You can read the article published on the Physics Today website here.

Download a PDF of the speech here.

Image by Katrina Ferguson, MNHS, Monash University.

Acknowledgements

Professor Bryan Williams

Ladies and gentlemen

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. 

I do have a particular attachment to this institution – and to this Institute since it emerged from my first point of association with Monash, although it was born well after my first departure from Monash. 

Some of you here will know that I was probably the most junior employee in the very new Medical School in the very early days of the wind-swept, red-clay cloaked, probably ‘red’, wet and wind-swept Monash.  Indeed, I remember getting trucked off to the Alfred from a distant oval using a four wheel drive not (or not only) because even then I was too heavy to carry, but because only a four wheel drive could get through the mud. 

Twenty four years or so later I was the second most senior employee when I was appointed to be what was interestingly termed the ‘Senior’ Deputy Vice-Chancellor – something close to a Provost.  Between the two I kept in contact with many of the people here who served as friends and as mentors. 

My first important mentor was Lawrie Austin in Biochemistry.  His interest in me and his commitment to me is something that I have never forgotten; just as I have never under-estimated his impact.

I therefore owe this institution and some of its people a great deal.  I have learnt an enormous amount here – both how to do things and how not to do things. 

So it is a pleasure for me to be here today to participate in this celebration of achievement and of commitment to a great cause – the 20^th anniversary of an Institute that contributes so substantially to the health of human-kind. 

I congratulate the past and present staff of the MIMR on its success over the past 20 years.  And I congratulate Monash University for the foresight shown 20 years ago when it established an Institute that has made its mark on our world so well.   I wasn’t here at the time so I don’t know.  But I’ll bet it wasn’t easy.

In a reasonably short time, this Institute has been responsible for some of the most significant scientific achievements in our country’s history. From a scan of international headlines, you can see the MIMR name attached to groundbreaking (don’t journalists love that word) stories on the birth of the world’s first cloned cow ‘Brandy’, to the creation of the human prostate tissue from embryonic stem cells for the first time – allowing researchers to monitor the tissue as it progresses from a healthy to a diseased state; a finding that will continue to provide a solid foundation for prostate research globally[1].

On reading the history of the MIMR, it is impressive to see the rapid rate of progress that has been achieved – from focusing primarily on fertility and infant health in its first years, to where it now describes itself as having ‘scientific expertise in cancer research, maternal, fetal, neonatal and paediatric research, gene function and disease, inflammation, reproductive technologies, male reproductive health, stem cells, women’s health and pain medicine.’

And it doesn’t stop with scientific expertise; the Institute has the charter to translate its scientific expertise to the clinic.  Basic research translated into better health care is critical to a world that will face unprecedented challenges from unpredictable sources in the future.

The translation of research into health care has an important spin-off for medical research because it is a factor in the high public regard for medical research and medical researchers.  There are of course, some instances where it is under attack. Inoculations, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning for example, invoke strong emotions and opinions in the community and parliament in Australia, and in other countries.   

But overall, medical research is widely supported. As evidence, you can look to public opinion polls or perhaps even to the lack of concerted threats and intimidation presently reported by medical researchers.  

This hasn’t always been the case. One only needs to look back to WWII and some of the so-called medical experiments done then, the nuclear tests in or on bikini atoll, or the Tuskegee syphilis study to see that trust in, and respect for medical research depends on what is done, how – and the ethical standards applied to the work.  

But right now, in this culture of scepticism even cynicism, medical research flies high. Perhaps this is because medical research offers better health; it has the most obvious potential to improve lives in a very personal way – and we all have an interest in that.

But a study conducted by the Australian Society for Medical Research found that more than a third of Australian families have been affected by medical conditions that could not be adequately treated[2]. This number may not be substantially different from, say, a decade ago, but the difference is in the attitude – people no longer accept serious illness as ‘a part of life’. Eighty per cent of people agreed with the statement that “it is unacceptable that Australians are suffering from conditions that would be curable with more investment in medical and health research.”[3]

To Australians then, medical research is important. And if we are to deliver on the expectations that follow, we must recognise that it can’t all be done here; we are part of a global system, a global effort. 

We contribute to, and draw from, the global stock of knowledge.  And we certainly play our part as a global contributor.  We are a world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average, even though we spend much less per capita than say the US or the UK[4].

Australian expenditure on medical research is estimated to be 1.1% of the global expenditure but the proportion of world health returns attributable to Australian research is 3.0%[5]. I’ve said it before of Australian science, but in medical research in particular, we are proudly punching well above out weight.

But nothing is certain.  Earlier this year, there was talk of proposed cuts of $400m to the NHMRC; thankfully this never came about.  Partly, some believe, because the public display by medical researchers led to a response from the public that persuaded those who might have been thinking of cutting to think again.

Maybe we can understand that public response using a survey conducted by Research Australia.  It showed that 91% of Australians support the federal government spending more money on medical research. Maybe in Australia there might be as much danger for the cutter as for the ‘cuttee’!

As an interesting comparison of Australian’s interests, only 6% supported more money to sport programs to help champion athletes win Olympic medals[6].  But mind you, if we don’t perform at the Olympics, there might be another story.

