Epicurus, the great ancient Greek philosopher, had a pragmatic attitude towards his own vocation. One of his aphorisms, the source of which remains uncertain, reads: ‘Vain is the word of a philosopher, by which no mortal suffering is healed.’
The newly elected government seems to have taken some inspiration from Epicurus.
Last week, the Coalition called for a reprioritisation of Australian Research Council (ARC) funding away from what have been labelled ‘ridiculous‘ otherworldly projects on Hegelian idealism and the Heideggerian understanding of self to where it is ‘really needed’ in medical research and the applied sciences.
Academics were quick to fire back, attesting to the value of esoteric research and accusing politicians of being unqualified to pass judgement on the value of intellectual pursuits ‘they don’t understand and don’t care about.’
However, in the rush to rally around their profession, the academics weighing into the debate ignored the most important stakeholder in ARC-funded research: the community-at-large.
The rationale for reprioritising ARC funding is not that theoretical research is useless; it is rather that some highly specialised intellectual pursuits might not offer value for money for taxpayers.
In a democracy, taxpayers’ dollars need to be wisely used in the service of society, and public benefit tests must be a key determinant of how government funds are distributed.
University research should certainly not be held hostage to the personal judgements of politicians, but it behoves government-funded academics to offer a return on investment from the public purse.
To be sure, it would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect research paid for with taxpayers’ money to always produce immediate and obvious benefits for society.
Research without a clear ‘real-world’ use can yield massive but unforseen dividends: Alan Turing‘s arcane philosophical work on logic, metaphysics and mathematics formed part of the groundwork of modern computer science.
The wider contribution of research is also sometimes diffuse: Rigorous academic output, even in seemingly out of touch disciplines, helps fuel Australia’s colossal $15 billion worth of annual education exports by securing the high international standing of our universities and luring lucrative foreign students.
Taking cheap pot shots at supposedly ‘ridiculous’ ARC projects is ungracious and short-sighted; it does a disservice to the world-class research being done at Australian universities and the contribution it makes to our social and economic life.
Nevertheless, a more broadly epicurean outlook that stressed the importance of healing ‘mortal suffering’ and other earthly concerns would give due regard to Australian taxpayers – the often unacknowledged patrons of ARC research.
Benjamin Herscovitch is a Beijing-based Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Coalition education policy takes an epicurean turn
Coalition education policy takes an epicurean turn
The newly elected government seems to have taken some inspiration from Epicurus.
Last week, the Coalition called for a reprioritisation of Australian Research Council (ARC) funding away from what have been labelled ‘ridiculous‘ otherworldly projects on Hegelian idealism and the Heideggerian understanding of self to where it is ‘really needed’ in medical research and the applied sciences.
Academics were quick to fire back, attesting to the value of esoteric research and accusing politicians of being unqualified to pass judgement on the value of intellectual pursuits ‘they don’t understand and don’t care about.’
However, in the rush to rally around their profession, the academics weighing into the debate ignored the most important stakeholder in ARC-funded research: the community-at-large.
The rationale for reprioritising ARC funding is not that theoretical research is useless; it is rather that some highly specialised intellectual pursuits might not offer value for money for taxpayers.
In a democracy, taxpayers’ dollars need to be wisely used in the service of society, and public benefit tests must be a key determinant of how government funds are distributed.
University research should certainly not be held hostage to the personal judgements of politicians, but it behoves government-funded academics to offer a return on investment from the public purse.
To be sure, it would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect research paid for with taxpayers’ money to always produce immediate and obvious benefits for society.
Research without a clear ‘real-world’ use can yield massive but unforseen dividends: Alan Turing‘s arcane philosophical work on logic, metaphysics and mathematics formed part of the groundwork of modern computer science.
The wider contribution of research is also sometimes diffuse: Rigorous academic output, even in seemingly out of touch disciplines, helps fuel Australia’s colossal $15 billion worth of annual education exports by securing the high international standing of our universities and luring lucrative foreign students.
Taking cheap pot shots at supposedly ‘ridiculous’ ARC projects is ungracious and short-sighted; it does a disservice to the world-class research being done at Australian universities and the contribution it makes to our social and economic life.
Nevertheless, a more broadly epicurean outlook that stressed the importance of healing ‘mortal suffering’ and other earthly concerns would give due regard to Australian taxpayers – the often unacknowledged patrons of ARC research.
Benjamin Herscovitch is a Beijing-based Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: