opposite direction. Environments like ours appear quite common.

• We are alone in the Milky Way galaxy. Some scientists further conclude we are alone in the entire observable universe.

Common rejoinder: This conclusion flies in the face of the “principle of mediocrity,” namely the presumption, popular since the time of Copernicus, that there’s nothing special about human society or environment.

Numerous other proposed solutions and rejoinders are given in by Stephen Webb in his 2002 book, If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens … Where is Everybody?.

Two of Drake’s key terms – fp (the fraction of stars that have planets) and ne (the average number of planets that can support life, per star that has planets) are subject to measurement.

Scientists once thought stable planetary systems and Earth-like planets were a rarity. But recent evidence suggests otherwise.

Thanks to Kepler and other projects, these two terms have been found to have reasonable values, although not quite as optimistic as Drake and his colleagues first estimated.

With every new research finding in the area of extrasolar planets and possible extraterrestrial living organisms, the mystery of Fermi’s paradox deepens.

“Where is everybody?” is a question that now carries even greater resonance.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Jonathan Borwein (Jon)*

Australia faces many big challenges – in the economy, health, energy, water, climate change, infrastructure, sustainable agriculture and the preservation of our precious biodiversity.

To meet these, we need creative scientists and engineers drawn from many disciplines, and a technologically-skilled workforce.

The many world-changing advances and achievements of Australian research and development (R&D) are encouraging. Indeed, the Australian Academy of Science, of which I’m president, believes our country’s scientific potential has never been greater.

But our ability to improve this performance in the future, or even maintain it, is not assured.

Four things threaten our ongoing R&D performance and, as a consequence, our economic security and prosperity, and I’ll address each of these in turn.

1) The level of investment in R&D

Over the past decade, successive Australian governments have recognised the need to properly invest in research and innovation.

Total investment by the current government has increased by almost 43%, and is projected to amount to $9.4 billion dollars over the current financial year. This is very commendable.

It’s heartening to see Australia’s business sector is also increasing its investment – although admittedly this boost is coming off a low base compared to many other OECD nations. (Australia ranks 14th for business expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP).

But to remain competitive internationally we need even greater investment.

Australia spends around 2.2% of its GDP (around AU$900 per person per year) on research and development.

Iceland, the next best-ranked country, devotes 2.6% cent of GDP. Top of the list is Israel, with 4.6%, followed by Finland and Sweden, each of which spend 3.6%.

We have around 92,000 full-time equivalent researchers which, again, is only middle order. According to the OECD, in 2008 the proportion of R&D personnel in our total labour force puts Australia 16th, well short of Canada, which ranks ninth.

China has more than 1.6 million people working on research and development, a number that’s increasing rapidly. (China is ranked 33rd, with 2.5 R&D personnel per thousand in the workforce, from a total population of 1.3 billion)

Worryingly, Australia sits well within the bottom half of OECD countries (ranked 20th of 30) when it comes to the number of university graduates emerging with a science or engineering degree per capita.

These are sobering statistics.

The Australian Academy of Science therefore calls on the government to create a Sovereign Fund for Science, to secure the future prosperity of the nation.

The goal should be to increase Australia’s research and development expenditure to at least 3% of GDP by 2020.

2) International collaboration

By its very nature, science is a collaborative enterprise. It transcends generations, individual scientific disciplines and, increasingly, national boundaries. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, we see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Australia produces only 2% of the world’s knowledge. To gain access to the other 98%, we must ensure our scientists are well-connected internationally.

Getting involved with major international projects at inception allows Australia to stay abreast of new scientific developments, to have a say in their direction, to take the knowledge further, and to apply it.

International collaborations also attract scientists from overseas to spend time in Australia, bringing us new skills and knowledge. Importantly, many return and become part of our scientific workforce.

Work arising from such collaborations often attracts great attention and gets cited more frequently. Take the recently announced kangaroo genome sequence, which garnered international media attention.

This work was done by a consortium of more than 100 researchers from Australia, the US, the UK, Germany and Japan, headed by my friend and Academy colleague Professor Marilyn Renfree. The “kangaroo” was in fact the Tammar wallaby.

Its genome is yielding many unexpected insights that may have significance for humans as well as for wallabies – for example the genes that make antibiotics in the mother’s milk to protect the tiny newborns from harmful bacteria.

There are many such examples.

We hope to bring international astronomers to Australia by winning the bid to build a giant collection of radio telescopes in the Western Australian desert. Known as the Square Kilometre Array, or SKA, this international project – which could go to either South Africa or Australia – will give astronomers huge insights into the formation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies after the Big Bang.

Barriers that have impeded the use of Australian research grants for international collaborations are being dismantled.

Today many grants and fellowships provided by the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council and CSIRO support projects that include international partners.

Many of these linkages were initially catalysed by the federal government’s International Science Linkages (or ISL) program.

With funding of about $10 million per year, the ISL program has supported bilateral and multilateral relations with many other countries.

Regrettably, the ten-year program ended in June this year as funding was not renewed in the 2011-2012 Budget.

