Leonardo

A Policy Model for Self-Funding of Ethical Science through the ArtsAuthor(s): Robert PopeSource: Leonardo, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1993), pp. 145-148Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575900 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GENERAL NOTE

A Policy Model for Self-Funding of

Ethical Science through the Arts

Robert Pope

dIIIQ ver many years I have worked, through my art and in other ways, to bring the practitioners of art and science in Australia together in a mutually beneficial way. I have given lectures at UNESCO and ANZAAS congresses here in Australia, participated as "artist delegate" to the Marcell Grossman International Convention in Italy (which marked the 100th birthday of Albert Einstein), to the Thalian Mental Health Society in Hollywood, and to many others. I have founded two "barefoot" Science-Art Centers (using an "open-university" approach) in Australia that seem to work. And I think I have found some answers to the diffi- cult questions of the future roles of art in the sciences and of the sciences in art. I think that I understand something about science funding in the Western world, about ethics and social responsibility, and how these relate to art or how they may relate to art in the future. Also, I am able to speak about the existing situation without the fear that enshrouds scientists here in Australia. I have seen fear in action in uni- versity departments and quasi-government bureaucracies throughout Australia over the years.

I have formulated an idea of how science and art can interact for the benefit of an increasingly technological soci- ety, and I have put this idea into practice at our Science-Art Centre campuses-successfully, I think. Although there is some distance to go, and while the administration and other organisational structures and processes might be different for groups seeking to replicate the general direction of our experience, I think that our approach has had many success- ful elements. But in order to grasp what is right about this proposed model for funding ethical science through art, one first has to understand what is wrong with science and sci- ence funding at present. Although my experience deals with Australia in chief, some aspects are common throughout the Western world, and I believe that the model I put forth here has global, nonparochial significance.

At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, the Australian government funds 80% of all scientific research and development-a percentage exceeded amongst the 20 richest capitalist countries only by Iceland and New Zealand [1]. (In contrast, the Swedish government funds only 44%, the Canadian Department of Science 58%, and so on.) Martin et al. explain that this situation arose from a "van- guard of proselytising fundamental scientists flushed with their success in military work . . . following World War II . . .

[resulting in] a huge expansion of the tertiary education sys- tem and the introduction of the Australian Research Grants Scheme, as well as getting the ear of government on policy advisory bodies" [2].

Martin explains that, as a result, "big disciplines" (nuclear physics, plasma physics, medical research) "continue to claim a dispropor- tionate share of resources . . . [and] the dominance of male elites in scientific research has remained unchallenged." Clearly, scientists like to control what they do, but when so much of it is fund- ABTRACT

ed from the public purse and "the The current distribution of this huge he author addresses problems

pcurrent distribution of this huge with current science-funding models in

amount of money is neither equi- Australia and elsewhere. He then makes table nor effective . . . both the suggestions for more ethical funding of community and science as a whole the sciences through a more democratic can benefit if ... other voices are process in which the arts would play heard . . . chosen by lot from spec-

educational and economic roles-

fied constituencies (like jurors) ... . 1_ at all levels and not just on adviso- ry bodies ... [so that] the public's role should not be to 'hear and cheer' but to 'participate and decide' . . . [in an atmo-

sphere of] those in powerful positions protecting their fief- doms against threat in a ruthless boot-licking game" that has all but crippled the Australian scientific effort [3].

In Australia's national newspaper during a recent visit, Sir Fred Hoyle warned of "the death of Australian science," arguing that conformism and conservatism among scientists were leading to stagnation in important areas [4]. This was a direct result of most scientists relying on large institutions and organisations for funding. They were reluctant to pro- pose imaginative solutions for fear of earning the disapproval of the institutions and losing the funds for their work. "They're now merely cogs in a large piece of machinery," he stated-"they're very conformist cogs . . . science is grinding to a halt by virtue of the very nature of the organisation ... it's really, perhaps, the death of science." The key to scientif- ic progress is a "free and imaginative approach . . . the solu- tion to unsolved problems lying in unexpected directions," he argued-otherwise, "if the conventional view were cor- rect, the problems would already be solved" [5].