It is also encouraging to note that in the same study 89% of Australians would be willing to pay $1 more for each prescription medicine if they knew that all the money would be spent on additional health and medical research.[7]

There are doubtless many reasons.  One may be that it is understood and accepted that many contemporary medical researchers not only work to the ‘higher’ purpose of improving health outcomes, but also because the researchers submit to, and overwhelmingly comply with, ethical standards of a high order.  They seem to be admired and trusted.  This is not something universally experienced by scientists in other areas or disciplines.  Those who sow doubt have managed to change public attitudes towards scientists quite substantially. As I said, nothing is certain; a position has to be earned.  And all scientists need to be familiar with the types of campaign presently getting traction.

But I think, broadly, the public accepts (even if there are always likely to be exceptions) that medical researchers are motivated not just by a search to understand the very nature of things but also seek to  improve the human lot. The public is aware because medical researchers do not shy from the public debate, whether it be about the ethics or the outcome. 

In a society where some science and some scientists are being dragged through the mud – we must be grateful that at least medical research and institutions like this one, have the public on-side.

Medical research is fortunate to have the respect and support of the majority of the public right now, but it is still just as vulnerable as other areas of science currently under attack.  And we do have some scientists facing criminal charges right now for not predicting an earthquake. And there are some people taken seriously by some people who have commented that we should lock up climate scientists for “fraud” and “racketeering.”

The present respect, the esteem, for medical research cannot be taken for granted.  Medical research depends on the same process of peer review, the same basics of chemistry, physics and biology that, say, climate science does. And yet, one discipline is heralded as vital, life-saving, a miracle even, and another is plagued by accusations of fabrication, political interest, corruption, economic interests and plain ordinary greed.

We should remember that not too long ago, health research was struggling as the tobacco industry rallied against scientists, sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of research into the effects of tobacco smoke on our lungs, heart, throat and children: we will all have seen the very, very old person wheeled out from somewhere who smoked heavily and drank wine everyday for, what 80 years; living proof that, really, it wasn’t so risky. 

As I have said before, all science is bruised somewhere by the attacks on some science.  The tactic is simple: sow doubt, often.  Evidence is unimportant in this game: just be dismissive, relentless, and loud; and get personal because normal people will back away from a public fight. 

No area of science is immune from attacks like these. It means that nothing is certain and little will endure if we don’t set the scene, explain the process and engage seriously with the public.  It is their judgement and their open support that will ultimately deter the ‘cutters.’

Raising the profile of science, garnering respect for ethically conducted science of a high standard, and its communication, is the duty of care of everyone who works and studies in science.

This message needs to be instilled at the very beginning, in our schools.  

Unfortunately recent studies indicate that a very large fraction of Australian primary school teachers feel unqualified to teach science[8], and that a large fraction of Australian teachers of Year 7-10 General Science had not completed the generally-accepted standard of tertiary education in science[9]. It is hard to encourage people to defend science or not to be afraid of it when from a young age they have not been taught about it.

And the effects can be seen in workforces across Australia. In chemistry, maths, engineering… we face huge challenges for our future industries[10].

Medical research however, has a slightly more optimistic outlook, though still with much more to be done. By 2019, it is estimated that almost six and a half thousand members of the health and medical research workforce will have retired, 4000 of whom have PhDs[11].

We currently have sufficient rates of medical research PhD completions to maintain our current workforce over the next ten years[12]. But if Australia is to have the most highly educated, best skilled and highly trained health and medical research sector in the world, which surely we should strive to achieve, the number of PhD qualified researchers would need to expand 2.5 fold to be on par with the European workforce[13].  

In order to achieve this, or at least help it along, we need to look at how we support medical research and the jobs in medical research.

From 2000-2010, funding from the NHMRC quadrupled in size. However, funding is now on a plateau with no expected increases on the horizon[14].  

At the same time though, the size of grants has been increasing and is set to continue to increase. As a result of greater collaborations, more expensive equipment and more staff, the average size grant today is valued at $550,000 over three years. In 2000 the average grant size was around $260, 000[15].

But we have seen a huge increase in the number of applications. They have grown from around 1500 in 2000 to 3226 in 2010. In 2000 the success rate was around 30%; today it is about 23%[16].

It would be easy to blame the falling success rate on falling quality, but this is not the case. The number of grant applications that received scores high enough to be ‘worthy of funding’ but do not receive funding has been steadily increasing. In year 2000 it was 37% of applications; in 2009, it was 58%[17].

So we have the number of applications rising; the quality of applications improving, funding which has flat lined and grants that are getting bigger.  A tough combination.

And then there is the need to replace or grow the medical research workforce; the place of young people: the researchers we will need to carry the torch when some of the present flame carriers decide to do something else.

Let me ask: does our present system of scholarships, post-docs, grants, grants and more grants lead to jobs that are satisfying and secure?  Jobs like the ones we once got.  If the answer is yes, fine. 

If the answer is no, then we need to think deeply about whether a system, the core of which was invented long ago, can still meet the need.  While ensuring that excellent research and excellent researchers can be supported, can we find a way to ensure that appropriate numbers of new entrants can get a foothold, and a career, that is more than a succession of post-docs on somebody else’s grants.  I should add that this question does not assume that the universities have no role to play.  The relationship between universities, granting agencies and the allocation of research support may need to be re-worked.

Whether or not we change is not for me to decide.  But I do know that different times and a different context mean that we should be at least willing to examine the utility of present practice and examine how well it prepares us, and Australia, for the future.

Change is after all an inevitable part of life. In the laboratory we don’t simply do now what we did when I was young.  And we don’t do it the same way even if the scientific method itself stands well the test of time.