Put simply, it would be a grave blow if our ability to compete on the international stage were to be diminished.

I strongly urge the Federal Government to fund in its next Budget a new program to provide strategic support for Australia’s International Science Linkages.

3) Science capability in the workforce

We are a lucky nation: we have access to immense mineral wealth. But resources are finite. Even the minerals sector acknowledges that we cannot ride the current boom indefinitely.

Further, the Minerals Council of Australia warns skills shortages and structural weaknesses in the Australian economy have been masked by the boom.

And so, when the end of the mining boom comes, where will Australia be?

There is broad consensus among minds more economically astute than mine that our future prosperity will depend upon:

• a skilled workforce
• innovation
• entrepreneurship
• high productivity
• the creation of the kind of knowledge-intensive goods and services that can only result from robust research and development.

Certain skills are already in short supply in Australia.

In fact, the No More Excuses report issued by the Industry Skills Council earlier this year points to an alarming deficit in even basic skills.

According to that report, “millions of Australians have insufficient language, literacy and numeracy skills to benefit fully from training or to participate effectively at work”.

A recent project looking at the maths skills of bricklaying apprentices at a regional TAFE showed:

• 75% could not do basic arithmetic.
• 80% could not calculate the area of a rectangle, or the pay owed for working four-and-a-half hours.

Such figures are particularly worrying at a time when the demand for higher-level skills is increasing.

It’s essential we act now to ease the bottleneck and put in place measures that will create the technologically-competent workforce we need for the future.

We can, and should, be “the clever country”. But this will only happen if we place appropriate emphasis on properly educating our young people.

4) Science and maths education

Without a robust and inspiring science and maths education system, it’s impossible to create an internationally-competitive workforce.

Myriad jobs – apart from the obvious research, engineering and technology careers – require a basic understanding of science and maths.

And, as a parent, a mentor of young scientists and a passionate advocate for quality education, I know that all children are natural born scientists.

“Why?”, “How?”, and “What happens if …?” are questions asked frequently by young children, whose natural spirit of inquiry is crucial to understanding the big exciting world around them.

We need to harness this natural curiosity and nurture it with inspiring education.

Australian public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is just 4.2% – significantly below the OECD average of 5.4%.

A decade ago, a review of Australian science education, revealed many students were disappointed with their high school science.

Today, this disenchantment continues, as evidenced by the declining number of students choosing to study science in senior secondary school. Consider the following:

• In 1991, more than a third of Year 12 students chose to study biology. That now sits at less than a quarter.
• 23% of Year 12 students studied chemistry ten years ago, compared with 18% now.
• In the same period, physics has fallen from 21% to 14%.

While Australian students have been losing interest in science, their international peers have been taking it up with great enthusiasm.

The OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) examines the scientific literacy of teenagers in 57 different countries.

In 2000, the only nations that performed better than Australia were Korea and Japan. In 2009 – the most recent figures available – Australia ranked behind Shanghai, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Korea.

What happened? The Assessment indicated that the performance of other countries has improved while Australia’s has remained stationary.

Maths

Australia’s early secondary mathematical literacy scores have significantly declined over the last decade. Our Year 4 and Year 8 students ranked 14th internationally in the most recent Trends International Mathematics and Science Study, conducted in 2007.

The decline in Australia’s mathematical literacy is of grave concern because mathematics is an enabling science, without which it’s not possible to make use of other sciences – either in the lab or in the workforce.

A recent survey conducted by Science and Technology Australia and the Academy of Science showed Australians clearly value science – 80% of respondents acknowledged science education is absolutely essential or very important to the national economy.

But it also revealed some alarming holes in the basic science understanding of the average Australian.

• Three in ten believe humans were around at the time of dinosaurs.
• More than a fifth of our university graduates think that it takes just one day for the Earth to travel around the sun.
• Almost a third of Australians do not think evolution is currently occurring.
• About a quarter say human activity is not influencing the evolution of other species: a worrying statistic given the impact that human activity is having on the environment.

In other words, many of us do not understand even the most basic science.

How can we halt this slide in science and maths in our schools and attain an internationally enviable position?

Thankfully, our government is already investing significantly in school infrastructure and in rolling out a national high-speed internet network.

Last December, education ministers approved the content for new national curricula in English, history, maths and science. In coming months, they’ll be asked to sign off on the standards for these curricula. This is an important initiative and the Academy of Science applauds it.

But we also need investment in teachers, and in inspiring curriculum programs.

This is a responsibility for both the Commonwealth and the States, who must work together rather than reverting to the blame game.

Inspired (and inspiring) teachers will be the most important agents for improving educational outcomes.

We must place a much higher societal value on teachers and do everything we can to recruit some of our brightest and best into teaching.

We must support these educators with the best tools and resources available and provide them with stimulating opportunities for ongoing training.

I agree with Prime Minister Julia Gillard that science is one of the fundamental platforms upon which our conception of a modern advanced society is based.

I agree with the prime minister that we live in a crucial time for science in Australia and around the world.

In fact, I could not agree more.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Suzanne Coryter *