At least one official Australian government study has recently verified the plight of the "hard sciences" (physics and chemistry), which benefit most from public funding in Australia [6]. The study establishes that the hard sciences are

Robert Pope (artist, philosopher), Science-Art Research Center, P.O. Box 733, Murwillumbah, NSW 2484, Australia.

Received 12 December 1990.

LEONARDO, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 145-148 ? 1993 ISAST

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

seriously in decline, with a mass over- seas exodus of young graduates and professionals and proportionately far too few Australian scholarly papers being published on the world stage. Thus, to date, Australian politics and funding models for scientific research have been flawed in principle, have failed to produce the desired results and have served mainly to alienate the nation's brightest youth at the height of their creative potential. Another debili- tating straightjacket in Australian sci- ence, one which perhaps most inhibits young graduates, is called "the old school tie network"-in the United States it is known as "the alma maters." Talented young Australians are held back by a system that was British at the outset and still largely is. Australian physicists' professional bodies openly boast of "the Cavendish Tradition" [7]. Although the United States publishes 47.5% of the world's physics papers and Britain publishes 16.8%, Australian physicists nonetheless publish more of their papers in British journals than in American ones [8]. And Brian Martin obtained some notoriety for exposing a "Cambridge cabal" at the Australian National University. His views were the basis for an investigation by the Federal Ombudsman to see if the university was a "Cambridge colony down under . . . unfairly giving monopoly of tenured positions to Cambridge candidates. . . "

[9] More recently, the famous (and unquestionably highly talented) Paul Davies was imported from England to fill the prestigious professorship in physics at Adelaide University, no local academic apparently being suitable. Of course the international nature of sci- ence requires mobility of academics, but Brian Martin has drawn attention to the problem that many young Australian scientists perceive regarding British appointees to senior science positions in Australian universities. Whether real or not, this perceived trend discourages young science gradu- ates who are unable to progress in sci- ence within their own country. At worst it is an indication of cabals within academia.

Another problem that young people perceive in science is intellectual prosti- tution and outright fraud. They can see that tobacco-company scientists down- play the detrimental effects of smoking, that forest-industry scientists seem to advocate whatever the logging industry wants, that sewage-authority scientists deny the damage to marine ecosystems

from ocean sewer outfalls. In short, sci- entific opinions are often predictable, based on who the particular "expert" works for. Any claim to scientific objec- tivity must be taken with a degree of skepticism.

Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, during a recent Australian visit, claimed that Australian scientists are "so intimi- dated by the possibility of losing their research grants or jobs that they ask others to voice their views at interna- tional conferences." Many had asked Ehrlich to make statements for them because "they don't dare criticise envi- ronmentally destructive policies in forestry and mining because they're in danger of being fired or not getting their grants." He went on to claim that "Australia is famous in the scientific lit- erature for its suppression of scientific freedom and Australian scientists have been way behind scientists in other countries in drawing attention to popu- lation as a key conservation issue" [10].

If science is truly objective, why does modern Western science have such an ingrained human dimension? The kinds of science that get done and the kinds of people who do them are, to a large extent, dictated by funding from the public purse-funding that pro- ceeds without significant input from the public and without scrutiny or accountability. Has publicly funded sci- ence no other possible fate than to be taken over by the influential academic lobby groups-which are dedicated only to self-interest and loyalty to "the old school tie"-to the detriment of more talented individuals? Apart from these aspects of equity and justice, there are also the issues of research quality and value for money spent.