Outside the laboratory, however, attitudes to science also need to change. We need to change the number of students excited about science. We need to change the number pursuing science at school and then at university.  We need to change the trajectory and skill base of and increase the science-trained numbers in the Australian workforce. And that last point means that we need to ensure that we can tell highly talented young people that there are careers in science – careers that will mean that they won’t have to wait too long (a time that appears to be forever to some of them) to get their house or start their family.  Because we care; because we should – and because we need them.

I appreciate the leadership that medical research has shown in setting this standard for science and communication in Australia and abroad.

As I said at the beginning, I am truly pleased to be here today to participate in this celebration. I wish MIMR well and a sustained and productive future.  If somebody there can find out how to stop cells ageing and eliminate all the deficiencies that flow when they do, I’ll come back in 20 years to celebrate the next two decades.

I thank you now for your invitation to be here; and I’ll be happy to come back then and express my gratitude even more strongly.

[1] MIMR newsletter, Issue #51 – 20^th Anniversary special.

[2] Research Australia. 2010. Health and Medical Research Opinion Poll 2010. Available: http://researchaustralia.org/Publications%20Public%20Opinion%20Polls/Research%20Australia%20Public%20Opinion%20Poll%202010%20low%20res.pdf

[3] ibid

[4] Australian Society for Medical Research. 2008.The value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/ExceptII08.pdf

[5] Australian Society for Medical Research. 2008.The value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/ExceptII08.pdf

[6] Research Australia. 2010. Health and Medical Research Opinion Poll 2010. Available: http://researchaustralia.org/Publications%20Public%20Opinion%20Polls/Research%20Australia%20Public%20Opinion%20Poll%202010%20low%20res.pdf

[7] Ib id

[8] International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades (2009). 

[9] McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M. & Hong, J., 2008. Staff in Australia’s schools 2007. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

[10] Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Research Workforce Strategy 2011

[11] Australia Society for Medical Research, 2010. People make research happen: Planning the Health and Medical Research Workforce 2010-2019. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/workforce09.pdf

[12] Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Research Workforce Strategy 2011

[13] Australia Society for Medical Research, 2010. People make research happen: Planning the Health and Medical Research Workforce 2010-2019. Available: http://www.asmr.org.au/workforce09.pdf

[14] National Health and Medical Research Council, Annual Report 2009-10, p.32

[15] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2011. CEO presentation 2011, slide 16. Available: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/about/senior_staff/articles/nhmrc_ceo_presentation_newcastle_uni_june_2011.pdf)

[16] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010, Working to build a healthy Australia presentation, CEO Warwick Anderson http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/about/senior_staff/articles/nhmrc_ceo_presentation_oct2010.pdf)

[17] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010. Research Funding Fact Book.

In his speech, Professor Chubb talked about the challenges that Australia needs to address in order to sustain our food security and the important part that food science and technology will play within this.

You can download the speech here

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to have been invited speak to you today as Australia’s Chief Scientist.

Since some of you might not have known that Australia has a Chief Scientist, and as I am fairly new to this role, I thought that I would start with a quick introduction and give you some idea of what I hope to deliver in this position.

I am of course a scientist.  The first half of my adult life was spent trying to understand how parts of the nervous system might work. 

If that wasn’t enough of a challenge, I recall saying to my wife when I turned 40, that there had to be sharper edges to life.  What I meant was that there had to be sharp edges when compared with an academic life teaching enthusiastic medical students and a successful research laboratory that I had built with my colleagues.  I soon found that to be true.  I took various roles in higher education and finally ended up as Vice Chancellor of The Australian National University for a decade. Sharp edges (and minds and pens) all over the place.

I had retired for a whole 2 months or so when I was offered this position.  As I have said before, it wasn’t that I couldn’t find somebody to play golf with, but rather the fact that I was actually offered an opportunity to advocate for, and to work for, Australian science that encouraged me to accept the offer.  Add the fact that even at my age the thought of golf, golf and more golf did not thrill – I realised that I still hanker for the odd sharp edge.  I think I have found the edges again – with a lot to learn, again, because I don’t want to be like some people – an instant expert on everything.   

As Chief Scientist I have multiple obligations. I must advocate for science – to ensure that science has a voice at the highest levels.

I must advise Government and Ministers on scientific issues – the actual and the emerging ones – I have to make sure that scientific evidence is put before policy makers. 

And I will be helping people to see the links between science and their every day experiences. 

I will be helping to broaden understanding of science and its importance, to people directly, as we secure an economically, socially and culturally prosperous future for Australia.

So I took pleasure in accepting your invitation to speak today because the AIFST makes all the right connections; and I especially appreciate the opportunity to give the JR Vickery address at the 44^th Annual AIFST Convention.

JR Vickery, as many of you will know, was an extraordinary man who did many things.  Amongst his many achievements he won fame for extending the storage life of chilled beef and improving the quality of frozen beef during WWII. One of his tasks was to develop dehydrated meat for the Allied forces. In Britain it became known as Vickery mutton.[1]

I don’t need to tell you just how important this development was, not only to the war effort but to changing the way we live. It is scientific contributions like these, scientific leaps really, that make our everyday lives so much easier today, and sometimes even saves them!

Science has meant that we can now buy vacuum packed steak from every supermarket – instead of just bully beef in cans!  It is the sort of innovation and its application that sets the benchmark that we should always be aiming to meet – one that helps us to tackle tomorrow today – by ensuring our capacity to prepare quality and nutritious food for a larger population than just those fortunately close to the producer.  It makes sense: in terms of health, and in terms of the economy.

The food industry in Australia is a vital component of the economy today. And it has to be tomorrow. It makes a significant contribution, especially to the economies of regional areas through employment, business and service opportunities.  And it must do so tomorrow.

The food and beverage sector consistently accounts for at least 18% of employment in the Australian manufacturing sector. In 2009-10 employment in the industry was 226,750.  The net trade balance in the food manufacturing sector was $5.7 billion in 2009–10.[2]

But as we tackle tomorrow today, Australia’s food industry obviously faces challenges.  With a projected growth in the Australian population giving us many more mouths to feed; and a global human population growing to 9 billion by 2050[3] likely to translate into an increased demand for Australian food – the big challenge is obvious. We will have to increase our capacity to meet additional demand at home and contribute to the demand from abroad.

For these reasons, it is imperative to invest in our intelligence, and our resources, to develop our scientific research, our industry and its development.  It is our best way to look after ourselves – and the best way to contribute to the global challenge – use our unique know-how.

The Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council, “PMSEIC,” published a report last year entitled: “Australia and Food Security in a Changing.” In this report they say that: “although Australia accounts for less than 3% of global food trade, we are one of just a handful of net food exporting nations of the world.”[4]

This elevates Australian food science and technology to a critical position on the international stage.  But it is unlikely that we will be producing enough food to serve the needs of the world – to be the world’s food bowl. There are too many factors working against us for us to be that.  But it does not stop us making a substantial contribution to the world’s benefit – by exporting know-how.

Indeed, as Michael D’Occhio of the University of Queensland has said:  

 “Australia never has been and never will be a food basket or the food bowl of the world. The reality is that we produce food for 60 million people. We feed 22 million-odd at home and 40 million overseas. But put in the global context, that 40 million that we feed overseas represents less than 3 per cent of global food movements. How Australia contributes to food security globally is through knowledge, training and technology transfer.” – what I called know-how.[5]

To put this into context, let me talk about an improved breed of Tiger Prawns – some of which I have sampled.

CSIRO scientists and the prawn industry have bred an improved Black Tiger prawn which is producing record yields in aquaculture farms.  The average industry productivity for farmed prawns is five tonnes per hectare. The new prawns produced an average of 17.5 tonnes per hectare this year.

Just as importantly – they taste great! These prawns have won five gold medals at the Sydney Royal Easter Show in the past two years, including ‘Champion of Show’, the highest award possible.[6]

The scientists from CSIRO’s Food Futures Flagship have used DNA technology, screening and selective breeding to provide a boost for prawn farmers and for the provision of the food.

There are many issues that threaten food supply and its adequacy.  These include: declining natural resources such as arable land and useable water; a burgeoning human population – the nine billion plus by 2050; a global decline in food research and especially development; and continuing protectionist policies in some countries that prevent food from moving to where it is needed, and which stops the market mechanism from sending appropriate signals to food producers.[7]

Climate Change

Another major issue that affects our food industry is the impact of climate change. It’s noteworthy that CSIRO scientists are already working on the basis that we need to factor carbon emissions into our food sustainability as part of the work conducted by the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship.

The Flagship aims to reduce the carbon footprint of Australia’s land use whilst achieving the productivity gains needed for prosperous agricultural and forest industries – and global food security. 

The Flagship provides a critical integration of knowledge and technologies relevant to sustainable farming systems adapted to Australian soils, climates and regional circumstances.  A key challenge is to maintain or increase our productivity and our support for regional communities – as we seek to meet national and ultimately global targets for atmospheric carbon. 

The national challenge goal of the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship of CSIRO will be to secure Australian agricultural and forestry industries through increasing productivity by 50% and reducing net carbon emissions per unit of food and fibre by at least 50% between now and 2030 through a mix of productivity growth, emissions reduction and carbon storage in soils and vegetation.[8]

Economics of Food Science

While all of that is important, we must also be mindful that, very fundamentally, the food industry in Australia is a crucial part of our economy – as I said before.

Australia exported $16.5 billion in substantially transformed food products and $0.36 billion in elaborately transformed food products in 2009-10.[9]

Australia’s 50 largest food and beverage corporations produce almost three-quarters of the domestic industry’s revenue.[10]

There were 12,624 businesses in food manufacturing industry as at June 2009.[11]

And, since 1991, there have been 28 CRCs performing research for the food industry. In total, these CRCs have been contracted to receive $588.428 million in program funds.[12]

As we tackle tomorrow today, however, and as we seek to extend the local economic benefits, in their own and in the national interest, we must understand that the status quo won’t get us happily through the challenges ahead.  We must get better at what we do. 

And we will achieve this with the industry and the R&D sector working together, because when they do that well, good things happen leading to products and services that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer

Innovation

I am not the first to talk about the importance of innovation as a driver of the Australian economy into the future – not the first and certainly not the last.  I would wager it is said somewhere in Australia, in public, every day.

While Australia has done well on the world stage with a number of Nobel laureates, it’s often the seemingly mundane, or the unexpected, that can make a difference.

For instance where would we be today without the microwave oven?

The invention of the microwave happened when one Percy Spencer was touring one of his laboratories. He stopped briefly in front of a magnetron, the power tube that drives a radar set, and noticed that the chocolate bar in his pocket had begun to melt.

