It's no secret that Australian scientists, by and large, did not like Tony Abbott.
Not only did he preside over some of the deepest cuts to research funding in recent memory, bringing the country's R&D to a 30-year low, but he also ignored scientific evidence when it conflicted with his ideology. And scientists live and die by evidence. 
On Sunday, the new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, used his ministry reshuffle speech to wax lyrical about the importance of science and innovation to the country's future. He also announced that Christopher Pyne would lead a new Ministry for Industry, Innovation and Science.
This focus on science is a promising start which, on the surface, seems to have given certain parts of the scientific community some hope.
But what does it really mean? After all, Mr Abbott also spoke about the importance of science and innovation in strengthening Australia's economy while his government cut more than $400 million from research institutes.
The new Prime Minister at least understands that science, in any context, is not a political toy. In a 2011 speech in Sydney he staunchly defended climate science and scientists, saying "we cannot afford to allow the science to become a partisan issue as it is in the United States".
On Sunday Mr Turnbull went further, announcing that science and innovation would become one of the government's most important agendas. "It is really important for leaders, for prime ministers, for ministers, for people in the media to talk about the importance of change, to talk about the importance of science, to talk about the importance of technology," he said.
Many people will take heart from these sentiments - and perceptions are important - but the science community will expect more than talk and a ministerial reshuffle.
For starters, they'll want Mr Turnbull's first budget to reverse some of the research funding cuts made by his predecessor. But mostly they'll be hoping this will be the government that takes a long-term and strategic approach to science -something that's been lacking from both sides of politics for some time.
That means a whole-of-government science policy that isn't confined to one or two portfolios but brings together research funding and infrastructure, education and industry.