I do not suggest that we attempt to re-educate scientific peers in order to elevate them into cultural patriots, ded- icated to civic and intellectual virtue. In my opinion, any science-funding model that is based on self-regulation and which emphasises repression of self- interest for the public good is doomed to failure because reason has always been a slave to the passions. Various funding strategies have been tried, pri- orities and objectives variously evaluat- ed and redefined, yet science funding still seems to end up in the same hands: powerful lobby groups succeed because they are extremely adaptable and per- sistent.

Almost all science-research funds are spent within universities, even though 90% of the nation's brainpower (college

graduates and professionals) exists out- side the university system-in industry, private practice, etc. Powerful academic lobby groups, fearing that funds might be distributed beyond their control (i.e. more equitably), have rallied to the call of Professor Max Brennan (chairman of the ARGC) to "submit larger and more ambitious proposals to the ARGC" so as to squeeze out the "number of projects externally refereed, determined to be of good quality and which the ARGC has found itself unable to support . . . [because these projects were] increasing alarmingly: from zero in 1978 to 112 in 1980 and 372 in 1982. This trend was likely to continue . . . the ARGC had

adopted a policy, now supported by the Minister, of decreasing the number of grants so that those supported could be awarded larger sums" [11]. This advice made sense for the professional, gener- ally institution-affiliated physicist, not the genius in a garage to whom a small sum of money would make a larger dif- ference.

A sound strategy for funding, then, should not be based on exhorting sci- entists to attain unrealistic levels of virtue or self-regulation. Rather, it should accept human nature and cre- ate a funding structure that is con- trolled to prevent tyranny by any particular faction. Divisions regarding funding will always exist in the science community, just as they do between the rich and poor in the general communi-

ty. Justice, however, can be achieved through a funding body that structures a climate of competition for funding based on balancing opposing passions.

Lobbying power must be viewed as a force that inherently expands until checked by a counterbalancing force: power must be opposed to power, inter- est to interest, in such a way that worthy individuals outside the nation's tertiary institutions are not discriminated against merely for the sake of preserv- ing islands of privilege.

In this proposal, a strong science- funding executive would mediate between the influential and the weak, the institutional grant applicant and the worthy outsider. Rather than lead- ing to instability, such healthy com- petition would force institutional underachievers to compete on a more equal basis with uninfluential yet talent- ed outsiders, rather than relying upon influence and lobbying power. It would also mean that deserving research would not be bypassed for funding nearly as often as it is now.

146 Pope, A Policy Model for Self-Funding of Ethical Scien e

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Such a system might also be an effec- tive means of slowing the "brain drain" of talented young scientists, whom Australia is now losing to other coun- tries. It may also flush a few grey-haired underachievers out of our universities, thus creating new openings for worthy young scientists whose work, under the new system, would be capable of attract- ing public funding.

This new model could not be execut- ed by public servants or scientists simply self-administering taxpayers' funds, because "stacking" by powerful lobby groups, such as industry, government, the military and university academics themselves, would be inevitable. There needs to be a democratic body directly answerable to the wider public if science is to become at all publicly accountable.

Science should seek grassroots sup- port from the broader community rather than expecting to exist parasitically off the public purse. Under a plan of public accountability, universities could contin- ue to seek funds for traditional military and industrial research from their usual governmental sources-I would not want to encroach on intellectual freedom but, rather, to assert that we need a socially responsive, ethical, publicly accountable alternative science, which could be pro- moted and publicised by artists and funding through the arts. The sums of money involved in the arts are compara- ble to those of the military-industrial complex, with individual paintings by leading artists selling for more than state- of-the-art intercontinental missiles. Recently the Australian national gallery spent several million dollars on Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles, which is disintegrat- ing due to the poor quality of paint and materials. This is equivalent to $5 from the pocket of every unemployed Australian. And they spent as much again on a recent Picasso. Yet their multi- million dollar annual budget doesn't quite compare with, for example, the J. Paul Getty Museum, which couldn't work out how to spend a million dollars per week on art in the early 1980s (about $66 million per year in 1984). These large sums of money could be put to all kinds of other uses. I'm not necessarily arguing that they should be put to other uses, but merely pointing out that signifi- cant sums of money are involved in art in the Western world and that there is, accordingly, a social responsibility to wield these funds and this influence in a