Following this he did what any good inventor would do, he went in search of some corn. Holding the bag of unpopped corn next to the magnetron, Spencer watched as the kernels exploded into puffy white bits.

It took a while for the microwave oven to be refined to a point where it would be useful to the average consumer. But today, Percy Spencer’s radar boxes melt chocolate and pop popcorn in millions of homes around the world – and probably out of this world, too, in space-craft.

An observant scientist, a clever mind, some lateral thinking and a revolution in the way we prepare food.[13]

Enabling role

Biotechnology and nanotechnology, not known that way in Percy’s time, can be expected to do the same thing:  transform production and preparation processes that lead to more sustainable production and processing of food.

In turn, this will help ensure Australia’s future prosperity by helping to retain high-quality, high-value jobs and improve our health, wellbeing and environment.

Alternative resources

And then you have to get it to market.  It needs packaging – and something other than, or additional to, the tin can.  Something akin to the need Vickery confronted – but with the same basic principles: to get food to where it is needed that is conserved, preserved and delivered safely.  We might now add, given the apparent sophistication of our times, that it should also be quality food that is not just safe but a delight to eat. 

Packaging materials based on a converted agricultural product, starch, have been developed and commercialised in Australia by Plantic Technologies.

The company is a spin-off from the Cooperative Research Centre for International Food Manufacture and Packaging Science which first developed the technology more than a decade ago.

The company started in the confectionary and baking markets.

In partnership with the CRC for Polymers, Plantic has expanded its R&D to develop a new bioplastic in 2008 that was suitable for products ranging from Easter eggs to USB thumb drives.

It’s been well-received, with the major UK retailer, Marks and Spencer, using Plantic-developed plastic trays for its entire Swiss chocolate range last Christmas.

But we have to do it again, and again, and again.  There are no oars or laurels to rest on in this world.  It is about getting better, getting more productive, improving production and always looking for the innovation that gives us an edge.  Our research, and our development, is critical to the future.

Growing R&D

We don’t do badly.  Total Australian Government funding for rural R&D for 2008/9 was AUD710 million.[14] Food manufacturing (excluding beverages) R&D expenditure for 2007-08 and 2008-09 was approximately $369 million and $389 million.[15]

This is a good start.  But it does mean working to ensure that governments are willing to continue to invest in the food sciences and their R&D – and to increase that investment as resources permit. 

That means persuading them of Australia’s capacity to deliver a substantial contribution to our own food security as well as playing a role as a global citizen.  And it means persuading the public that there is a major global issue that Australia can help resolve – even if we are small.

What do I conclude from this?

In order to ensure our R&D effort continues we need, all of us, to be advocates for science.  It is important that the community realises the value of science and its impact on their lives.

That’s it, at the most basic level.

Raise the profile

I think that people take for granted the very worthwhile outcomes of science.

For example, while there has been a spectacular rise in food related TV shows urban living seems to have created a cultural disconnect between us and food production/preparation. There is a risk that our children or our grandchildren will forget that a chip comes from a potato; or forget that milk is not produced somewhere in square invariably plastic containers.

It’s incumbent on all of us to ensure that we raise the profile of science. And that our children and grand children have a level of science literacy that far exceeds the norm today.

In turn this will encourage more people to embrace the notion that a career in science is highly worthwhile.

Taking all things into consideration, and putting aside my natural bias, if I was starting again I would still be choosing science as a career – at least as my early career.

Can I ask that you join with me, and that you work at all levels, to engage with your industry partners in Australia and overseas, with the community and with your local schools to remind them just how important science is to their lives; to their health and their nutrition.

I also ask you to be vocal in your communities in your support for science and particularly in this area of science where you have special expertise.  The reality is that if we don’t tell people about the importance of science and what it means to them, the importance of what you do, how will they ever really know? And it is too important simply to think that they will find out somehow.  Too important to leave to others to get the message across, we must own that responsibility. 

But let me leave you on a lighter note. Food and science are a marriage that will never end in divorce, in fact they can work so well together they can earn you three Michelin stars. Heston Blumenthal has become one of the world’s best chefs by using scientific methods to create his unique dishes. When he roasts potatoes he insists on cooking them in oil and not the preferred Nigella Lawson rule of goose fat. Why? He says oil makes them crisp up better. Now, as scientists we would ask, but why? Well, Heston asked the same question – let me quote the man himself:

 “The oil does not go into the potato itself. I know this because a scientist at Cambridge did an MRI scan on potatoes for me. He monitored the water flow into a potato covered in oil. The oil remained on the surface.”[16]

So the next time you indulge in a Sunday roast with golden, crunchy spuds, you can marvel at how the hot oil remained on the outside and feel slightly less guilty about eating one or 5, all thanks to an MRI machine that some scientist(s) invented… and Heston of course.

Thank you.”

[1] Science Image Bringing Science into Focus, AR1341, 2001, CSIRO, Australia, viewed July 5 2011, http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/index.cfm?event=site.image.detail&id=1341

[2] ABS, International Trade in Goods and Services, Australia, Manufacturing Exports and Imports (Cat No 5368.0 Tables 32a & 35a).

