"Therefore, it is with great regret and disappointment that I have formed the view that the events of the past few weeks places the Centre in an untenable position as it lacks the support needed across the University and the broader academic community to meet its contractual obligations and deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers. By its very nature a centre of this sort requires co-operation of a wide range of people across many fields." (Paul Johnson, Vice Chancellor, University of West Australia). The following is the letter from the Vice Chancellor addressed to colleagues on this issue.
Colleagues
In early April The University of Western Australia announced it had secured $4 million in Federal Government funding to establish an Australia Consensus Centre to undertake detailed economic cost benefit analysis into many of Australia’s, and the world’s, biggest challenges.
The Centre is unique in that it is to deliver robust, evidence-based knowledge and advice to the Australian Government on potential policy reforms and other interventions that will deliver the smartest, most cost-effective solutions in areas ranging from poverty, social justice and food sustainability. Many of these issues will form the basis of the United Nations’ post 2015 Development Goals.
Constructively contributing to this agenda should be the domain of a world leading university such as UWA.
The University of Western Australia embraced the opportunity to host the Centre as we, a credible and influential academic institution, have a duty to contribute to the global response by actively encouraging the exploration of new ideas, challenging established thinking, and posing the difficult "what if" questions.
This sentiment is captured in UWA’s values which espouse the importance of academic freedom to encourage staff and students to engage in the open exchange of ideas and thought; and fostering the values of openness, honesty, tolerance, fairness, trust and responsibility.
However, the creation of the Australia Consensus Centre attracted a mixed reaction from staff, students and the general public. The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the University did not predict.
Over the past few weeks, I have met and talked to staff, students and members of the public to hear their views, and to explain how the Centre will operate within the University, the type of economic analysis it will undertake, and to correct many mistruths and misunderstandings about the centre.
I have stated many times that it is not a centre to study climate change, that the University was not providing any direct funding to the Centre, and that that Bjorn Lomborg would not be involved in its day-to-day operations.
During this time, I have carefully considered several key questions to help better understand the views, opinions and emotions expressed during the debate.
I asked myself:
Is it appropriate for UWA to house a centre that will undertake economic cost benefit analysis to help governments evaluate the most effective ways to address many of the world’s challenges? Without a doubt. An examination of the United Nations’ post 2015 development goals, which include halving extreme poverty, halting the spread of AIDS, and providing universal primary education is evidence of the importance of testing our thinking about the best possible solution.
Is it appropriate for the Australia Consensus Centre to be funded by the Federal Government through a direct grant? Again the answer is yes as many well-respected research centres across the country are funded this way including the Australian Centre on China in the World at ANU, the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at James Cook University, and our own Perth USAsia Centre.
Is it appropriate for Doctor Bjorn Lomborg to be associated with UWA? I understand there are strong views on this issue. However, I believe that a man who has worked with many Nobel Laureate economists, has been named one of Time Magazine’s most influential people, and has published with Cambridge University Press meets the criteria of being made an Adjunct Professor – an honorary position that carries no salary.
Despite all this, there remains a strong opposition to the Centre. Whilst I respect the right of staff to express their views on this matter, as all Universities should be places for open and honest sharing and discussion of ideas, in this case, it has placed the University in a difficult position.
Therefore, it is with great regret and disappointment that I have formed the view that the events of the past few weeks places the Centre in an untenable position as it lacks the support needed across the University and the broader academic community to meet its contractual obligations and deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers. By its very nature a centre of this sort requires co-operation of a wide range of people across many fields.
Yours sincerely Paul Johnson
Comments
Dennis K
Sat, 2015-05-09 20:36
Permalink
Consensus by intimidation?
Sheila Newman
Sat, 2015-05-09 22:39
Permalink
Right wing think tanks and Lomborg
limits to growth (not verified)
Sun, 2015-05-10 12:39
Permalink
Clash of ideals
Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg has blamed "toxic politics, ad hominem attacks, and premature judgment" for the University of Western Australia's decision to pull out of his planned Australia Consensus Centre which would have advised on the best ways to tackle the world's development challenges.
Bjorn Lomborg blames 'toxic politics' for University back down on Australia Consensus Centre (9/5/15) | AFR
Lomborg has argued that climate change is real and poses problems, but is not as urgent a problem to the world as disease, poverty and lack of clean water. Surely climate change will exacerbate the latter, and so will population growth inhibit "development" of nations?
Rather than think-tanks, sponsored by governments, we have universities as business-like institutions, there to create an income flow for governments. Academics who want to build their careers need to play politics and stay on the "right" side, or be retired before they can be open and reveal objective and enlightened ideals. There's an idealistic clash between really dealing with the problems of the world, and with capitalist aims of big growth, profits, and globalisation.
Dennis K
Mon, 2015-05-11 21:04
Permalink
Academia has to support the scientific process first
Sheila Newman
Mon, 2015-05-11 23:40
Permalink
Money, science and environment incompatible
Add comment