Re: Government wishful thinking
>> Nobel Prize winners sounds great until you realise that almost all winners are rewarded for work done decades earlier. If the Aussie government were able to promise significant funding over a significant period they might get one or two.
> Whatever the duration between receiving the Nobel and the work it was granted for is irrelevant. Having a Nobel winner (excluding the irrelevant politically selected 'Peace' one) on staff gives esteem to the institution they are working for (ok, yes, even the Peace Nobel, despite the disdain I hold it in, many others don't and it can have pulbic relations value). This leads to an increase in the number and quality of people who want to work at the same institution that has a Nobel winner on staff, thus attracting high-quality applicants to go to the country. So even if the work they did for a Noble was 50 years ago, and the prize was awarded 30 years ago, are you saying that an institution and host country that had, say, Roger Penrose as a Dean or other Professorship/post-grad advisor wouldn't attract larger numbers of highly skilled and qualified academics/researchers?
I entirely agree with you but Nobel prize winners already have the recognition and reputation that brings talent to their institution. They almost certainly already have tenure. So what is the incentive for them to upsticks and move to Australia? Not much. This is why I say the Australian Government are kidding themselves.
> Further more, I'm sure many winners who are still active in their fields would be surprised by the disdain you seem to hold them in. Just because their most productive years might be over doesn't mean their output is no longer relevant, significant or valued. The smartest people in the world running at 66% efficiency relative to their heyday are still amongst the sdmartest people in the world. And they have a lot of experience and built-up knowledge.
I don't hold them in disdain at all - those are your words not mine. Again, I entirely agree with you that having won a prize for work done in the past doesn't mean they are finished in any way. I'd go further and say that they could well go on to further great things. But, again, they already have all they need to achieve that from their current institution. What does the Australian Government think they can offer that a Nobel laureate doesn't already have in order to entice them away from their current institution?
>> Olympic gold medallists, likewise, have already reached the peak of their game. By the time they've gained nationality and served whatever eligibility period before the IoC allow them to compete for Australia they'll be past it.
> Who said anything about them being able to compete for Australia? Again, like Nobel laureates, they bring prestige and thus attract more people who could be considered future Olympic-level athletes. They still have much value to contribute, coaches, managers, development-program managers/designers, advisors, inspirations for others. Heroes (colloquially speaking, I don't regrard Gold-medallists as literal heroes) are often most valuable as inspirations, people to be looked up to, emulated, than they do for the actual event they did that gave them their acclaim.
This is a fair point. I assumed that Australia were hoping to poach athletes rather than future coaches. Your point rather assumes that athletes can become good coaches which is not guaranteed.
>> Recipients of national research grants will presumably not be able to bring their grant with them so face the decision of giving up their grant and moving to Australia with no guarantee they will get similar funding, or perhaps just staying where they are.
> Yet again, you miss the point. All of the above applies. The fact they got such a grant is indicative of how valuable they are whether or not they bring the grant with them. And if nothing else, attracting them to Australia deprives their orignating country of their expertise, which would be a worthy goal in and of itself if the source country is a a competitor in that particular research field let alone an unfriendly or even hostile country.
I feel it is you who are missing the point. You're thinking from the point of view of the Australian Government, not from the point of view of the person. Put yourself in the shoes of the person thinking of applying: what incentive is there for a grant recipient to leave their current work and go to Australia? For example, they may be contractually obliged to complete the research or return the grant - will Australia pay for that? They will also have assembled a team of post-doc researchers: are they going to be able to take that team with them? Will the team even want to go with them?
There are loads of reasons why this offer is too simplistic - which is why I say it is wishful thinking on behalf of the Australian Government.