and technology and use art as a force for social good. We need to remember that artifacts and objects of art can be vaporized in an instant in the heart of a nuclear explosion or through the calamity of a technological culture gone awry. Art and art-related money cannot exist apart from the rest of the world, playing no part in shaping and directing technology and science. Similarly, scien- tists cannot be trusted to cope with the consequences of their work without guidance from the broader community. They need artists and art to communi- cate scientific ideas and values to the general public, thereby putting research projects up for scrutiny and judgment. For example, it would be very difficult indeed for a scientist to obtain funding through the arts for research into vivi- section, nerve gas or weapons of mass destruction, and it would be equally hard for any artist or public-relations firm to sell such research. Indeed images of suffering animals, by artists, have revolutionised the cosmetics indus- try recently. Likewise the values of the public at large could limit antisocial and undesirable scientific research, which currently exploits the anonymity and

secrecy of the present peer-review sys- tems.

Similarly, powerful professional lob- by groups promoting technologies that conflict with global human needs could also be limited by public opinion. Funding for in-vitro fertilisation of first- world women, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per baby, could be considered in terms of its social merit- for example, thousands of third-world babies die each day but could be saved by the same amount of money spent on a single in-vitro baby. Likewise, the cost of heart transplants in elderly first- worlders (again involving huge sums of money and high technology), which could save thousands of young lives elsewhere in the world, should be reevaluated by the public that funds transplant research.

Thus socially irresponsible and inequitable expenditures in the health sciences could be influenced by with- drawal of public funding (e.g. childless couples could be counseled to adopt starving third-world orphans instead of paying for in-vitro procedures). The point is that ordinary people and art buyers can be empowered through

Fig. 1. Robert Pope, The Wheel, polysculpt and pewter, 5-ft diameter. The artist has used symbolism to represent the dilemma of art, science and society.

fashion that develops a wholesome cul- tural ethos. We need to pay attention to present and future directions in science

Pope, A Policy Model for Self-Funding of Ethical Science 147

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

national and international art markets to make or break areas of scientific research, thereby injecting a sense of humanitarian concern, a notion of pub- lic accountability and a new technologi- cal ethos by publicly and democratically taking control of the purse strings sup- porting scientific research.

Special-interest lobby groups, such as anti-abortionists, anti-evolution theo- rists, AIDS research lobbyists, pro-vivi- sectionists, and so on, could all make their cases publicly through art. High- profile artists could develop reputations for strong ethics as artists at the Art- Science Centres have done. Art could be produced and used in mass media.

Using this process, groups could objec- tively gauge the strength or weakness of

public support, knowing that they had at least had a democratic hearing and

input into science-funding priorities. An example of education through art

is my sculpture The Wheel (Fig. 1), which was first displayed at an exhibition

opened by the Premiere of Western Australia and reproduced in The Bulletin, January 1975. A pewter rim, represent- ing materialism, is chained to the ruins of past civilisations, each depicted by a broken tetrahedron. Utopia, the ideal or

perfect state, is denoted by the central island. Our present civilisation, repre- sented by the Science-Art rocketship, still chained but aimed towards the cen- tre, flanked by as-yet-unbroken tetrahe- drons, is caught in the schism between

