We should also avoid falling into the same snare that faces the media in reporting on climate science – by presenting ''both sides'' it gives and perpetuates a false balance that greatly distorts the relative merits of arguments put by a few loud and persistent naysayers. It is heartening, however, to see prominent people drawing attention to science education in Australia. Inspiring more of our children to start learning and enjoying science early is important. History tells us clearly why science is so vital to our wellbeing. If I had a time machine I'd think twice about travelling back to experience the good old days when vaccination did not exist, where antibiotics were unknown, before electricity brought light and warmth, and before agriculture provided stable food supplies. Australia has a proud history of contributing to science and respecting rational thinking in its public policies: Ian Frazer's vaccine will save countless women from cervical cancer, our Nobel prize winners Barry Marshall and Robin Warren's discovery has provided relief from stomach ulcers to millions; work by last year's Australian Laureate, Elizabeth Blackburn, suggests avenues for new cancer treatments; and this year we have another Laureate, Brian Schmidt, recognised for revealing fundamental truths about the nature of our universe. Schmidt's contribution is important because it reminds us that science is not just about inventions, it is also about knowing: knowing our place in the scheme of things; knowing that wearing seat belts and crash helmets will save lives, trauma and health costs; knowing that lying babies on their backs reduces cot death; and knowing that pumping exhaust gases into the atmosphere without limit simply cannot be a good idea. We desperately need good science and good science education to chart our way into an increasingly uncertain future.

That blend of invention and knowledge is often reflected in the way science is coupled administratively in our political system with technology and education — witness its place in the new Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, created by the latest federal ministry reshuffle. It remains to be seen whether science will become lost in such a crowded portfolio, but it at least has a high-profile minister in Greg Combet and a much-deserved seat at the big table. Inspirational people are part of the solution to encourage more young people into science, but if too few students are studying science, it may not solely be through lack of role models. Students have difficulty identifying the career paths available to those who have been scientifically trained. We need to demonstrate that science does not lead to back rooms where unfashionable folk with white lab coats and thick safety glasses shun human contact. In fact, one of the most enjoyable things about experimentation is that it embodies action and leads to social engagement. Scientists don't sit in dusty rooms in silence — they are out there like the teams in MythBusters. Just think of our other Nobel Prize winner, Peter Doherty, or of prominent scientific leaders, the former dean at UNSW, Mike Archer, the former director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Sir Gus Nossal, or science presenters Robyn Williams and David Attenborough. No one would argue that these people are socially isolated or lead dreary lives. Of more concern is the misguided notion that science is somehow like politics or the law, with a left and right, or prosecution and defence. The other reason that science enrolments are limited is that the structure of science often involves ''pre-requisites''. The fundamental sciences — mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology — are like languages: you can't do second-year French if you haven't done first-year French. There are so many subjects available to school students today that it is hardly surprising if a lower proportion opt for the basic sciences.

But things are changing. The demand for science is increasing. Enrolment numbers in recent years show a pleasing move towards science, particularly at those universities that specialise in scientific and professional training. The entry cut-offs often appear low for science — lower than law and medicine, for instance — but this is partly because science enrols a great number of students, so the quoted score of the lowest entry in the range of students is, naturally, lower. Focus on the really high-performing students and you'll find that the most talented students often opt for science – and this is good for Australia's future. So what more can be done? Perhaps the most important thing is to teach, publicise and promote to our young people the rich and exciting career paths that scientists can take. A raft of Fellowships – some of them handsomely renumerated — is now on offer to support salaries for the next generation of Australian researchers. Others reward our very top researchers — not quite as well as our top sportsmen and top movie stars perhaps, but, nevertheless, they help show that careers in science are not just valued but valuable. The top researchers of today operate in an international sphere, engage with friends and colleagues the world over, and live comfortably and well. They all enrich the lives of others, and last but perhaps not least, scientific success is indeed connected to the financial health of the country. Professor Merlin Crossley is Dean of Science at the University of New South Wales. Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU