Some uni research is useless. That's not necessarily a bad thing

Claiming the right to have your say, to do it your way, seems to be becoming de rigueur in some quarters.

No doubt there are fairly obvious issues about the crudeness of the announcement and implementation of these cuts.

But the principle behind the idea that a person, a company or a country that funds something is entitled to put some conditions around that funding is what is interesting. Funding can always be rejected.

The answer to the in-principle question of "Can I, as a funder of the arts or universities, put some conditions around the funding?" is a no-brainer. Of course, you can. It's your money and you're entitled, whether funding targeted research, pure research or the arts to put on conditions. If the body doesn't want to accept they can just say: "No, thanks".

Apparently, the cuts have little to do with the nature of the research, but it nonetheless raises the question of whether he who pays the piper is entitled to call the tune. The 1960 film Once More with Feeling has Yul Brynner as the conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra finally giving in to the demands of a philanthropic founder to play The Stars and Stripes Forever at a concert.

The issues play out quite well.

Which research should be funded is never an easy decision. One of best events I attended whilst in parliament for more than 20 years highlighted just that point. It was a lecture given by Paul Davies (now at Arizona State, but then at the University of Adelaide) at a medical research dinner.

Its title was "In Praise of Useless Research". It was riveting, compelling and had a lasting impact. There were a number of key takeouts.

First, researchers can't tell you what they're going to find.

If they knew that they wouldn't be researching. So, in science, let those at the top of their field seek to go further. Sure you don't know what you'll find. But you'll have the very best minds looking.

Second, you may not have any idea at the time how valuable your finding is. Embarrassingly, he told us South Australia was about the third in the world to launch a satellite.

Sadly, the government of the day didn't see the future and the program dried up. Talk about stupid. Internationally research into lasers got a similar cold shoulder, initially. It was seen as scientists sending lights across a room!

Third, don't imagine that targeted research will let you find what you want. He made the point that cures for various cancers were just as likely, if not more so, to be found by another piece of research targeting something completely different.

That was in the early '80s and it's never going to leave me. Pure research is extremely important and valuable. The fact that politicians can't see where it's going is irrelevant.

Does that mean that universities should be able to do entirely as they please and ignore any interest those who bankroll the research have? Of course not.

It's just stupid to cite all the magnificent things the world has benefited from that have come out of universities and say therefore they should be able to do what they like.

A quick look at quite a few universities in Australia and overseas would lead you to a different conclusion.

They used to be run by academics and no doubt many academics wish they still were.

That's just not feasible today. Universities are too big to manage without a managerial bureaucracy.

Are they all run equally efficiently and effectively? Clearly not.

Universities have always had a love-hate relationship with governments. They probably always will. Governments no doubt feel the same way.

They dish out enormous amounts of taxpayers money and the taxpayer expects governments to have a real interest in what we get for it. It's an awkward dance. And always will be.

Of course, way beyond universities, the desire for money with no strings attached is widespread.

In what dreamland does anyone with money say: "Here, do as you please".

That may appear to happen. All may go well for a while. The test comes when the person with money isn't happy with something that is done and wants to or does withdraw funding.

How egotistical do you need to be to imagine that you should be untouchable? That you can have your view but the people who fund you cannot.

READ MORE:

Whilst funders have a right to determine some conditions there are limits. Do they have a right to dictate the program or what research is done? Hell no.

But that's entirely different from setting some ground rules about what you are prepared to accept whilst your money is being used.

In an arts festival, for example, if you present three events focusing on one perspective of a hot political issue and none presenting another perspective that decision might be called into question.

What would be questioned is not the artistic integrity of each event but rather the selection of three, each putting the same viewpoint with none putting an alternative view.

It's the curatorial theme that's questioned, not the integrity of each show. Brett Sheehy, the outgoing artistic director of the Adelaide Festival of the Arts wrote an excellent piece on this recently. He questioned whether 50 per cent of humanity was being ignored or shut out.

Recently, someone put it to me that festivals aren't like the ABC.

They don't need to be balanced. That's, of course, absolutely true. But they shouldn't be biased either. A contest of ideas. That's always a good thing.

Why do some artists think pre- or post-performance audiences should have to endure a recitation of their political views?

Why are their views more important than anyone else in the performance or audience? It's egomania on steroids. Like anyone else, they can put their view out there on social media. By seeking to speak before or after a performance they are just free riding on the gravitas of the company putting on the performance.

Quite frankly, it's a wonder people don't heckle them to shut up. The audience must feel somewhat trapped, used. Let's face it, the artist isn't interested in the views of members of the audience. Perhaps the artists realise that without the audience trapped in their seats, without the gravitas of the company putting on the performance their own view might not rate.

This is a regrettably growing trend wherein people are sure they're entitled to put their view and you can just sit there and take it.

Can you say something with which they disagree? Probably not. No doubt they will find it threatening and upsetting and you will be told to back off.

Plenty of protesters seem to believe that their right to express their view extinguishes the rights of others. It's not only the right to have their say that is extinguished.

There are other flow-on effects of the egomaniacs' perceived right to express their view in whatever way they choose.

For example, the right to not have their property damaged, to get to work or a medical appointment, to travel on the roads, to view a statue of someone who may have engaged in activities with which the protester disagrees. So many bumptious free-speech claimants claim it for themselves but in a way that crushes the rights of others.