[3] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

[4] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

[5] Straight. K, Landline, 26 June 2011, The Future of Food, ABC, Australia, viewed 5 July 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/landline

[6] Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation – http://www.csiro.au/science/tiger-prawn-farming.html

[7] PMSEIC (2010), Australia and Food Security in a Changing World, The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia

 [8] Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation – http://www.csiro.au/org/Sustainable-Agriculture-Flagship.html

[9] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—about Australia fact sheet series, Food Industry

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research – http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/CRC/Pages/default.aspx

[13] Ament. P. Fascinating facts about Percy Lebaron Spencer inventor of the Microwave Oven in 1945. Troy MI: 1997-2006, The Great Idea Finder, 20 October 2006, viewed 5 July 2011 http://www.ideafinder.com 

[14] Productivity Commission, Rural Research and Development Corporations, September 2010

[15] Ibid

[16] Stogdon. C, 17 November 2008, Heston Blumenthal: Good chemistry, The Telegraph, viewed 5 July 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk

A new book launched by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) highlights the importance of climate change as a matter of significant economic, environmental and social concern in Australia.

Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia provides the latest information on international climate change science and potential responses.

According to CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark the book seeks to provide a bridge from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to a broader audience of society while still providing the depth of science that climate change demands.

“This publication draws on the latest peer-reviewed literature contributed by thousands of researchers in Australia and internationally,” Dr Clark says.

“It also provides a synthesis of CSIRO’s long history of publicly funded research into climate change.”

The book’s 168 pages provide scientific insights including:

•     Evidence from many different sources shows human activities are contributing to the Earth’s changing climate

•     Some of the impacts of climate change on Australia are already apparent

•     We are committed to some degree of climate change as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions, so we will need to adapt on a far more extensive scale than is currently occurring

•     Energy saving technologies, demand reduction and distributed power generation will help to lower national carbon emissions

•     Agriculture and forestry hold great potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through afforestation, soil-carbon management, and better management of livestock and cropping emissions

•     Action within the next decade to lower greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the probability and severity of climate change impacts.

You can download the full book as a PDF here or read it online, chapter by chapter at the CSIRO website.

The video below was filmed by Antarctic researcher Dr Frederique Olivier onboard the recent voyage of the Australian Antarctic Division’s icebreaker the Research Supply Vessel Aurora Australis.

It encapsulates some of the incredible amount of work undertaken by researchers working in shifts continuously throughout the voyage to learn more about the Antarctic Ocean and its relationship to the rest of Earth’s environment.

The stop-motion clip focuses on the sampling of the ocean and the deployment of instrument packages attached to moorings at various stations, as the ship steams from Tasmania across the Southern Ocean towards the edge of Antarctica. 

This research aims to characterise water masses which, as they become colder and thus denser than surrounding water, sink turning into major bottom ocean currents. 

Samples of seawater are taken at various depths, as far down as ~5 km, which when processed will provide valuable data helping scientists understand processes at play in the Southern Ocean and its role in the global climate system.

In the video, researchers come and go from a metal instrument frame known as a CDT (conductivity, depth, temperature) rosette which holds long cylindrical containers known as “Niskin” sampling bottles.  This rosette is used to capture water samples from specific depths, and to log water properties as the rosette is lowered and raised through the water. This rosette was dropped 149 times during the 32-day voyage – at almost five different locations each day.

Once it is brought back on board, scientists draw water samples from the “Niskin” bottles. They test the samples for a range of properties, including levels of salt, oxygen, pH, nitrate and phosphate.

Importantly, they also analyse the samples to detect how much carbon dioxide is found in the water at various depths.  Although dissolved carbon is always present in sea water, studies[i] have established that levels of carbon in the ocean have been increasing significantly over the past century.

Researchers are interested in documenting the rate at which ocean carbon is increasing, which will help contribute to more accurate climate change predictions.

By testing other properties, such as salinity, temperature and chlorophyll, scientists can also learn how climate change and other environmental impacts will affect plankton, fish, coral and other marine organisms.

By characterising these properties of water at different depths we can designate ‘location tags’ that enable scientists to identify where the ocean water originated – whether it has travelled along a current from the North Atlantic ocean, or whether it originates from melting Antarctic ice bergs.

A recent article published by Dr Rintoul is based on data gathered on AAD expeditions and shows that the deepest water in the Antarctic Ocean is getting fresher, possibly due to increasing icemelt[ii]. One objective of the voyage is to test this idea.

In the second half of the film, staff set about assembling an Accoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) mooring. The mooring is dropped in a carefully selected site allowing for the ADCP to be in close proximity to the sea floor where it can measure the strength of deep ocean currents to help us understand the origin of waters moving from the Antarctic continental shelf into the deepest parts of the ocean, not only by measuring their properties but also their speeds.

Over the course of a year, it will continuously collect data by sending out soundwaves to measure water speed using the Doppler effect, in the same way police speed radars operate.

The ADCP will be collected during a future research voyage through the activation of a release command which will release the mooring and see it float to the surface to be collected by the research vessel.

The recent expedition was one of many, with results tabulated against data collected on similar AAD voyages from 1991 onwards.

For more information on the AAD or the research vessel Aurora Australis visit the AAD website.

[i] Sabine, C. L., R. A. Feely, N. Gruber, R. M. Key, K. Lee, J. L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, D. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F. J. Millero, T. H. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, and A. F. Rios (2004), The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO₂, Science, 305, 367-371, doi:10.1126/science.1097403.

[ii] Rintoul, S. R. (2007), Rapid freshening of Antarctic Bottom Water formed in the Indian and Pacific oceans, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L06606, doi:10.1029/2006GL028550.