Utopia and Oblivion. The implications of a wheel offortune for ethical science are

apparent in the symbolism of the design. Artists can interact with scientists and

paint their discoveries and aspirations, drawing new themes and ideas from a culture that is becoming increasingly technological. Of course painting is not the only medium: a variety of media are

possible and salable to a public that wants to be informed and educated about what is currently happening in sci-

ence. I have found that universities are interested in this up to a point: I was

appointed artist-in-residence at Sydney University, MacQuaries University, the

University of Western Australia and the Wait Institute in Adelaide, at times when

interesting discoveries were being made that scientists wanted to communicate to the lay audience. I found, too, that these

paintings were marketable international-

ly, not only because of the techniques of artistic rendering and visual communica- tion but because of the universal impor- tance of science. It was a mutually beneficial bridging of cultures that gen- erated money from painting sales, etc. Some of this money could then be chan- neled directly back into aspects of prima- ry scientific research that, in turn, provided new ideas and discoveries for me to paint. One discovery by a talented mathematician, Daniela Reverberi, pub- lished in a German newspaper (Zeit- schrift), provided the basis for my Zeitschrift Experience exhibition, one

painting from which was purchased by a

major Australian university. In this way artists, scientists, ordinary folk and insti- tutionalised academic power groups have the opportunity to come together, partic- ipate and share. It is a start in the battle to break down barriers and create a bet- ter system. Artist colleagues, including Robert Todonai, work with me, and it is

my hope that a whole guild of science-artists will arise in time as com-

municators of current science and tech-

nology to the public. Our experiences show, I believe, that science, through art, can be made both more relevant and accountable to a broader public. Paint-

ing sales can fund science. They have done so for nearly a decade in our vari- ous Science-Art Centers.

Acknowledgments This article is a compilation of ideas and opinions I have expressed at several public functions and lec- tures, inicluding the UNESCO symposium,

Melbourne University (1979); ANZAAS Congress, Qtieensland University (1981); and the 10th Annual Science-Art Congress, Uki (1990). I gratefully acknowledge Chris Illert and Sharon Johanson for their tireless and invaluable assistance.

References and Notes 1. B. Martin et al., "Who Gets Kicks out of Science Policy?" Search 17, Nos. 1-2, 41-46 (1986).

2. Martin [1].

3. Martin [1].

4. Jane Cadzow, "Sir Fred Warins of the Death of Science," The Australian, 23 November 1982, p. 3.

5. Cadzow [4].

6. Ian Anderson, "Study Shows . . . Physics Decline," Nezw Scientist (Australia and New Zealand) 22 September 1990.

7. See Australian Physicist 20, March 1983, pp. 46-50.

8. Australiain physicists publish 33% of their papers in British journals and publish only 30% of their papers in Americain jourinals. See Australian Physicist 21, December 1984, p. 267.

9. See "Just a Cambridge Circus," Nature 345, 3 May 1990, p. 9.

10. See the Daily Mirror, 11 October 1989, p. 15.

11. See the Australian Physicist 19, May 1982, p. 75.

Bibliography Balfour, Mark, "How a Philosophy of Art Became a New Scieince," Australian Artist 6, No. 7, 38-41 (1990).

Balfour, Mark, "The Marriage of Science and Art," Habitat Australia 16, No. 4, 36-38 (1988).

Balfour, Mark and Maria O'Neill, "Renaissaince in Science/Art," Millionaire2, No. 2, 92-95 (1989).

Eleveld, Jaap, "Pope: Kunst en Wetenschap Samen Redden de Wereld," Forma Aktueel 4 (1987) pp. 3-5.

Germaine, Max, Artists and Galleries in Australia, 3rd Ed. (Sydiney, Australia: Lansdown Press, 1990).

Illert, Chris, "Robert Pope . . . Founder of the Science-Art Research Ceintre," Scientific Australian 4, No. 7, 23-27 (1980).

Pope, Robert and Robert Todonai, Two Bob's Worth, Scienice-Art Library series (Adelaide, Autstralia: Griffin Press, 1988). This and other Science-Art titles are available at the Science-Art Centre gal- leries or by writing to the Science-Art Research Ceintre at P.O. Box 733, Murwillumbah, NSW 2484, Australia.

Pope, Robert, "Paintiing the Way Out," Bulletin 96(4939), 11 Januarv 1975, pp. 47-48.

148 Pope, A Policy Model for.SelfFunding of Ethical Science

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:42:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions