Report on the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council (30/5/97)
12/6/97
"The Australian Government considers the PMSEC (Prime Ministers Science and Engineering Council) to be a means of effectively communicating the work and achievements of Australian scientists, engineers and technologists to the public at large."
The cover statement, and the council can be examined at two levels of communication. One, the council as a vehicle for communication and two, the speakers and presentations within the council.
The Council as a vehicle for communication
The Council was held with two sittings, the morning public session and an afternoon private session. The public session had a limited seating in the public gallery (above and separate from the conference room) for members from the science, engineering and technology communities to overhear the council.
The active members of the council included ministers, ex officio members and some, mainly from industry, people appointed in a personal capacity. The council did not allow participation by those in the public gallery, nor was there much recognition (until the end) that the audience existed.
The council may enable communication of the works and achievements through some sort of trickle down effect (from the 50 odd audience through friends and colleagues), however it would seem to be a very inefficient and limited form of communication.
The media was present which might enable a greater audience to at least hear (not participate) in the council. However it is unlikely that the entire proceedings are to be broadcast, nor at a time of high viewership.
Additionally, the Council sits only twice a year which is unlikely to enable much coverage of the varied and multiple achievements and works of the many Australian scientists, engineers and technologists. The council only explored three options, further limiting the coverage the council gave of such works.
In the "Role of the PMSEC" section of the invitation letter it states that the council is to "...keep the Prime Minister and senior Ministers informed of key issues, thereby enhancing understanding of matters affecting government policies". Clearly it is this latter function that is being served by the council, not the public forum function. I would suggest that the statement given above was written with enticement in mind.
Communication methods of speakers within the Council
Of the three presentations, the final two given by working scientists each with half an hour, as opposed to the two hours allocated to three speakers from Telstra, Optus and News Ltd., were far superior.
The first presentation involved extensive displays of high technology, including live digital television and internet link ups via satellite. However the speakers were poorly presented, standing in the dark, and overheads were difficult to read.
The presentation aimed to show what the technology is possible of doing, and how it would be relevant to the community, in particular to the rural community. The presenters were clearly out of touch with this community in thinking that the technology at `only a few hundred dollars a month', would be affordable to the rural community, or even seen as being preferable to personal contact and services.
The working scientist presentations were significantly different to the business presentations in that the speakers were clear, made few points with distinct purpose and the visual communication was clear and understandable.
Of particular note was the third speaker's use of Power Point in presenting some potentially complex scientific ideas. The use of a dynamic slide presentation maintained interest. The slides were exceptionally clear. The animation capabilities of the presentation enabled graphic explanation of the methods in choosing suitable reefs for conservation. The impact was hard hitting in a way that a purely verbal or static slide presentation could not have been. I think it was highly effective in communicating the need for research to maximise the benefits of conservation..
The last two speakers' presentations followed a very similar structure, revealing much about the current funding situation for research and development. That is, they gave their findings from their basic research, showed how these findings related to very practical and commercial aspects, then made a plug for the importance of continued funding for basic research to the ministers present. This reaffirms the impression that the council is less about being a national public forum than an update and accounting for ministers and a plea for further funding from scientists.
Return to MSc in Science Communications page