From house paint that acts as insulation to jet fuel made from plants, new technologies are paving the way forward in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

By using groundbreaking developments in nanotechnology and biotechnology, scientists and engineers are able to develop new materials that will drastically increase energy efficiency around the world.

Nanotechnology refers to the science of the very, very, (very) small-  a nanometre is just one millionth of a millimetre. By looking at materials on such a small scale, scientists are able to manipulate atoms and develop all new materials, including graphene, whose inventor won a Nobel Prize this year.

Biotechnology on the other hand, uses living things like plants, bacteria and genes, to develop new methods of conducting science, or developing new organisms.

To learn about the role nanotechnolgoy and biotechnology are playing in the battle against climate change, and all the brand new technologies, download this brochure, produced by CSIRO, TechNyou and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Scientists aboard the Aurora Australis, Australia’s Antarctic Flagship, will be using this summer season in Antarctica to continue a 20-year study that is mapping significant changes in one of the ocean’s tiniest creatures.

One of 80 projects underway this season, the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey uses a special recorder towed behind a research ship to filter and track tiny plankton and krill.

Over the last twenty years, the project has covered more that 278,000 kilometres and taken more than 30,000 samples to help scientists build a map of the creatures’ distribution in the Southern Ocean.

This ocean plays a huge role in the world’s climate, from absorbing carbon dioxide produced from human activities, to driving deep ocean currents.  The information scientists collect about the conditions in this ocean and how they are changing is vital for monitoring the effects of global climate change.

Project Leader, Dr Graham Hosie, said the research was starting to reveal some interesting trends.

“Since the project began in the early 1990s there have been significant changes in the composition of plankton in our samples,” Dr Hosie said.

“We seem to be catching a lot more smaller plankton compared to krill; notably copepods which, like krill, also graze on phytoplankton. 

“We don’t know what is causing this or if competition for the same food will affect krill. But any change from krill to smaller zooplankton may force animals that are dependent on krill, such as whales and penguins, to change their diet in order to survive.

“We have also observed, at times, sudden very large increases in foraminiferans – a calcareous single-cell zooplankton.  These blooms are short lived, but suppress other zooplankton numbers and again we don’t know if this has a flow-on effect to higher animals.”

While the scientists are still working to discover the exact cause of the differences they are observing in plankton distribution, one thing is for certain – changes in sea-ice and ocean temperature are already starting to have an impact on the complex Antarctic food web.

The team’s hard work over the past 20 years has resulted in the first Zooplankton Atlas, which documents the distribution and abundance of the 50 most common zooplankton species in the Southern Ocean.  The Atlas will serve as a reference for other researchers and monitoring programs.

For a first-hand look at the plankton recording project, watch this video.

Image: This photo was taken by Uwe Kils. It shows an amphipod, a type of plankton. The photo was taken using magnification so users can see the amphipod in detail. In reality, most amphipods are only 1 mm to 140 mm in length. Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

Two Expert Working Group reports were released today on topics key to the sustainable future of Australia and its people: Australia and Food Security in a Changing World and Challenges at Energy-Water-Carbon Intersections.

The reports were developed at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council which provides independent advice on major national issues in science, engineering and technology and their contribution to the economic and social development of Australia.

While developed independently of each other, the two reports do overlap on a number of issues, including the impact of climate change, the importance of water, and the need to build a resilient Australia.

“We charged the cross-disciplinary, expert groups that authored these reports to take a holistic approach, to look at the big picture, and not just a single piece of the science-society interface.

“The independent, scientific reports they produced are ground-breaking and vital to the future of the nation.  I am delighted that they have been released today so that they can inform not only government decision-making, but also public discourse,” Australia’s former Chief Scientist and Executive Officer of PMSEIC, Professor Penny Sackett said

Challenges at Energy-Water-Carbon Intersections

The interplay between energy, water and carbon in human activities has been made more complex and more pressing by the need to mitigate climate change risk through reducing carbon emissions, whilst continuing to supply energy, water and nutritious and affordable food to a growing population.

“Our energy systems use water; water systems use energy; current energy generation is greenhouse gas (GHG)-intensive; and land uses for food, fibre and energy production all require water.

“Solutions in any one area must take into account implications for the others.  Ideally solutions, whether on the scale of national governments, cities, or rural areas, would be developed integrally. 

“For example, traditional desalination to increase urban water supplies may significantly add to GHG emissions, which can exacerbate climate change, “Professor Sackett said.

A key recommendation of the PMSEIC energy-water-carbon report is to implement consistent principles for the accounting and pricing such as water, energy and carbon emissions into the atmosphere.  

“Consistent accounting and pricing principles are required to ensure our finite resources are used effectively, efficiently, and in ways that are consistent with long-term sustainability and resilience. 

“The implementation of integrated smart networks for energy and water, which is also recommended in the report, will go a long way in enabling the application of these principles,” Professor Sackett remarked.

Another set of recommendations put forward in the report describes positive steps to achieve enhanced resilience and sustainability of our built environments and landscapes. 

“Essentially what this means is that Australia, as a nation composed of individual communities linked by common challenges of water, energy and climate, should develop the ability to recover from shocks such as droughts, floods, and heatwaves, while adapting through learning and innovation, and undergoing transformation as required,” Professor Sackett explained.

Australia and Food Security in a Changing World

Australia is currently a net exporter of food, with considerable expertise in food production under resource constraints and in the face of climate variability. However the PMSEIC report suggests increased challenges to this important Australian industry including: land degradation, population growth, long-term climate change, competition for arable land, scarcity of water, and nutrient and energy availability.

“Food security does not just mean having enough food in a typical year.  It means having reliable and sustainable access to acceptable, nutritious, and affordable food at all times.     

“Australians expect this security, and about 40 million non-Australians internationally rely on our country to secure their food as well.”

“The food security report recommends a visionary approach that brings together regulatory and funding agencies, research organisations and industry, to achieve strong outcomes in economic growth and population health centred on food.

“These steps include urgent new investment in food science and technology that will spur future transformational change in healthy and efficient food production; increasing our human capacity to provide a suitably skilled workforce for the food sector; and translating community awareness of food into better food choices,” Professor Sackett said.

Both expert reports address long-term, transformational issues for Australia that affect the whole nation and thus will require a whole-of-government response.  They will be discussed further with the Prime Minister and other Council members at the next PMSEIC meeting, scheduled for 4 February 2011.

Read Australia and Food Security in a Changing World

Read Challenges at Energy-Water-Carbon Intersections

The summer season in Antarctica has now officially begun and the Australian Antarctic Division is in the midst of coordinating the southward journey of around 500 people, including expedition scientists to investigate 80 different scientific projects.

These intrepid scientists will work on projects from far below the ice, to the unique upper atmosphere in conditions that can be life threatening – the lowest ever recorded temperature was -89.2 degrees Celsius in 1983.

This year, projects will vary from investigations into astronomical robotics to the impact of the calving of 78 km of the Mertz Glacier tongue on global ocean circulation, all in the name of understanding our complex global ecosystem.

One such unique project will explore the impact of the Black Saturday Australian bushfires of 2009 on the atmosphere above Antarctica to learn whether Antarctic ecosystems are more vulnerable than others, and whether bushfire plumes add to the depletion of the protective ozone layer.

Using high quality measurements collected by modern satellite and ground-based instruments, the team will study vertical and horizontal motions of the smoke plume, the chemical composition of this plume, and chemical reactions between various molecules in the plume and other atmospheric gases.

While many people may think Antarctic research focuses only on its environment and climate, groundbreaking research is also being conducted into human health and wellbeing.

While their main focus is on ensuring the immediate health and well being of people living on and visiting the stations, Antarctic doctors are also part of studies on the effect of the unique and extreme environment on the human body.

For example, recent research by Australian Antarctic doctors has shown that the lack of sunlight over the Antarctic winter can lead to vitamin D deficiency.  All Australian Antarctic expeditioners are now offered vitamin D supplements to help protect their bones.

One project this season, titled ‘The role of sleep and circadian phase on crew safety, performance and psychological health during long-term analog space missions’ will study the sleep patterns, health and brain function of researchers based in Antarctica.

It is hoped that the study will provide data necessary for the development of a program to monitor and improve astronaut’s health, safety and psychology during long-duration missions to space.

Antarctic science not only investigates some important processes that influence the world’s climate, such as ice melt, carbon dioxide absorption and deep ocean currents but also provides a history of our planet’s climate by analysing air-bubbles trapped in the Antarctic ice sheet.

Many projects this summer will explore the crucial history trapped in between the ice sheets of Antarctica while others will examine the current and potential future impacts of global warming and other human activities.

To learn more about Antarctic research being conducted this year, visit the Australian Antarctic Division website.

From September 20-24, the World Green Building Council will be promoting sustainable architecture and design in order to raise awareness of green buildings and their benefits for society.

Green buildings incorporate many different innovations ranging from having a ‘living roof’ covered in plants to absorb rainwater and provide insulation, to cutting edge solar panels, which provide green energy on-site.

Whether it’s incorporating recycled materials or maximising the use of natural light, the aim of these designs is always to reduce the environmental impact and to make the building as a whole sustainable, taking into account both its construction and the impact of day to day operations.

Current scientific data shows that the observed increase in global temperatures since the industrial age is due primarily to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activities. Recent reports have also indicated that around 30 per cent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are created by buildings*.

Former Chief Scientist for Australia, Professor Penny Sackett is particularly interested in the crucial role sustainable buildings can play in adapting to the certainties of climate change
 
“Switching to sustainable building practices in both new buildings and in the redesign of existing buildings can play a huge role in managing climate change,” Professor Sackett said.

“Although it may be a great challenge to retrofit existing cities to make them low carbon, livable and sustainable societies, we must not let the opportunity pass for developing new standards and taking action today.”

To help progress the work of the World Green Building Society, Professor Sackett said her office had already begun considering a proposal for a ‘Science and Cities’ conference in Australia to bring together scientists, city planners, engineers and local policy makers.

“I’m interested in starting a discussion about how science in Australia can contribute to sustainable cities for the benefit of our environment, our people and our future generations,” Professor Sackett said.

In Australia, the Green Building Council has introduced a Green Star Rating system to categorise buildings based on their environmental impact.  You can find out more about the green buildings near you through their Project Directory.

As part of creating sustainable cities, green building innovations can be applied at all levels, from big new developments like Doltone House on Darling Island Wharf in Sydney to individual homes like Australia’s first zero-emissions house that was launched this year in Melbourne.

For information on events happening during World Green Building Week, including, check out the World Green Building Council website.

* United Nations Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative, 2009. Buildings and Cities.

The image for this story is a photo of the School of Art, Design and Media at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.